ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:56 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Morality
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Here's a log of an AIM conversation between me and Yevaud that I thought might be of interest...


IcyMonkey: Okay, changing the subject slightly in order to establish something before we continue with my line of though...
IcyMonkey: I believe there can be no objective basis for any moral system.
IcyMonkey: Prove me wrong.
IcyMonkey: This is assuming that the universe was not created by an anthropomorphic god, btw.
Yevaud333: Of course.
IcyMonkey: See, you can basically divide any statement about a particular situation/object into two general categories...
IcyMonkey: existence and evaluation.
IcyMonkey: not exactly the best words, perhaps... basically I mean by existence "is" and by evaluation "should be"
Yevaud333: Um.
IcyMonkey: Now, any statement you can make about your observations of the outside world ALONE must be of the "is" variety.
Yevaud333: Clarify.
IcyMonkey: And there doesn't seem to be any way you can go from "is" to "should be"
IcyMonkey: Okay, it's an objective fact that this man is currently stabbing that man.
IcyMonkey: But how can you go from that to saying that this man should not be stabbing that man, without imposing subjective desiure onto it?
Yevaud333: ...
Yevaud333: subjective desiure == ?
IcyMonkey: desire.
IcyMonkey: Typo.
Yevaud333: (Now you're the one using... oh.)
Yevaud333: lol
Yevaud333: Sorry.
Yevaud333: Well, the thing is,
Yevaud333: while you can affirm that all morals are subjective,
Yevaud333: if you make them subjective based on the will of the many rather than the will of the few,
Yevaud333: you wind up with something approaching objectivity.
IcyMonkey: Ah, but wait.
IcyMonkey: Well, here's my view.
Yevaud333: ('Course, there's no reliable way to ascertain the will of the many, but anyway.... :-P )
Yevaud333: Okay.
IcyMonkey: First of all, I consider morality to be certain instinctual genetic drives as elaborated by the cultural environment we develop in.
IcyMonkey: So a certain component of it is universal to humanity, but the details tend to be cultural
Yevaud333: Okee.
Yevaud333: How do you define ethics?
IcyMonkey: Now, technically this doesn't actually change the way I'm going to act.... but it does make the semantics of what I do more complicated.
IcyMonkey: waitasec.
IcyMonkey: Okay, now, the simple view is, I see a murderer killing someone - the murderer is doing something bad... I prevent this. I am doing something good.
IcyMonkey: My view is, I see a murder about to occur.
IcyMonkey: Now, let's say this murderer is a psycho.
IcyMonkey: If he truly believes what he's doing is good, then it is - to him. Now, before you protest let me clarify.
IcyMonkey: this all works out to my actions being the same in the end, so don't worry.
Yevaud333: lol
Yevaud333: 'kay.
IcyMonkey: However, it is bad to me.
Yevaud333: (Keep typing... I need to run for a sec but I will read when I return.)
IcyMonkey: I do all I can to implement my own moral ideas... Does this mean that I'm imposing my view of others? To a certain extent, yes.
IcyMonkey: However, part of my moral system happens to involve not imposing my moral system on other except in the case of certain fundamental tenets.
IcyMonkey: These tenets are just as arbitrary as the ones I don't impose - however, they're stronger, so that I probably would be very disturbed to see them violated, and also more universal, so that it's easier to get everyone to do them without too many problems.
IcyMonkey: Now, I prevent the murder, and the murderer goes to jail...
IcyMonkey: Still, to him, what he did was good, period. And there's really no way to get around that, because you can't establish morality outside the bounds of human psychology.
IcyMonkey: However, that doesn't prevent mne from thinking, due to my moral impulses, that he should still be prevented from murdering again, and hopefully that his moral views should be changed to something more in line with my own.
IcyMonkey: In cases where my morality opposes the moral views of the majority, I usually don't care. However, if theoretically one of my fundamental tenets was violated by the morality of the majority, I would still oppose the will of the majority and try to change their system.
IcyMonkey: Why?
IcyMonkey: Simply because I'm driven to.
IcyMonkey: See, it's unfortunate, but morality, being a product of human psychology, just can't be turned into some nice neat logical system.
IcyMonkey: That's why debating morality doesn't do much, except when you are simply trying to show that someone's moral vieews are directly inconsistent... because it's generally acknowledged that obvious, large inconsistencies in one's moral system is a "bad thing".
IcyMonkey: Moral systems, being instinctual and human, will inevitably have inconsistencies, but it's best to hide them as well as possible.
IcyMonkey: Now, the idea of morality being illogical and subjective is obviously uncomfortable, but it's also kinda true, unfortunately. Sort of like the traditional idea of free will, it's just a fiction that human beings can't live without...
IcyMonkey: Just like choice, morality is a psychological perspective rather than an objective state.

