ZOMBIE FORUMS

I did this for Pop philosohpy class. I'm not looking for compliments or critiques. I am just looking for insight onto how my ideas may be corrected. This was based on a relatively small amount of information, and I want to broaden my awareness.

Based on "Cruel Intentions", exerpts from The Republic, an encyclopedia article on Nihilism, and a selection from Nietzsche's <u>On the Genealogy of Morals</u>.

-------------

Second Seminar
Is it good to be bad? Is it bad to be good? Or is there no such thing as either?

<i>Is it good to be bad?</i> Not necessarily. <i>Is it bad to be good?</i> If it were “bad,” then so many good people would not get ahead to where they were happy with their lives. What is “good” and “bad” based upon (the “just” and “unjust?”), and what how is it measured in a person’s life? <i>Is there no such thing as either?</i> In my opinion, there isn’t. My arguments will stem off from this last question, and I will summarize my point in a conclusion after presenting all the text evidence.

First off, I will address Thrasymachus’ point. So the person who is able to get away with the biggest atrocities in the name of gaining power and profit is the happiest person, according to this logic. We will see how the best wrongdoer must go about gaining all of this power and profit through the next quote.

Now, to apply this to “Cruel Intentions”, we will take a closer look at Kathryn. Mrs. Caldwell states Kathryn’s reputation quite well. As we see, Kathryn has one of the best reputations at her college. Yet, as we have seen, she is one of the most manipulative people who attends – doing drugs, using sex for games, and trying to destroy innocent girls like Cecile for fun. But here is her viewpoint on her life. That doesn’t sound very happy to me. Kathryn is able (up until the end), to get away with everything, yet she is suicidal. What is the point of being “bad” then? What if there was no relevance to being “bad” or “good,” but she’s merely just being herself, getting her kicks whether she’s doing what she personally considers right or wrong.

It is now that I’d like to bring up nihilism. I think this quote nails the question of morality right on the head. Everybody has their own interpretations and personal ethics of what they think is just and unjust. There is no “one size fits all.” However, as described in this quote, a social contract can be made so as to maintain some level of security and peace so that society can function. I would also like to point out this quote: My whole point being that a world based off of Thrasymachus’ philosophies would collapse because everyone would suffer. Therefore, I can reach the conclusion that it is not good to be bad, because if too many people were “able” to be bad, that the society would self-destruct. It would not be a “working” system of morality.

So from that, I can further gather that a “working” morality must be based within the laws of governing within a society. Nihilism states that morality is invalid, and this is why I agree.

In conclusion, I would like to state that while morality, the traditional meanings of the “good” and the “bad,” is a concept that is entirely relative, it does not mean that laws and what is just is meaningless. We need a working morality to coexist with each other. People may find benefit in deviating from this morality, but few find success and the greatest happiness from this manner. Following the rules is not a question of the strength or weakness of your will, but of your personal judgment of what will get you to the point where you’ll be happiest. I would also like to note that I know that I do find some comfort that there are physical and very real consequences created by the laws to prevent someone from raping and murdering me at this very moment.

-------------

Please don't beat me up ;_; I'm new to all of this.

More Tipsy Depressed Tamayo:

Aha! *checks IMDB* Cruel Intentions is a movie. Now, I remember it -- I missed it on purpose because I had already seen Dangerous Liaisons with John Malkovich, Glenn Close and Michelle Pfeiffer, and then I liked it enough that I went and read the book. John Malkovich is a very strange man, but his acting performances can be compelling. Malkovich malkovich. Malkovich malkovich malkovich malkovich ... that's another movie entirely.* I'm running off at the keyboard.

My own point of view here differs strongly from yours, and I know IcyMonkey's differs from both of ours. Furthermore, in that I haven't seen the film you reference, though I have read the book upon which it is based, I am probably not really qualified to comment here. Naturally, I am going to do that anyway.

Les liaisons dangereuses was a satire. It was a comment upon late eighteenth-century French literature and morals, not a philosophical work. Bad people did bad things to good people, and paid for it -- but justice did not triumph in the end, for anyone. The book was banned for a while, and not entirely because of its content but also because of its subversive form: the Academie Francaise insisted that literature come in particular forms, but this book ridiculed those forms.

It was an intelligent, subversive work, yes. It was nevertheless still a work of fiction -- a made-up story. However plausible it might have been, it is still erroneous to deduce anything about real people from the imaginary people in the story. The concept of "plausibility" denotes "correspondence with observed phenomena" and is very much relative to the person making those observations.

Now, on to your points in detail. You quote someone in the movie saying,



Let us ask a different question for a moment: presume Joe Blow says, "I believe that there are exactly eight million gods." You might disagree with that, and probably you do. Nevertheless, there are in fact quite a few people who agree with that statement, and those people mostly live in the country of Japan and follow the Shinto religion.

Now, either Joe Blow is correct in his belief or he is mistaken: there are either eight million gods, or there is some other number of gods. The fact that he believes that statement, however, is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that statement. I can say, "I believe that all purple things are alive", but that does not make all purple things breathe and eat and reproduce.

