ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:57 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:41 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Well, the No-Free-Will theory makes sense, from a logical standpoint, if you assume that there is no such thing as the supernatural (in any sense).

Take a brain, look at it under a good microscore and keep zooming in. Eventually you find that in fact we proud humans actually "decide" things by moving around chemicals in our grey matter. What causes the chemicals to move aroudn the way they do? Why, effects, all types of effects. Sensory input, nutritional input, narcatics, phyisical changes (remember that guy who had a railroad spike driven through the front part of his brain and had a complete personality change?) and probably others I can't remember all effect the way our wires connect. And so we are creatures of vastly complicated cause and effect. Like Rae said, if it wasn't for the chaos theory there'd be no possibility of free will at all.

Of course, all this breaks down when you start talking about stuff like god, chi or whatever else that hasn't been classified, labelled and put on a shelf by science. I personally don't care whether or not I echnically have free will, as long as the future can't be predicted it doesn't really matter, since no one knows what's going to happen because of the lack of free will. Besides, if we let a lack of free will become an excuse, society will fall apart ("I couldn't help it! It was destined.") Sometimes we just do what we need to.

EDIT- crud, Icemonkey posted before I did

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Last edited by Lucis Spei on Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:47 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:37 am
Posts: 278
Location: Sin City - No relation to Marv.
Lucis Spei wrote:
(remember that guy who had a railroad spike driven through the front part of his brain and had a complete personality change?)


Man let me tell you - I guarantee a spike driven into my frontal lobe would convert my psyche from a mere phringe phreek into that of a MANSON-LIKE HOMICIDAL KILL-THE-PERSON-THAT-DROVE-A-SPIKE-INTO-MY-HEAD sorta person.

Nothing personal.
------------------
-MrWarMage wants some real ice cream pr0n-shakes.

_________________
Disco-laser DNI'd by P51mus... it's still crispy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:51 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
It was an accident, no one drove it into his head on purpose. I think he was leaning over one while working and something exploded. I think, it was a long time ago I watched that show on the Discovery Channel.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:07 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 82
The Man In Black wrote:
Tell me 1 person who's honestly been evil for the sake of evil.


I don't think anyone's argued that their is some "Evil" cause that you would subscribe to if you went to Evil Medical School.

A person who is sufficiently twisted and deranged, one who destroys their own humanity, is inherently evil. Stalin was truly evil, but he committed evil acts because he was Stalin, not because "oh, well, killing off large portions of the Russian populace is sure to advance my personal goals."

You might argue that he had taken Marxism to heart... but then Marxism was merely the vehicle through which he willingly destroyed his own humanity and became a monster.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:38 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 82
IcyMonkey wrote:
Good and evil are nothing more than social constructions...


How is it that historically isolated societies come up with such strikingly similar understandings of good and evil?

Rae wrote:
If something is based on faith, it is based on what an individual believes without "scientiftic and rational" support, and thus us abstract and contrived.


I agree with your premises, but you're assuming that all knowledge has to be scientific, which I'm interpreting as empirical. Also, let's dump "faith" because it connotes religious faith... knowledge is often considered "justified, true belief" with the "justified" part being the most contentious aspect.

A point I tried to make earlier (mm... possibly not even on this thread, oh well) was that there has to be some initial axioms of good and evil and that they're known a priori. Another way of putting this is that to form a coherent justification (which is necessary to know *anything*) you need to use some other pieces of knowledge, which in turn require more knowledge, etc.

This is a fancy way of saying a conclusion rests on premises which are in turn conclusions in their own right. (I'm leaving out knowledge derived from inductive reasoning...) Anyway, knowledge of what's good is one of those most basic pieces of knowledge and I think you get that for free when you acknowledge your own existence.

I don't really care what psychologists think. It's a wonderful form of medicine, but is not a replacement for philosophy.

Rae wrote:
I'm playing devils advocate Clay, so don't attempt to take anything out one me.


