There seem to be some confusion in the "gay marrige" thread. Confusion about what morality really is.

A moral action is a action that is consistent with a ethical principle that you consider valid.

To debate morality is to debate if certain actions are consistent with the etical principles.

To debate ethics is to debate what ethical principles are valid.

The two ethical principles most popular among philosophers are hedonism and the golden rule. These are also the two principles that I personally consider valid. However, I'm against following either of them in absurdum.

Hedonism (also known as hedonistic utilitarism) says that you should maximize happiness (everyone's happiness, not just your own) and avoid suffering (all suffering is bad, even if the one who suffers is someone you happen to dislike).

The Golden Rule is known in virtually all cultures, including ancient China a millenia or so BC. Treat others as you'd have them treat you. You don't want people to hurt/opress you, so don't hurt/poress them. And so on.

There are also a lot of bullshit invalid ethical principles out there. Principles that don't have any philosophical depth whatsoever, but nevertheless are used quite often.

* Whatever feels right for ME ought to be law for EVERYBODY.

* The majority is always right.

* One old book or another is the one and only thruth, everyone who don't believe in it should be forced to live by it anyway.

Edit: Fixed a few typos and such.

This is Ethic 205..had it last year. I am glad you posted this because I see a lot of posts people talking about Morals and Ethics and they dont know what the hell they are talking about.

Ibudin

sorry, Edeina, but I don't buy into this. I'll wait for Taino to tell me what are and what aren't morals.

A moral action is a action that is consistent with a ethical principle that you consider valid.



There are also a lot of bullshit invalid ethical principles out there. Principles that don't have any philosophical depth whatsoever, but nevertheless are used quite often.
<snip>
* One old book or another is the one and only thruth, everyone who don't believe in it should be forced to live by it anyway.

Didn't take long to hit a contradiction....

Thing is, of course, you don't consider it a contradiction, since you don't consider the "old book" to be valid.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>One old book or another is the one and only thruth, everyone who don't believe in it should be forced to live by it anyway.<hr></blockquote>

I love when people say stuff like that because then they obviously have no idea what a majority of these religions are really about.

It is not a contradiction, it is a opinion.
If you disagree with me, then we are having a debate about ethics, about what ethical principles are valid. And that's a good subject to debate. :)

I think that religious rules are relevant for and only for those individuals who believe in the speciffic religion that have those rules. If you believe otherwise, please go ahead and explain why that would be.

And if you think i contradict myself somehow, then please explain how.

Christians see no reason to obey rules of Islam, Hinduism or Scientology. The argument "L. Ron Hubbard Said So!" isn't valid to you. So why should "Paulus said so!" be a valid argument for someone who don't believe that the words of Paulus was inspired by Jesus Christ? (Or who believes that Jesus wasn't the Messiah at all.)

You want people to make people follow religious rules?
Fine.
Then make them believe in the religion first.

However. Until they do accept the doctrines about what's beyond the world, you will have to stick to arguments about what's *in* the world when it comes to make demands on their behaviour.

Oh, one thing.
Maybe this will clear it up a bit.

The rule "whatever I like is the right thing for everyone" is a ethical principle.
I think it's invalid. That means that I think it sucks, that it's a bad principle. It doesn't mean that it's not a ethical principle. Bad ethics are still ethics.

"You must never drink water, always beer" might be a totally valid moral statement, based on the mentioned ethical principle. It's a bullshit statement, but that's only because the principle it's based on is bullshit. If the principle would be true, then the conclusion would be true. Flawless logic, just like a computer. Garbage in, garbage out.

if morals and ethics can be taught they can be wrong.

Edeina give it up. It's impossible for you to be taken seriously with such shitty grammar.

Your definition of Hedonism is unnessicarially broad.

Given the golden rune, if Hedonism said "happyness is good, and suffering bad, for myself", then add in "treat others as you would like to be treated", you end up with something like the rule "making people happy is good", without having to code it in explicitly.

There are a few things going on here, however.

Should a believer in a dusty old book be allowed to withdraw from society, in order to reduce temptations that would otherwise defeat them?