Thrasymmachos' words, as you quote them, are indeed moral strictures. He is saying, in effect, "It is expedient to do things thus because society works better and people are happier when we do it that way." However, he is not saying, "there is no bad and there is no good"; he's weaseling around that.

Finally, you come to this: (Is it Nietsche who said it? can't remember)



In that I disagree with your position fairly vehemently (though I promise I'm restraining myself so I can try to get you to clarify your own ideas, as you requested) I shall not make a direct answer to this claim but rather refer you to at least one other topic on this forum.

In short, however, you seem to want to say that morality is something that must be imposed by God upon the universe and upon mere mortals like us, or else cannot exist at all. I ask you -- why?

Edit, the morning after:

In Western societies, we make it legal for anyone to hold any opinion or belief of which he or she can conceive. We make the erroneous deduction then that all opinions and beliefs are equally valid. That is not necessarily the case. I am not breaking the law by believing that all purple things are alive, but I am certainly mistaken. (It's harder to talk about opinions without actually attacking your argument, so I won't. )

In order to make that claim -- that all beliefs and opinions are equally valid -- you must justify it. Without the truth of that claim, your argument falls apart.

*Being John Malkovich, naturally. It was really weird. Malkovich.

But you could get another 15 character points to work with if you play it as a Severe Delusion. :D

As I said, I'm completely new to this. The class assignment was to have a Socratic Seminar based on the works I gave, and discuss and expand out ideas. I was absent for this seminar, so I had to write a paper about it. I made some corrections on it before I turned it in today, that I didn't edit here, but they were all technical errors.

I would not voluntarily cite a fiction work as a source to gather philosophical knowledge from. It was just part of the assignment.

Also, the "quote" was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#N ... d_morality
I just didn't know if I should have said "encyclopedia exerpt" or what. :-/



I don't think it had anything to do with whether or not our beliefs were right or wrong. It had to do with our sense of morality.

So Joe Blow believes that it is the will of these eight million gods that humans serve the gods, and build shrines for pious worship. (I don't know anything about Shintoism, so bear with me.) In his mind, it is not right to kill the keeper of the shrine.

However, Suzy Pamson thinks that whatever she does in her best interest is the right thing to do. If that means killing her preist in order to get the profits of the Church, then she sees that as right and necessary. (Kind of the view that Suzy believes that she is the highest being in the universe, and the world will bend to her will, if what she does is "right".)

For a less extreme example, it is my own opinion that there is no such thing as morality. My philosophy runs something along the lines of: The ends justify the means, yet you still have to face the consequences of your actions. So I see nothing wrong with stealing something small from a big company if you don't get caught. Where as in, Ez, would say that it's wrong to steal based on common decency.

That is just to say that we all have differing opinions on what is "good" and what is "bad." Their origins may be different, but as you said - if they are part of this reality or not, it's irrelivant.

I'm not saying it's bad at all to have different beliefs and opinions.
I think the statement just pointed out that there are differences (though mainly, they're small) in our own set of personal ethics. This makes our personal conduct on how we acknowledge the "right" and the "wrong" relative.

However, Thrasymachus explained that two men come to make laws by agreeing on what ethics should conduct regular behaviour so that there is the least amount of injury (but consequently, the least amount of gain). Important laws are usually not relative or differ in all areas of a country. Smaller laws are usually not relative or differ in all areas of the state. So if you break a law, there can be dire consequences. And most people don't want to face those consequences, which makes me a happy Kali, because it detours people from acting on their impulse to kill/rape me if it so suits their purposes to get ahead.

And now I finally understand what Thrasymachus meant about people not having stong enough wills to be unjust. That being that people are too scared to face the consequences of their unlawful actions. But I still think there's more to it than that, though I would root my opinion in psychology that I have not had a chance to research yet, but that I know exists (like the Super Ego/conscience).



At this point, where I quoted it, I was just BSing. I have absolutely no clue what that quote means.

The idea of what I thought it meant, is that without some form of control (whether through God's laws or through rules and codes of behaviour we've come up with and agreed to follow ourselves), right and wrong is a silly concept. Because there is no reinforcement, no consequences. There is no conscience taught to us at an early age, because everyone can get away with everything. And how would society exist under such circumstances?



The whole reading said he very much believed that there was a good and a bad. It was good for a person to be as unjust as possible whilst creating the illusion that he is the most just person possible in his actions. That way, he can get away with unjust activities that benefit him, so that the unjust person is happier.

The other side to that is that the person with the most powers creates rules so that the weaker people, who are unable to be unjust, will serve his benefit. It is best to be on the winning side, the unjust side, so you don't suffer the injury of having to serve someone against your will. Because, according to Thrasymachus, being just can only be done in servitude.

So it's happy for one person, not happy for a whole bunch of people. And if they realized that it was better to be unjust, then you'd have a revolt. The unjust person would be unhappy or killed in the revolt. Things would be a bit chaotic for a while. If everyone thought it was better to be unjust, and built up te strength of will, society would collapse because no one would be willing to follow the rules.

I think that's where I'm going with this. I also think that I'm not understanding all that you're saying. Some of this is going right over my head, and I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Tamayo, Kali; <3