I know that was addressed to Clay, but on the odd chance I do come across as sounding excited, it usually means a poor edit... I usually write something more forcefully and then tone it down after reading over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:06 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
sco08y wrote:
IcyMonkey wrote:
Good and evil are nothing more than social constructions...


How is it that historically isolated societies come up with such strikingly similar understandings of good and evil?
[quote]

Universality does not preclude superficiality. All human societies have also developed strikingly similar ideas about what is beautiful... but beauty is not an objective trait; it is based on taste. The fact is, Good and Evil are human creations, and whether we created these concepts because of some strong instinct of ours or we didn't doesn't matter. The fact is, any instincts we've evolved that point us toward a certain morality are a result of socially-centered natural selection.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
Rae wrote:
I'm playing devils advocate Clay, so don't attempt to take anything out one me. What I'm basically trying to get at, though, is something you alluded to, purposely or not, being that an objective right and wrong (one that exists whether or not the human race is around to think about it) does not exist, and as such, the concept of "what is evil" is purely within each person's mind. If something is based on faith, it is based on what an individual believes without "scientiftic and rational" support, and thus us abstract and contrived. Sorry for the neg connotation on that word(contrived), but I can't think of anything better, not to say this is the "bad" contrived, since that is using the "contrived" measurements of good/evil on itself. ARg!

*head blows up from circular logic*

-Rae


Still if you see that girl who argued it with you, let her know that you are on to her "faith-based religious views".

Interesting thing, according to the bible morality is subjective.

Matthew 7:12 - Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

That means that moral action is based on what YOU would want. Thus it is entirely on the individual.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:41 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
IcyMonkey wrote:
sco08y wrote:
IcyMonkey wrote:
Good and evil are nothing more than social constructions...


How is it that historically isolated societies come up with such strikingly similar understandings of good and evil?
Quote:

Universality does not preclude superficiality. All human societies have also developed strikingly similar ideas about what is beautiful... but beauty is not an objective trait; it is based on taste. The fact is, Good and Evil are human creations, and whether we created these concepts because of some strong instinct of ours or we didn't doesn't matter. The fact is, any instincts we've evolved that point us toward a certain morality are a result of socially-centered natural selection.


Yeah, and something else:

Because humans share certain traits (don't like being in pain, cold or hungary, for example) the way they interact with each other will be similar. This creates society, and society works better when it's not based on pure "What can I get out of this" in the drow mentality, so it evolves a system of ethics that people are trained from birth (hypothetically) to follow. This is why "morality" is rarer amoung lower classes of society, some people can't afford it, and the survival instinct kicks in and ethics are thrown out the window when they become too much trouble for the bearer. Yes, there are exceptions, I'm speaking in general and hypothetical terms, and pretty loosely, at that.

Basically, coneptions of Good and Evil evolve similarly around the world because human beings are similar and need similar things to keep society together.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:53 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
Actually, the "higher" classes of society don't really have much better morals than the "lower". I guess it's just we poor middle classers who carry the burden of morality.

/End sarcasm

The thing about religion is this: the only accepted way of "proving" (making someone believe) something is through "proof". Science is simply a way of describing a process which follows this axiom, not an edification unto itself (excluding scientists who believe this, who are, by this definition, not actually being scientists in this regard). Religion is one of the things that nobody has proven yet, but that people somehow delude themselves into believing without cause.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:57 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Unum Plurum wrote:
Actually, the "higher" classes of society don't really have much better morals than the "lower". I guess it's just we poor middle classers who carry the burden of morality.

/End sarcasm


By "morality" (and I said it with quotation marks, note sarcasm there too) I meant the trappings of it. Rich people can afford to act as if they're moral, whether they are or not, while less wealthy people can't or won't spend the rescources on maintaining the facade depending on how much they value it.


Unum Plurum wrote:
Religion is one of the things that nobody has proven yet, but that people somehow delude themselves into believing without cause.


That's faith, one of the mysteries of the universe.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Unum, let me ask you- you familiar with fractal geometry? Morphic resonance theories of Rupert Sheldrake?