Should a believer in a dusty old book be allowed to withdraw their children from society, for the same reason?

I mean, if you are a baptist and think that homosexual relations are sinful, and you are afraid you would be tempted into it if you where exposed to it, shouldn't you be allowed to withdraw or avoid displays homosexual behaviour?

But, in the USA at least, you can't form a community where homosexual behaviour, or pornography, or anything of the sort is (legally) banned, in order to withdraw from said temptations. Which means in order for them to keep the ikkyness away from them, they have to export their views onto the rest of us, stifle public discourse, and back candidates who like cutting taxes/increasing spending. The constitution of the USA has backed them into a corner, it isn't their fault.

It's been awhile since I was around the bible thumping crowd, but isn't one of their primary purposes to spread the "good word"? It would seem isolation is decidedly against their own beliefs.

in the USA at least, you can't form a community where homosexual behaviour, or pornography, or anything of the sort is (legally) banned
I'm not familiar with the exact laws, but communities certainly are in control of some aspects of those things. In the county where I grew up, no porn was allowed to be sold whatsoever. An R rated movie was as hardcore as it got. It's still the same way even now.

Where I live now, no strip clubs are allowed inside the city limits, but there are strip clubs in other parts of the county.

Just a couple examples of how communities very much are able to control many aspects of what goes on, at various levels of granularity.

I think that religious rules are relevant for and only for those individuals who believe in the speciffic religion that have those rules. If you believe otherwise, please go ahead and explain why that would be.

There's really no reason to explain it. This is the way society works. Majority rules (or 2/3, or 3/4, depending on government rules).

For instance, if enough conservative Christian (or whoever) people in this country vote for officials who believe abortion is wrong order to attempt to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, then guess what? Roe vs. Wade could, in theory (shah, it will never happen) be overturned.

That rule doesn't apply just to the people who believe Roe vs. Wade is overturned. It would be the law.

Personally, I think all this yapping about gay marriage is idiotic. Do I care? Only to the extent that I don't think tax and insurance privileges should be extended to gay/lesbian couples. But, hey, people can vote for who they vote for.

I don't think tax and insurance privileges should be extended to gay/lesbian couples
Any factual information to back this up or are you just saying "I dont like gays getting stuff cause they are gay."

I would like to ask what is a "privilage" about insurance? If I were to marry my partner our insurance situation would not change, in fact it would cost more if I added him as a secondary and he wouldnt have any more coverage than he does. What amazing tax breaks are there to be had? Couple hundred dollars of OUR MONEY back to us a year and thats only because of the NEW tax law thats under attack. Before that married couples payed the same or more without kids.

Ethics are a code. Ayn Rand has a very different idea of how ethics should be applied that is closer to my own ideals. You either accept a code or you do not. People tend to confuse application of their ethics (morality) with facts.

Edeina give it up. It's impossible for you to be taken seriously with such shitty grammar.
Do you just plug names into a random "message board come back" machine?

Where I live girls are allowed to go topless.

They don't.

Much.

Where I live girls are allowed to go topless.
This isnt all that uncommon in countries other than the USA. Mostly because our culture is so hung up on sex we cant allow that because its "sexual".

I plug into the same machine you get your pity me because I'm gay act from.

I plug into the same machine you get your pity me because I'm gay act from.
I would never ask for pity because pity is useless. Why would I need pity anyway? Im extremely happy with my life. Im out at work and at home and I dont really have any negative backlash so what pity is it you were refering to or did you just prove my point again?

if you can believe in love i see no reason why you cannot believe in the bible.


If all things were meant to be explained logically and perfect like computers we'd have been built as such without the ability to choose.

Any factual information to back this up or are you just saying "I dont like gays getting stuff cause they are gay.

Your question doesn't make sense. Should I have "facts" for why I don't think tax cuts were necessary or why I think abortion is wrong? YOu'd just say my facts were irrelevant.


In any case, my view on this subject was spelled out in the other item.

You're the one that came after me big boy.