Comments? Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:21 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 820
Location: An Unforgiving World Overrun by Poverty, Drug Abuse, Nepotism, and Ninjas...
Whether or not morality itself is sound, I do try to live by the simple code of "try not to be an asshat/don't screw people over."

Basically, I saw how being petty and selfish really hurts people, and I didn't want to become petty and selfish. Now, since I'm a human being, of course I'm going to be petty and selfish from time to time. However, I can try to keep it in check.

In fact, that may have been how morality came to develop...basically, morality/ethics is/are a set of rules brought about in the hope that they'll prevent people from screwing each other over on a regular basis.

Now, does morality/stop stop people from being screwed over? No. People are still going to be screwed over, no matter what happens. But sometimes, a moral code can keep said screwing over in check.

_________________
<sarevock> I think my eyes started bleeding.
<NebbieQ> Bleeding is just another word for love.
<sarevock> ¬¬
* sarevock runs away from NebbieQ
<NebbieQ> But I just want to make you love me. ;_;


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:31 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Ok, as I see it, morality isn't a social construct at its roots. Granted a portion of our morals could be considered purely so, I feel that something deeper resides that truly controls how we morally feel something is right or wrong. Lets take the example of a murderer. Icy feels that murder is wrong, but why. Well, Icy is simply an animal. If we take a look into nature, animals only kill for two reasons, food and protection. An animal does not kill for sport in anyway, rather they only kill if they or their belongings (family, food, territory, etc) are threatened or if they need food. I cannot think of one animal, without being unnatturally introduced into a new locale, killing off another simply because. So one could say it is our instincts which provide us morals, as is the way of nature. This would be an objective basis. Note that this argument is incomplete, as I just thought of it. I'm posting it incomplete so inconsistancies can be pointed out and other's can add to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:43 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:54 pm
Posts: 331
Location: Within range of cakewalk's wifi.
I believe that, on a purely philosophical level, there are no absolutes in the universe. However, I also believe that it would be utterly impossible for someone to live without absolutes and simultaneously maintain their mental integrity. Therefore, to me, morality is whatever I can do with out offending a whole lot of other people.


Last edited by Sako on Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Kry, being genetic doesn't make it a logical construct. It just makes it breed into each and every human. Kinda like how baby turtles know to go run to the sea on birth. Which makes it a very clear definition of right and wrong, (because if the Sea Turtles didn't run to the sea they'd be dead, just like if all humans killed other humans we'd wind up dead.)

However, that is still a subjective argument. If you've read the Ender's Game series then you should remember coming across those bear things on that Portuguese planet. For them, it was imperitive to kill and mutilate the body of the their comrade. (In order for him to grow into a tree.)

So, what is right for one species (even in the most extreme cases) is not right for another. Humans would be in a hell of a mess if they followed the Sea Turtles advice and ran towards the sea on birth.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:54 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I wasn't saying that all instincts are our moral perrogative. But there are some universal truths in nature, like I described about killing. How is that necisarily bred into anything, when it exists in everything?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
krylex wrote:
Ok, as I see it, morality isn't a social construct at its roots. Granted a portion of our morals could be considered purely so, I feel that something deeper resides that truly controls how we morally feel something is right or wrong. Lets take the example of a murderer. Icy feels that murder is wrong, but why. Well, Icy is simply an animal. If we take a look into nature, animals only kill for two reasons, food and protection. An animal does not kill for sport in anyway, rather they only kill if they or their belongings (family, food, territory, etc) are threatened or if they need food. I cannot think of one animal, without being unnatturally introduced into a new locale, killing off another simply because. So one could say it is our instincts which provide us morals, as is the way of nature. This would be an objective basis. Note that this argument is incomplete, as I just thought of it. I'm posting it incomplete so inconsistancies can be pointed out and other's can add to it.


