40
   

What is your fundamental moral compass?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:29 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
What Beth said is a red herring as well.

Like Io said--stay out of the debate.


as usual - you think you can direct people to follow your personal sense of etiquette



the thing is - you don't have to listen to us, and we don't have to listen to you

we can do what we would do in real life - talk past you, talk around you, sometimes move away from you - we can continue the discussion as if you are not here

it works here as well as it does in real life - reasonably well

eventually people catch on that they're talking to their own forehead and find sometime to talk/debate with that isn't bored by them
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:34 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Much as I'm sure you wouldn't believe me if I explained to you why you behave in certain ways
But I am very interested in your opinion as to why I behave in certain ways.
Quote:
It isn't other posters' fault that they bore me.
I speed read all posts slowing for those that are thought provoking. ie that aspect has not been covered before.
Quote:
There's no distress involved.
I think in your case you see a threat of violence and it is distasteful. This was also expressed by plainoldme. I understand that, but it might strengthen you to face it and survive. I know it has done wonders for my confidence levels...to face discomfort, I mean.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:36 pm
@Ionus,
Being bored is not the same as a fear of violence.

plainoldme and I have very different views on many things.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  4  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:54 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

People use ignore because they are lazy and comfortable with their opinions and they dont want to be mentally challenged. If someone agrees with them, thats excellent.
Laughing Mentally challenged? By you? When your spurious pseudo-science is demonstrated to be nonsense; you lash out with accusations of homosexuality, toilet training, and whatever else the bullies on the playground used to use to make you cry. No one here fears your debating skills; they tire of your tireless sophomoric idiocy.

I don't ignore anyone for disagreeing with me... I do tend to ignore those who bring nothing but childish gainsay behind their easily debunked specious arguments.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 06:14 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Mentally challenged? By you? When your spurious pseudo-science is demonstrated to be nonsense; you lash out with accusations of homosexuality, toilet training, and whatever else the bullies on the playground used to use to make you cry. No one here fears your debating skills; they tire of your tireless sophomoric idiocy. I don't ignore anyone for disagreeing with me... I do tend to ignore those who bring nothing but childish gainsay behind their easily debunked specious arguments.
Now this is an example of insulting just for its own sake. You do this out of anger and fear. Now I shall return the favour and you just watch all those precious little old dears turn to the ignore button....but not for you who started it...you are one of them. A ****** of men.

You have assumed like most fools here that I am arguing for my sake. I am arguing for yours. You are not able to understand much that isnt gutter humuor or (and try not to snicker here) swear words. If the debate approaches areas where your fear is so great you have to post diarrhea like the above then maybe you would be better off hanging out with other trailer trash and patting each other on the bum.

Dont blame me if you stay an ignorant twisted mind claiming others have nothing to contribute. How many have you put on ignore ? Care to brag about how righteous the homosexual movement is ? But I will not do it. I dont care if you get boring, as ehBeth likes to call it, or threatening as plainoldme sees it, I will always read your posts for my edification and respond to them for your edification.

In the mean time, feel free to derail the thread with your abuse. I will respond in kind.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 05:17 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
as usual - you think you can direct people to follow your personal sense of etiquette.


Look Beth--I'm not talking about ignoring people who are objectionable. I ignore them myself in real life and on here.

I'm talking about in a debate. Suppose someone is promoting abortion in a debate about the matter and I either describe the details of an abortion or link a video showing an abortion being done. If they then put me on ignore because they can't handle the real thing and are only talking in the abstract about it then it is intellectually indefensible for them to stay in the debate with me and carry on as if I hadn't happened.

When Germaine Greer took the Catholics to task over the "life exists from conception" argument by challenging them to baptise their sanitary towels on the basis that an early spontaneous abortion might be present most Catholics put her on ignore. And not because she was objectionable but because she was irrefutable and because if they didn't baptise their STs they hadn't a leg left to stand on.

