I wanted to know if people thought that an individual who is not constraint by ethics can prosper within a society which relies on it. If that individual can advance that society with his ideals. And if advancing a society means doing away with ethics.
The human condition.
#16
Posted 22 April 2008 - 02:18 PM
I wanted to know if people thought that an individual who is not constraint by ethics can prosper within a society which relies on it. If that individual can advance that society with his ideals. And if advancing a society means doing away with ethics.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#17
Posted 22 April 2008 - 03:19 PM
#18
Posted 22 April 2008 - 05:28 PM
I wouldn't endorse torture when dealing with a civilized enemy. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they're rational people. Saddam’s rag tag army, as it was after the Iranian war, probably knew they were licked and surrendered with smiles. I guess the US is not as barbaric as some might make out. However, I'd say our international standard for ethical treatment of captives flat lines when dealing with the 'god is great' chanting ghouls of Al Qaeda. I don't believe they'd appreciate our chivalry. They may take advantage of it when they need it, but I doubt they'd return the favor. We are a nation of faggots and atheists, according to them, and need to be destroyed. I don’t' need to listen to masochists who blame terrorism on the US, all I need do is read the transcripts and hear the audio clips of these people call it like they see it.
But if you're right about our goodness rubbing off on them, then why haven't they traded in their head lopping scimitars and civilian/journalist captives in for a water hose and box spring. Surely, they remember the kindness we espoused during the gulf war as our armies fed and took care of their men.
Gross illustrations and actual photos in this link. Not for viewing pleasure mind you, it's not a sicko site.
http://www.thesmokin...72torture1.html
http://www.spiegel.d...,489898,00.html
If they're willing to use torture on their own, they're sure as hell use it on us. They use it on fellow muslims who believe a slightly different teaching of Islam.
Are you pondering the stem cell or abortion debate? Like, what would happen if there was a split in ethics in a country?
Individuals can advance society while being unethical Hitler brought Germany out of a third world debt but, as far as ethics go, well you know, his name is a byword for evil and all that stuff. But ultimately it was also his demise. He brought down Germany and destroyed the rest of Europe for decades to come.
This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 22 April 2008 - 05:40 PM
#19
Posted 22 April 2008 - 09:33 PM
So I'm hearing about some horrible and often ridiculous things going on in US prison camps. As an average soldier, I'm like "Oh come on. That's ridiculous." Then I see photos on international news stations that back up the stories I've heard, and then I see the US President endorsing torture for the greater good. NOW I believe everything the demagogues tell me about the horrors of US foreign policy. I see US soldiers burning copies of the Koran in front of military prisoners, and I am instantly convinced that despite commercial interests, it's a holy war after all. The US is interested only in destroying my religious freedom.
Well, abroad at least. Folks in the Middle East are well aware of religious freedom in the West. It's US foreign policy that riles them up. The mythology that they're out to get us and all of our freedoms is ridiculous. And on their end, the idea that the US is aiding the Jews in eradicating their religion is equally ridiculous. But that's the propaganda behind the economic war that is going on. And torture helps sell the other side's propaganda. So it's counterproductive. Saying "but they're uncivilised" is mere justification.
#20
Posted 23 April 2008 - 03:34 AM
If that individual can advance that society with his ideals.
And if advancing a society means doing away with ethics.
Everyone must be constrained by ethics. To have no ethics is to lack boundaries and therefore lack form. The formless void of madness. I must thusly assume that you mean an individual not constrained by society's ethics. Those who are not constrained by society's standards are those with the intellect to form their own ideals. But these people can still be worthless without action and will power. Those individuals who lack the will to enforce their ideals upon society can prosper within it. Those with such drive will either be victorious or be destroyed.
An individual with the will to enforce his ideals upon society will almost certainly advance that society. Even if it recedes in some areas, advancements will be made in others and a new age will be forged.
Advancing a society can be done without enforcing ones ideals on the people, but creating a new age all together, a revolution, requires the participation of the people. That's how I see it.
Ah yes. We're civilized because we put on uniforms and shed false tears when we carpet bomb an Afghan village. To hell with civilized ideas of warfare which is in itself uncivilized. To declare that our civilized idea of war gives us the right to commit attrocities and torture people shows a level of self deception that is incredible. The Resistance fighters are at least honest about what they do.
Because destroying a captured enemy is sometimes necessary to prevent valuable intelligence falling into the hands of his superiors. Al Qaida, not having a liberated zone in truth, is unable to take prisoners of war in a conventional sense. Even so, I would rather be taken alive by them and given a dignified death than to languish in some secred US prison. As for our kindness during the gulf war 1, that war ended quickly because Iraq's objectives were wrong, and the people had already lost their heart for war through years of conflict with Iran. This time many have no choice but to fight. The first gulf war cannot at all be compared to the current aggression.