I've made my point on the issue over and over. Your only response is that you want factual information proving the point. Why don't you give some friggin factual information why civil unions wouldn't work just as well?

if you can believe in love i see no reason why you cannot believe in the bible.

If you believe in love I see no reason why you cannot believe in alien visitors who will enlighten mankind, bringing them to a higher plane, and banishing our thetans.

I don't think you should believe in alien visitors who will enlighten mankind, bringing them to a higher plane, and banish our thetans. But, there is no reason why you couldn't.

Just because people can believe in the bible, doesn't mean they do, or even they should. The reasons why people should believe in the bible exist, but "because they can" is not a good one.

If all things were meant to be explained logically and perfect like computers we'd have been built as such without the ability to choose.

I don't believe that the ability to choose in humanity and in a sufficiently advanced program would be distinguishable. Sufficiently advanced AI might be indistinguishable from Intelligence.

(I'm not saying I beleive it would be indistinguishable. Two negations don't make an assertion.)

And logic cannot explain everything: when you start talking about logic in logic, you can actually prove that no sufficently powerful system of logic can prove everything that is true. (and I mean that sentance in a very exacting and rigourous way) Logic is a tool, amazingly powerful, but it isn't a god.

Your definition of Hedonism is unnessicarially broad.

Given the golden rune, if Hedonism said "happyness is good, and suffering bad, for myself", then add in "treat others as you would like to be treated", you end up with something like the rule "making people happy is good", without having to code it in explicitly.

Combining the two rules is a good idea, in my opinion. Most philosophers would disagree with me on this, they tend to chose one or the other.

However, I combine them by using them both. Combining them into one rule is not possible. No, these rules need to be kept seaparate from each other. They are different on a very fundamental level.

First of all, Hedonism allready claims that everyone's happiness is what should count, not just your own. And that the important happiness is the longterm one, not the shortterm. If something is unpleasent for you now and won't benefit you in the future but will make someone elses life better, then you should do just that, according to Ethical Hedonism.

For example, lets say your friend is very drunk and wants to go driving his car. He won't be the least bit grateful if you stop him, but if you don't then he might end up in jail, and both he and anyone he encounters might end up dead or permanently broken. Taking the bitchfest to prevent him from doing that stupid thing would be the hedonistic thing to do, eventhough it's not the least bit fun.

Hedonism is a ethic principle based on consequenses. The right thing to do is the thing that have the best consequences.

The golden rule, on the other hand, tells us that actions can be good or bad IN THEMSELVES, regardless of the consequences.

For example: according to hedonism, it's usually wrong to lie. It might hurt people's feelings and lower your credability, thus have bad concequences. According to the golden rule, it's wrong to lie. Period.

In most cases, buth principles reach the same conclusion. In my opinion, these cases are the only cases where there exist a truly right alternative. In the bitchy cases when Hedonism and the Golden Rule reach different conclusions, then you will have to keep searching for a better alternative an din the meantime stick with the least sucky alternative aviable. Without suscumbing to the false comfort of believing it to be the "right" thing to do. If a chise breaks against hedonism or the golden rule, then it might be the least bad choice, but it's still not right.

Should a believer in a dusty old book be allowed to withdraw from society, in order to reduce temptations that would otherwise defeat them?

Of course.

People should always be allowed to live out their beliefs and preferences, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

(Of course, reality is usually more complex. What if this believer was lured away from society by some cult that want to use him as free labour before making him participate in a mass suicide? But in in a simple case like your example, it's very clear what is right.)

Should a believer in a dusty old book be allowed to withdraw their children from society, for the same reason?

No.

Parents are their childrens protectors, not their owners. The children have a right to get information from different sources, and make up their own minds.

Furthermore, many parents either don't know what's good for their children, or they simply don't care. Sadly enough, the government doesn't always know what's best either, and might even have other priorities then what's best for the children. This makes this question awfully complicated to answer. But as a general rule, no. Parents should NOT be allowed to remove their children from society.

Then, as noted, those parents are forced to manipulate society in order to protect their children from what they believe to be evil corrupting influences.

They are trying to treat their children as they would like to be treated, and give them a life which has maximul happyness, as they believe happyness should be achieved.