The point is that it is intellectually indefensible for the Catholic to go around promoting "life begins at conception" unless they have addressed the point Ms Greer made. They are out of order, okay not legally, to use ignore to escape the dilemma. And once they give up the "life begins at conception" idea they have no choice but to proceed to full term abortion. Arbitary numbers of weeks are mere sentimental conveniences. And once arrived at that point they need to find another anti-abortion argument such as that it is un-natural and as such off the agenda for a pro-evolutionist unless he/she takes the position that anything that happens is natural and justifiable and is thus accepting of Hitler and Pol Pot & Co.

And a similar abuse of ignore is operative when someone attacking religion is challenged to say what sort of society he is promoting and switches the challenger onto ignore to deal with it and continues blithely to attack religion as if putting the challenge on ignore has met the point and it is then one he needn't consider.

All men are rapists or marriage is a form of prostitution are both ideas which can't be simply dealt with by reaching for Ignore. Or being reminded that one is making a property killing on land which has been ethnically cleansed when one is attacking ethnic cleansing, a sound evolutionary principle, in other places in order to pose as a compassionate person. Or denying that the demand for oil is the sole cause of the BP disaster.

I am not speaking of people who smell bad or who spit when they talk or make lewd innuendos or eat with their fingers and slurp or who start swinging too readily. We all ignore them. You can't mix these things up as if ignoring that lot justifies ignoring well known and perfectly respectable intellectual arguments. If you put the latter on ignore you should get out of the room. Nobody objects to that. It is staying in the debate after using Ignore which is not defensible intellectually.
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 05:57 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

As a kid I was once discussing medical ethics with a Brazilian surgeon when he told me something that changed my life forever.

"What is your ultimate criteria?" he asked me. He went on to explain that any ethical issue boils down to core values, and depending on what you consider your "golden rule" your ethical calculations can produce different results.

It's very true, but few people bother to codify their core moral philosophy. Here is an example that inspired this thread:

My personal moral code boils down to the ideal of least amount of suffering. Obviously quantifying suffering is subjective and so is opinions about how best to minimize it but this is still a moral compass that sets my moral bearings to the best that I can interpret these subjective issues.

So when someone says they value American life (or Mexican life) more than those suffering more it clearly violates my own moral code. In a choice between helping a starving foreigner and an unemployed American I'd not choose my nationality over the one who is suffering the most. My ideal is to minimize the most suffering and it's clear where my aid should go in that situation.

I was trying to imagine what kind of moral compass would produce the tribalism I disdain, and really began to wonder if it wasn't just the typical absence of an "ultimate criteria", as Dr. Edson put it, at all. Most people don't bother thinking about it this far, but I would invite those here at a2k to give it a try.

What is the core values in your moral compass? And how does that work in practice for you?

If you don't have one yet, try to codify one. Ideally they are generic (not too specific) as they should be core values that can apply to ANY situation to produce a theoretical ideal.

Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

And, even then, only if they don't mind you doing it.

Otherwise, mind your own business.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 07:05 am
@stevecook172001,
You can't mind your own business without becoming a hermit.
stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 07:08 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

You can't mind your own business without becoming a hermit.

Of course. Who said you should choose to mind your own business to the exclusion of all other options?
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 07:33 am
@spendius,
Quote:
"life exists from conception"
Actually life exists from the first life on earth. There is no stop and start for a new being. Its parents are alive and it is alive from them.

Quote:
You can't mix these things up as if ignoring that lot justifies ignoring well known and perfectly respectable intellectual arguments. If you put the latter on ignore you should get out of the room. Nobody objects to that.
I am nobody.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 07:48 am
@stevecook172001,
Okay.

Have you read La Rochefoucauld's Maxims

Here are a few--

Goodness is very frequently weakness (481).

Good faith is a device to attract further confidence and to gain responsibility (247).

Generosity is ambition disguised (246).

Humility is a trick of pride whose aim is self-aggrandizement (254).

Liberality is vanity (263).

Love of justice is inspired by fear (78).

Gratitude springs from the desire for further benefits (223 and 298).

Courage arises from five selfish motives (213).

Moderation is a species of spiritual sloth (293)

We should be ashamed of our finest actions if the world knew our motives (409).

The fact that people suppress their weaknesses in speaking of themselves proves that they are not so blind to them as might appear (494).