Ah, but by basing morality in instinct, you're not giving morality any objective basis. You're simply explaining where we get our moral drives. Even if there exists a rough aggregate of instinctual drives that we call "morality", there's no objective reason why we "should" follow those drives rather than ignore them. After all, anything that happens is, by definition, natural, since nature is simply the way things are. Thus, when someone does something "evil" their actions are just as much caused by their genetic and social predispositions as someone who does something "good".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:12 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
I'm sure some of the earier forms of life on this planet had no qualms about killing other members of their species for no reason at all. Animals have their psychos too. The problem is, fighting against and killing a member of your species leaves you injured and weakened. (Unless you're really good at it and/or you take them by surprise). Which makes it easier for you to be killed by the rest of nature. So therefore it's probably not a good idea for you to go about killing other members of your species. Those that did it habitually wound up dead, didn't have anymore children, end of the genetic line. It was breed out of us.

Hence, little cute bear critters killing each other in order to gain the tree form, which isn't an entirely valid argument because they were created by some kinda virus and not a real evolutionary track.

But how about the Preying Mantis? The female devours the head of the male during sex and the rest of him after. She has no moral qualms about it. She's much bigger than he is, and he is, shall we say, indesposed at the moment. So the risk of injury is lower.

I know that this is merely an adaptation of the "for food" qualifier. However, the male doesn't struggle, he finishes his work and dies as a meal for the missus. So, obviously, something weird is happening here. If my girlfriend were to start chewing my head off I'd definately try to stop the cute little cannibal-in-training. So, that had to be breed in also. His not trying to stop the female from eating him. Obviously it is proper and expected that if you mate with a woman you're going to get eaten to a Preying Mantis.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 7:22 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
My question: if you bar an anthropomorphic God then any objective morality would have to have a physical basis, thus your genes. Stuff your genes agree on -- survival, for example -- is moral, and stuff it doesn't -- dying, etc etc -- would be bad.

SO; barring God, wouldn't genes be the physical source of morality? What else is there, in other words? If you're ruling out nonphysical entities to embibe us with morality, then the only alternative is to say "since morality must exist outside everyone there isn't any" or assume that, like all things in a rational universe, objective morality must have a physical cause -- ie, genes.

Just food for thought. You seem to have gotten rid of the boogie man in the sky giving us morality via magic powers idea, but you hold morality to that same criticia when judging whether its objective or just made up.

And, in the end, the question appears to be rather moot; morality is as is, and being objective or not doesn't lend it cresidence, its success lends it that. Its like arguing about two varieties of fruit, which color is better, when everyone gets it because it tastes good.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 8:04 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
The Man In Black wrote:
SO; barring God, wouldn't genes be the physical source of morality? What else is there, in other words?


Society, which itself is influenced partially by the collective genetic tendencies of a particular population reinforced over time, and partially by outside environmental factors (climate, availability of natural resources, contact with other populations, etc.). Without society, morality can be nothing more than a vague, general tendency, if even that. Thus cultural influences must enter into the picture. I would say that genetics gives us our basic instinctual drives, whereas culture determines the specifics of how these drives are expressed. For example, most cultures believe that murder is wrong, but different cultures define murder differently.

The problem with this is, if we define morality as set of principles, determined by our genes combined with social influences, on which we base our actions, then that means that EVERYTHING we do is by definition "good". After all, a psychotic axe murderer's actions are just as influenced by his genes and his social situation as, say, Mother Teresa. Of course, the axe murderer is insane, either because he had the "wrong" upbringing or "bad" genes (e.g. a genetic tendency for schizophrenia). But what makes us call these things "wrong" or "bad"? Is it because they are abnormal? In that case, is evil essentially abnormality?