Read "The Presence of the Past" by Rupert Sheldrake, very interesting scientific studies and the like that paves the way for a scientifically understandable God.

Normally insults and the like would come forth from this, BUT...until VERY recently, I was ignorant of these concepts myself. I can't explain them worth a crap, to be honest, so do me a favor and pick up the book.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:51 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Interesting. Thanks I think I will check that out.

For an interesting Science-Fiction book that will make you think about how you perceive things you should check out Calculating God by Rober J. Sawyer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 1197
Location: Wilmington, NC
Ok, main thing I feel like addressing: "Do unto others as ye would hav done unto you."

Is this good? Is it evil? Or is it just a decent common sense that being trying to survive would do. Also, what of the inverse: Do unto others as they do unto you? We aren't a nice society, and as such, we tend to be really mean. If we would not want harm inflicted unto us, then we go into the "Turn the Other Cheek"mentality, which I personally see as an evil. To quote a famous speach: "If you prick us, do we not bleed, if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
The idea Clay presented isn't a matter of good or evil but of "rights," which I see as a governing common sense that is superficial and based soley on everyone else's fear of losing them. Why do we not murder? For fear of losing our own life, not because it's "wrong" or "evil." I am sure most teenagers have found that one person that irked them to the point of seething, if not passing, hatred and, if they did not fear the repercussions of the act, they would have sought to hurt said person. Thus, are we all inherently evil because we have had urges to do evil that were only held in check by the desire to maintain our rights? By some fundemental viewpoints, yes. In truth, no. The reason the rules are in place is to serve as a warning and a safeguard because it is natural to want to go against them. Why were they set? To preserve the "rights" if the ones that had the power to put them in place. Does this make them absolute and objective? No.
Why did Stalin kill all those people? Because he knew he could get away with it. He wasn't evil, he was above the rights of others due to his circumstances. Stalin certainly wasn't a person I'd want to meet, but in his own eyes, he was doing "good." He was preserving his own life as best he knew how. Sadly, he was clinically paranoid and went overboard.
So, the next thing I might as well say before someone calls me on it: No, I don't think humans have inherent rights or are equal. We may be born equal, but through our actions and even nature, that equality is quickly lost. I like to think myself has far above a mentally incapible killer. Nature lowered said person's standing in society by not making him physically and mentally my equal, chance might have born said person into a different socio-economic class, and the actions the person took removed any rights that person still shared with me. After all, if rights wear inherent, then a madman with a gun couldn't take them from you, could he?

I'll shut up for now, seeing as I'm left a long ramble across several subjects above. I am curious to see how many people will read this.

-Rae, the philosophical Network Whore

_________________
Rae, Network Bitch
Grand Vizier of Council of Initiations
Avatar by Madadric


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:58 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 82
Rae wrote:
Ok, main thing I feel like addressing: "Do unto others as ye would hav done unto you."

Is this good? Is it evil? Or is it just a decent common sense that being trying to survive would do.


It's a pretty good restatement of Kant's Categorical Imperative, which stated (very roughly) that an imperative was good if it could be universalized. So, for example, an imperative that "you will not repay a loan" must be bad because if you universalized it you wouldn't have any banks and then you never would have gotten the loan in the first place.

It all comes down to "being bad doesn't work" which is about the extent of what logic can show. That's the problem with logic: it lacks passion. You can talk about things, but actually deciding on something requires some animus.

Quote:
I'll shut up for now, seeing as I'm left a long ramble across several subjects above. I am curious to see how many people will read this.


Didn't read the whole thing but I think you're on thin ice regarding your assertions on Stalin's mental state, OTOH I don't have much of a response beyond demanding proof, so...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:02 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 82
IcyMonkey wrote:
...but beauty is not an objective trait; it is based on taste.


Ah... if only I had known this I wouldn't have spent an entire term doing my Aesthetics course... I'd better let my professor know he's wasting his time...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:39 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
I'll try and read that...although it would have been much more helpful if you had told me before spring break was over... :wink:

Most of school is just teaching you what others think; it doesn't make for much creativity, but I guess the theory is that most people will need that sort of thing more than creativity. I guess aesthetics is just one of those.