We are a nation of imperialists and butchers according to them. If they were after gays and the irreligious they would hit Denmark or Finland or any other country more progressive on gay rights than us.
If you want to read the words of a terrorist you'll have no problem there. It's been clearly stated that people are either with Bush or with the terrorists, and I've stated just as clearly which side of that dichotomy I adhere to. American support for Israel and the constant interference in the Arab world is the reason for terrorism, and its not all US military operations. Any time someone is killed or tortured by a number of oppressive Arab governments its a fair bet that the US funds and condones the actions.
Finally to the question of moral relativism.
I despise the idea of denying good and evil. An idea of good and evil is necessary for a society to define itself. And it is necessary for a society to change. We have to continually define what we view as good and evil so that we can continue to evolve towards a more perfect ethical state. A society that does not believe in evil is incapable of successfully making war and will crumble.
This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 23 April 2008 - 03:43 AM
Quote
#22
Posted 25 April 2008 - 10:38 PM
The problem here is that, according to the Quran, this is a holy war. When someone comes onto Muslim land and tries to fuck them up, for whatever reason, it's a holy war. The reason for this is to condone them when they defend themselves or strike back against aggressors. So they are not untruthful in calling this, by their doctrine, a holy war. All that means is that Allah wont cast them down to the lake of fire if they kill people in this particular conflict. It doesnt mean that the BASIS for the war is at all religious. If a bee comes and stings you, its fair to say that that bee maybe stung you because its religion tells it to. But if you hit a bee hive with a ball bat and then get stung, you cant claim that the bee stung you because it hates your freedom or your fags.
Quote
#23
Posted 26 April 2008 - 11:03 AM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#24
Posted 26 April 2008 - 11:21 AM
Alternatively; I don't know. You tell me. Maybe if you read the thread you'd find your answer. I think we've covered this. Guiding questions are nice, but you need to look a little more like you're participating, methinks.
#25
Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:40 PM
Quote
#26
Posted 26 April 2008 - 01:30 PM
Isn't that what ethics are? To keep people under control?
Why must a person follow ethics? It is because they fear being punished by the authorities or by a higher power? Or is it because they believe that if they do not follow certain written and unwritten laws then chaos will ensure?
If you insist. I believe that the majority of people follow laws which have evolved from religious teachings because they fear punishment in this life or the next.
That was not my intention.
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#27
Posted 26 April 2008 - 05:54 PM
The resistance fighters and the suicide bombers do not believe that Americans will try to control their religion or to destroy their way of life. You hear that nonsense propaganda in the West, from dumbass retail clerks and pump jockeys, "If we don't kill 'em all, we'll all be speaking Iraqi in a year." But over there, they are well aware of Western religious freedoms. They don't look to the West as a place where Islam is not allowed to be, and they don't worry that Christians are coming to crucify and convert them. There was an expensive and failed propaganda campaign funded by the US government whose purpose was to sell that very idea. Turns out the people targeted by the campaign said "well duh," and complained, surprisingly, that it was US aggression that bothered them and not the idea that there might be Christians and fags in America restricting a Muslim's right to worship. This failed campaign is pretty well documented in a lot of places. So no, it's not a Holy War for them, even if it may be for some of the Christian soldiers who burn copies of the Koran in front of political prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
As to the question of whether ethics are there to control people, I'm not sure I understand it. For instance, I keep promises I make to people. The promise is a rule created by myself, and the constraint of keeping my word is self-serving. First, folks are more likely to make deals with me in future, knowing that I keep my promises, and second, I don't like feeling or looking like a liar. The idea that ethics are created by some unseen or government or religious force to control me doesn't sit with my idea of a code of ethics. I am not "controlled" by a code of ethics, and I don't think that's the value of ethics. I don't think people are afraid of punishment when they return someone's lost wallet or cell phone; they're just being nice. Ethics are useful in allowing societies to grow and in fostering communication. I don't exactly understand the implied notion that they are a part of some plan enacted by God or the Man.
#28
Posted 27 April 2008 - 12:31 AM
No.
You shouldnt phrase statements as questions. Also, No and no. Also, I'm J M Hoffman and when I don't follow unwritten laws and chaos erupts, I always drink Ensure.
More specificly, people follow ethical codes because they have those codes in their hearts. Our ethical codes are passed down by our parents and can be altered only by personal experience, not by someone telling us that such and such is right or wrong. They're far more organic and less artificial than you make them.