Mourning is a fruitful source of hypocrisies (233). Malinowski confirmed that one.

Those are a few which Caudwell quotes in his book Introduction to French Classicism. He remarks--" This devastating analysis of the accepted virtues prepares the way for more detailed attacks on hypocrisy and insincerity.

We are too satisfied with our own characters (462 and 303)

We are too anxious to talk of ourselves (137 and 138).

It is a great mistake to think oneself indispensable (201).

stevecook172001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 08:10 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Okay.

Have you read La Rochefoucauld's Maxims

Here are a few--

Goodness is very frequently weakness (481).

Good faith is a device to attract further confidence and to gain responsibility (247).

Generosity is ambition disguised (246).

Humility is a trick of pride whose aim is self-aggrandizement (254).

Liberality is vanity (263).

Love of justice is inspired by fear (78).

Gratitude springs from the desire for further benefits (223 and 298).

Courage arises from five selfish motives (213).

Moderation is a species of spiritual sloth (293)

We should be ashamed of our finest actions if the world knew our motives (409).

The fact that people suppress their weaknesses in speaking of themselves proves that they are not so blind to them as might appear (494).

Mourning is a fruitful source of hypocrisies (233). Malinowski confirmed that one.

Those are a few which Caudwell quotes in his book Introduction to French Classicism. He remarks--" This devastating analysis of the accepted virtues prepares the way for more detailed attacks on hypocrisy and insincerity.

We are too satisfied with our own characters (462 and 303)

We are too anxious to talk of ourselves (137 and 138).

It is a great mistake to think oneself indispensable (201).



I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 03:17 pm
@stevecook172001,
Nothing. I merely posted a famous Frenchman's views on matters relating to moral compasses. I feel sure they don't apply to everyone. How to discern who they do apply to is a social skill.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 04:28 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
You seem to think that all people who use the ignore feature use it to ignore people whose opinions they disagree with.

That is only one possible use of the feature.

At various points when I've gone to look at the list of people I had on ignore, they have been more likely to be people who I agree with on a political/societal level, but whose posting style I found annoying for some reason. It's much like real life for me - I'm more likely to ignore/avoid someone boring or rude than to ignore/avoid someone I don't agree with.

Ignore - one feature/multiple applications.
That 's very well said, Beth; thank u.
U have expressed my point of vu in this matter most adroitly.





David
0 Replies
 
J Ambler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 03:10 pm
The difficulty with on line debate is that people think they are anonymous and therefore don't have to limit themselves to civilized discussion. Imagine, instead, that we are all together in a room issuing the words posted here. How long do you think it would be before a physical altercation broke out between the bullies and the name-callers?

What should happen is that a monitor be appointed to keep everyone on topic and set the rules for discussion. Otherwise, there could never be a real debate.

Like here... where not even the function of the "ignore button" can be agreed upon.

Move on.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2010 05:10 pm
@J Ambler,
Where to?

The Russians tried monitors. Commissars. Which were -

Quote:
The political commissar (also politruk Russian: политрук: political officer) is the supervisory political officer responsible for the political education (ideology) and organisation, and loyalty to the government of the military. Historically, the commissaire politique (political commissary) first appeared in the French Revolution (1789–99), guarding it against anti-Revolutionary (ideological) thought and action, and so ensuring the Republican victory.


We don't do that **** on here mate.

0 Replies
 
J Ambler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 03:37 pm
Regarding monitors in Russia. Thanks for the info, it was well put.

By "monitor" I meant it should be someone who set up this forum and provided a topic, among a myriad of other topics. The "ignore" button is supposed to substitute for a monitor, no doubt because the Russians are in short supply.

Assumption: When you are in this thread you should discuss your moral compass with philosophical references. If not, then why are you here? My curiosity is limited so you needn't do a rant.

A good starting place is a dichotomy. From ancient Greece. Aristotle vs. Plato. Logic vs Form. Happiness in life vs. Afterlife reward. Universal vs. Relative ethics. Catholic vs. Protestant. Apple vs. Microsoft. Beatles vs. Snoop Dog.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

is there a fundamental value that we all share? - Discussion by existential potential
The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2019 at 11:47:53