The essential problem is this: there is the way things are, and the way things should be. We can describe the way things are using objective evidence; for example, we can explain why we're driven to do the things we do. We could even call a particular subset of these psychological drives "morality". However, we can't say why one particular objective situation, or one particular drive, is "better" or "more desireable" than another without resorting to subjective and arbitrary judgments.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 8:38 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
revolutio's Morality in a Nut-Shell:

-Things that make people happy are good.

-Things that make people sad are bad.

-Things that do neither don't matter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 9:03 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
krylex wrote:
If we take a look into nature, animals only kill for two reasons, food and protection. An animal does not kill for sport in anyway, rather they only kill if they or their belongings (family, food, territory, etc) are threatened or if they need food. I cannot think of one animal, without being unnatturally introduced into a new locale, killing off another simply because.


Two counter examples:

1) Dogs kill cats for neither of those two reasons. Now, sometimes dogs do indeed eat cats they kill, but often they just break their necks and leave them. This is fact, I've seen it; you can too, if you just find yourself a big, mean dog and a cute little kitten.

2) Cats play with their prey. Why? Well, scientist speculate that it could be some sort of training, or it could be for "fun," but the fact remains that they make little mice or whateer suffer for no immediate and tangible reason.


Now, the "genetics as morals" theory is interesting, but not very useful, because everyone's genetics are different. In addition, XTs, while possibly sentient, might very well not have genetcs as we think of the term; does that mean that any extraterrestrials (or any other similiarly odd creatures) we might encounter won't have any morals? Of course not, not any less than we do, however strange they seem to our sensibilities.

Now, I think that Sarte and other existensialists have given sufficient evidence for a complete lack of the Judeo-Christian God's existence (God is omnipotent and ultimately benevolent, an omnipotent and ultimately benevolent entity would not let such things as WWII occur, therefore God does not exist, not anymore, at least), and because the genetics as morals theory has holes, I think the most likely situation is (as Sarte describes) a lack of any objective and supreme moral code. Our percieved ethics and morals are what instinct has mandated that we do, and what up-bringing and society have conditioned us to do.


EDIT-

revolutio wrote:
revolutio's Morality in a Nut-Shell:

-Things that make people happy are good.

-Things that make people sad are bad.

-Things that do neither don't matter


Question-
The lynch mob/martyr situation.
There are a lot of people who will take pleasure from the intense pain and suffering that one single person will endure. Now, there's no way to reconcile this to an average person's view without giving a blanket statement that there are some things that you just can't do, and then you're back where you started.

_________________
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: Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:31 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Lucis Spei wrote:
Question-
The lynch mob/martyr situation.
There are a lot of people who will take pleasure from the intense pain and suffering that one single person will endure. Now, there's no way to reconcile this to an average person's view without giving a blanket statement that there are some things that you just can't do, and then you're back where you started.
Net happiness. There is no way one person can derive enough pleasure from someone dieing to counteract the displeasure of dieing and being dead (death being the complete absence of happiness).

Granted net happiness is non-quantitative and thus very difficult to measure; however, this is why negotiation, discussion, and compromise are key to an effective society.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:11 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Zarathustra wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
SO; barring God, wouldn't genes be the physical source of morality? What else is there, in other words?


Society, which itself is influenced partially by the collective genetic tendencies of a particular population reinforced over time, and partially by outside environmental factors (climate, availability of natural resources, contact with other populations, etc.).

The problem with this is, if we define morality as set of principles, determined by our genes combined with social influences, on which we base our actions, then that means that EVERYTHING we do is by definition "good". After all, a psychotic axe murderer's actions are just as influenced by his genes and his social situation as, say, Mother Teresa.


Psychologists disagree with you. They all agree that psychotic serial-murderers are made via environmental factors -- among them overpossessive moms, unsuccussful monetary/love lives, etc etc -- and genes play, at best, a minimal factor in everything. The major cause of serial murderers are oversocialization; they're nobodies, in other words. There are exceptions, of course...thus you cannot blame Mother Teresa's actions on her genes, since socialization plays such an important part in our actions.