Which religion? And where did the laws come from then? You must be advocating that, with each religion, their respective god or gods popped by and gave us an ethical code. Why then is it that the laws of all religions conform to a society's specific ideals and that the gods often represent those ideals? Also, why have all world religions basically had the same ethical code?
Quote
#29
Posted 27 April 2008 - 06:20 AM
Have you never asked yourself why you would return a wallet? Or what it is to be or nice? If you feel good by returning the wallet then why do you feel good? Were you not programmed to be nice by the various people in your early life?
I never implied that.
So then I am brought back to my original question: do these codes restrict the ability of a single human? If society are advanced by individuals then do ethics impair the ability of individuals to advance a society?
Because that society evolved from that religion or that religion heavily influenced that society later in that society’s development.
They don't. If you compare monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity or Islam you will find it has little in common with polytheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Shinto. Then there are philosophical religions like Taoism and Confucianism which are also dissimilar to those stated.
This post has been edited by Deucaon: 27 April 2008 - 06:30 AM
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
#30
Posted 27 April 2008 - 03:34 PM
Was I programmed? Perhaps. People have been good to me in my life. I have not been robbed, attacked, strangers give me reliable directions, a complete stranger once game me a jack when my tire was flat and I had a spare but no jack (this was my first car, in high school, and I wasn't ready for things like flat tires). I have been picked up by a stranger and given a ride not entirely out of their way more than once in my life, and I pick up hitchhikers all the time. I hold doors open for people approaching them laden down or pushing strollers; I loan money to my friends without asking when it will be returned; etc etc. Maybe the way that people behave towards one another builds ethics. Maybe conforming to a socially accepted ethical code convinces others to do the same. Maybe that worked on me, but not in the way that you keep implying. I _MAY_ be a nice guy because I have encountered and dealt with nice guys all my life. I am _NOT_ a nice guy because someone sat me down and told me that nice guys behave thus and so and so I better do that too if I know what's good for me.
Certainly, I can't imagine how dropping an ethical code would improve me as a person, reliably earn me more money (you can't just wander around hoping to find lost wallets when going to work will earn you $350 a day). And I can't even fantasize a worl where dropping all ethics would make society grow into something better.
Oh. My mistake then.
Getting back to your original question, no. Folks like Ayn Rand believe that society was advanced by individuals, but that doesn't make it so. Society is advanced by group actions. Sometimes individuals, acting completely alone and with no input from anyone else, may come up with something that no other individual anywhere on the Earth could ever have come up with at that time. I think this is what happened with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which I will admit advanced physics a hell of a lot. But that's the exception. The majority of inventions were being worked on simultaneously by people all over the place, and just about every social development is a group effort.
Getting back further to your indvidual questions, I am not sure what sort of social advances you expect to be made by wallet-stealing, murdering thieves who refuse to act according to social norms and who likely make no friends. Einstein, above, came up with his Theory of General Relativity while working a 9-5 job and paying rent. He was also a good atheist with a general metaphorical belief in God (that added for Madame Corvax). Had Einstein robbed the safe at the patent office where he worked, maybe he'd have been fired and wouldn't have had the opportunity to work on his calculations. I think ethics empower individuals to be a part of social growth; they don't constrain them.
In other news, I have thought of a way that an unethical individual in the circimstances above might behave in an unethical though technically legal manner and in behaving unethically he might advance the nothion he was working on, thereby arguably advancing society. I'm not going to bother sharing it, however, because it's actually really complicated and is a form of community effort, so it gets all muddy and I don't need another tangent.
To a religious person, religions may seem drastically different from one another, but to an atheist they don't. You'll find that all those groups think murder is bad, warfare for profit is bad, stealing is bad, adultery is bad, and living in harmonious community with others is good. Most have some form of ritual, and while the rituals differ from group to group they generally conform to normal social ethics (ie, no ritual sacrifices unless you're in a society that likes ritual sacrifice). So one group eats pork and another doesn't, one has one day of Christmas, while another has eight craaaazy nights! but you have to concede the obvious point that Jm was making: religions are created by society, not the other way around, and the ethics of society inform the ethics of the religion. Since there are no gods, the gods we invent will be like people and they will have such traits as people have. They will also demand that people behave in a manner conforming to society's accepted ethics. Which is convenient, since those are the ethics of the society even without the religion. When the society changes, then the religions either change to keep up, or they fall out of favour. Religion is a part of society, not the origin of it (the origin of society is farming, and consequently beer). So too ethics: they are a part of society, not the origin of it.
Here's one: Do you think an Individual, but refusing to be a part of society's Code of Ethics, could change society's Code of Ethics? Can you think of any Individual who has ever done that? Hint: DON'T say "Jesus."