To do so, they need to either withdraw from what they view as a damaging society, or they need to change society to meet their demands.

Until everyone believes in their dusty old book, their children aren't safe from corruption. For the sake of the children, the world must burn. =(

Should I have "facts" for why I don't think tax cuts were necessary or why I think abortion is wrong?
Yes.

Your only response is that you want factual information proving the point. Why don't you give some friggin factual information why civil unions wouldn't work just as well?
Did you even read what I have written about the civil union subject? Let me quote myself for you.
I dont disagree with "civil union" as long as I dont have to worry about losing my rights in a time of crisis. You can call it a "Red Bull gives you wings" union for all I care
I wasnt asking you for facts about Civil Unions. Your kind of all over the board here with what you attack.

Laeyakk,

A person don't need a excuse to demand that whatever he disaproves off should be forbidden. It's a free world, and people may propagate for whatever bullshit the fancy, as long as they arn't harassing other people.

He's free to say what he thinks. And so am I. In exercising this right, I call his demand bullshit in those cases when I think it is just that.

Is his concern understandable?
Yes.

Is his demand thus automatically reasonable?
No.

Does he HAVE to make the demand?
Still No.

Am I the only one that think both people on the homosexuality issue are just fucking retarded? You have the super Nazi "we hate faggot" people on one end of this board that think homosexuality is worse than having sex with kindergarteners. Then on the other hand you have the being gay is freedom and that there is a giant homo-Utopia that is oppressed by Republicans and the Christian coalition. Maybe I think there is a grey area, where both sides are fucked up and no one is right. And maybe I should not type after a hard night of drinking.

P.S. Fuck the Hookah bar and the Persians who run it and play shitty ass music after midnight.

No you shouldnt lol

You wrote both posts at the same time and I didn't go to the other thread first. So who's all over the board now? Freakshow.

For the last time shut up and read or just shut up.

My post about civil marriage
BowlerMeatmallet
Master
(2/16/04 5:52)

My post to you on this thread
BowlerMeatmallet
Master
(2/16/04 21:29)

what are you 12? LOL Freak show? What exactly do you mean by that? O and by the way "all over the board" was in reference to logic not physical position of posts. Clearly you dont grasp either.

Not sure what that is supposed to prove. Like I said... I checked this one first so I didn't see your response on the other thread. You're all over the board because you pick and choose what you want to respond to and just keep blathering the same bs no matter what is said. I started out sympathetic to the issue of civil unions but you've almost got me talked out of it now.

I honestly dont care what you think at this point. I never once said anything about you until you started flaming people for no reason. If that makes you change your mind on civil unions then your opinions are a popularity contest and I dont play those.

OMG! for once i think Sheww may actually be correct and that I agree with him! /boggle

/agree BowlerMeatmallet
How much you personally like or dislike a person should only be used to break stereotypes, never to build them.

If you encounter a bad person who happen to be a nigger/gay/jew/christian/moslem/europeean/american/whatever, this should NOT lead you to believe that all individuals of this group are bad. However, if you are under some delusion that all individuals of that group are always good in every way, then it's a good time to leave that stereotype behind.

Funny thing about that Edeina is you just started a thread making generalizations about christians. hrmmmm

Its like shooting ducks in a barrel. Ediena didn't start a thread generalizing about Christians she even used the phrase
"a few Christians" never ALL or EVERYONE. In fact her post to me seemed to be about the roots or lack there of in regards to fundamentalist belief systems and their control in society.

I am a Christian. I agree with Ediena a lot of the time. Fanatics are not good.

"Change is turning into fear
fear is melting into hate
with hate you justify your crime
a crime compassion cant erase"
-Melissa Etheridge

p.s. okay so I quote Melissa Etheridge 2x in one night .. I listened to her all day and I gotta get it out of my system.

You're right, Kivorn just hijacked it in that direction. I gotta apologize twice to Edeina unfortunately. Once for that and once for criticizing your grammar... didn't know you were Swedish. Actually your english is better than a lot of the Americanos here.