Psychotic axe murderers...on the one hand, you can blame it all on bad brain chemistry in some cases. On the other, you can claim (and rightfully so) that bad brain chemistry only takes you so far, environmental factors play a large role in such things.

In addition, from a sociological perspective (back me up Ollie), stuff society is using must have some use, the general moralities etc, not the specific stuff (which changes with time) but attitudes, killing = bad, stealing = bad, etc, they have uses that keep society running well, thus are beneficial to the human race as a whole, and thus you need to take into account. Moral? I guess.

So what can we take from this? I dunno, just my thoughts. Take what you will.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:57 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
revolutio wrote:
Net happiness. There is no way one person can derive enough pleasure from someone dieing to counteract the displeasure of dieing and being dead (death being the complete absence of happiness).


Well, by that argument we have to all work as hard as we possibly can to make sure no one ever dies.

_________________
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: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:24 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Lucis Spei wrote:
revolutio wrote:
Net happiness. There is no way one person can derive enough pleasure from someone dieing to counteract the displeasure of dieing and being dead (death being the complete absence of happiness).


Well, by that argument we have to all work as hard as we possibly can to make sure no one ever dies.


And where's the problem with that? That's what doctors are in the business for, it's why Peace is preferable to war, it's where most technology is used, etc. etc. etc. In fact, I think, if there is such a thing as objective morality, then you just hit the nail on the head for how to describe it.

Of course, if there's no possible way someone will die from either way you choose on a certain choice you need to make, that does not mean that both ways of choosing are moral. It just means that you need to weigh the happiness in smaller degrees.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2003 5:27 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Jasper wrote:
Lucis Spei wrote:
Well, by that argument we have to all work as hard as we possibly can to make sure no one ever dies.


And where's the problem with that? That's what doctors are in the business for, it's why Peace is preferable to war, it's where most technology is used, etc. etc. etc..


*rubs temples*

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but you should've thought the situation through before posting.

Now, if preventing death (the ultimate "abscene of happiness") is infinitely better than anything else we can do (as is it is by that definition), then individual rights, privacy, the whole civil liberties shebang and a good deal more will be thrown down the toilet. Given that death is the ultimate unhappiness, and that aggregate happiness is what we are trying for, then it logically follows that the greatest moral good one can do is preventing death. Therefore, "the good" one should do is get up in the morning, find a way to prevent a death, maybe eat a little (to prevent your own death) then go out and find ways to prevent deaths, for dinner, eat just enough to stay alive, then send the rest (no matter how much you worked for it) away to people who need it, in order to prevent their deaths.

Ahem, no. Nope, no how, no way. This system encourages reckless selflessness and condemmn those who are egoists to being morally wrong. Purely ridiculous, to say that one is obligated to go around preventing deaths of people one doesn't know, especially so because that system would result in doring everything you can for the possibility that one may prevent a death. Bah, this is a blatently synthetic code, and not even a very useful one.

_________________
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: Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:27 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
I'll admit that I posted rather quickly and without a whole lot of thought on the matter, but I won't admit that I'm wrong about what I posted.

I never said that this system would be desirable in anyway. I also never said that it was in any way achievable. The world isn't perfect, nor is any one person. I only said that the most moral way to act is to prevent death. I've been known to do some things that are even more immoral than letting people die, how can I be expected to live my life completely for them? I'm perfectly content knowing that my life is filled with immorality in that system because, if there's a God, that won't be his criteria for entering heaven, as he'd probably be more inclined to create his own rules, and if there is no God, and as such no heaven, nobody around here is going to hold me accountable for failing to uphold a system that they themselves can't uphold.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:15 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:16 pm
Posts: 25
[url=http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?t=4546]My other post.[/url]

I had it typed out all nice in that thread, and ah ain't gon do it fer ya agin!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:23 pm 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 23
Location: Mexico
Maybe it would help this discussion if we made a distinction between moral and ethics, don't you think?? Because if comparing both terms on a epistemological level, ethics is cosntructed entirely by an individual, while morals are a product of social consensus.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 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