'Course, I'm probably oversimplifying it a bit.

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
sco08y wrote:
IcyMonkey wrote:
...but beauty is not an objective trait; it is based on taste.


Ah... if only I had known this I wouldn't have spent an entire term doing my Aesthetics course... I'd better let my professor know he's wasting his time...


I don't see how you can argue against that assertion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 7:47 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Sorry for the backtrack, but there was something earlier I wanted to touch on.

Last year in my Philosophy class we studied ethics. Specifically, is there an objective Good/Evil set of morals. One of my classmates said no. Being quite soon after September 11th, my teacher got furious and posed the question:

"So you don't belive that someone taking a plane and crashing it into a building, killing thousands of people, is inherently evil, no matter what your belief system?"

I will take this socratically (he was the one with the dialogues, right?) from there.

"Why is crashing a plane into a building and killing thousands of people evil?"

"Because thousands of people died."

"But thousands of people died in the American Revolution at the hands of Americans. Were our founding fathers evil?"

"No. They were releasing themselves from an oppressive British Regime."

"But it could be seen that the people who flew into the buildings were freeing themselves from an oppressive regime."

"Okay, then. The British soldiers who died were in the war as such. They were a part of the war."

"The case could be made that the workers in the World Trade Center were 'soldiers' of the economic regime of America, and were, as such, also a part of the war."

"But war was never formally declared on the workers in the World Trade Center. They were not armed, nor did they know that a war was happenning. The British, on the other hand, were armed, often within civillian homes, and were there to keep control of the civillians. War was inevitable."

It seems then, that the reason that the September 11th tragedy was evil, as objectively as possible, is that we were attacked unawares. That many of those who died did not know their attacker, and did not at any point intend to do harm to their attackers.

This keeps to the idea of an "innocent". POssibly termed as an unwilling participant, though there're a few more connotations to be had there. Evil, then is the harm to innocents.

Just as an aside, we're often told that two wrongs don't make a right. But isn't it amazing how so often that isn't true? A bully hits a kid every day at the playground. Just once, but hard enough to let the kid know that he could do it any time he wants, so the kid had better play by his rules. More often than not, after the kid has tried reasoning, going to an adult, and a whole lot of other non-violent ways of remaining un-hit, the last thing he tries is hitting the bully back. And that's the only thing that works.

Funny how often we must commit evil to stop evil.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 8:24 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Y'know, you never said how your teacher showed that killing people is evil. There really is no way to "prove" it.

What works for me is:
Fulfilling desire is good.
Therefore: denying desire is bad (I don't like using evil, to much emotion tied up in it)

Since most people desire to continue living, it is bad to kill random people.
1st Collorary(sp?): It is, however, good to kill someone who wants to die (and now you know my stance on the right to die).

2nd Collorary(sp?): While it's possible that a random person walking down the street may want to die, chances are they don't, so don't go around killing random people walking down the street.

I've found that this method gives me a pretty clear guide to action whenever I'm in doubt; it's simple, at least. The main problem is deciding whose desires are more important.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:06 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
That stuff wasn't my teacher. It was me off the top of my head. After my teacher gave that large outburst (which was very out of character for him) we all kinda looked at him funny and just kept on discussing whether or not there was an objective set of morals. However, if you look at the dialogue, I never say that killing is evil. The "student" proposes that it is, but then is shown a situation where he has to modify that statement. So, in effect, situational killing becomes evil. Now, it could be argued that the specific situations that may pop-up where someone has to decide on the evilness of the killing situation, which may then be considered subjective rather than objective, but that's something I'm not too sure I can back myself up on that well without a little more time. Just as a preview, in case I ever get to it, though, I am a proponent of the utilitarian set of morals that Krylex posted about. Much like yours, but including fulfilling the desires of others affected by my decision.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group