It is wrong to conceive of morals as created by humans when we have as much been created by them... In gross, when we first began to think of good as an abstract objective good for the whole community we ceased being primates and became human... It is a digression to an animal state to think of good only for one's own self as Good...
Some of the most moral societies have killed their own... Oedipus killing his father was not moral though it was accidental... Orestes killing his mother was entirely moral, and her killing of Agamenon were both entirely moral actions...
Among the American Indians, if one person killed another outside of their immediate family, and it was found that no blood money offered was worth the life of the victim, and so, the murderer must be executed, then no one but his own family would execute him, because that death, even if justified by all would demand blood vengeance... No one but Orestes could have killed his mother, and no city would allow a murderess or murderer to live within its wall... Ancients, the most moral of people, were very particular about their honor, and about no one killing one of theirs without revenge... In Anglo Saxon England, one who killed in self defense also need pay blood money... There was no way around it...If you killed some one you had to pay... We are paying it to families today for wrongful deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan...In Athens, in fact, no one but the family could bring charges for homicide. and no one could bring charges against a free man for the life of a slave...Slaves were thought of as not having family...Some one kills one of ours and we blow our noses and get on with our lives... It is because we are demoralized; but moral actions like defense and war do not make a people immoral, but prove morality, which once more for the thick brained among us, has to do with the relationship between and individual and his community...
There for, it is moral to kill one of your own, and honorable IF you find them preying upon your community... No one likes to comtemplate it, but the law make aiding and abeting a crime, even for a family member... Yes, we owe to our families our greatest loyalty, but the nation, being that group that sprang from a common mother, is also our family, and just as we should sacrifice ourselves for our nation, we may be called upon to sacrifice one of our own...Would you not kill one of yours if you found they were killing others of your neighbors??? If you say not; then where is your honor...
Honor meant something to Electra, and Orestes.. Cu'chulain killed for his honor at the drop of the first insult, and Achilles went and wept like a child by the boats, and then withheld his Myrmidons from the fight, and all for honor...If you have no honor worth defending it is because you have no idea what morality is... And you may be correct to say I do not understand human behavior... I don't, and I do not expect to since so much of it is governed by irrational motives...Morality is still a force in the world, and most of us transfere our feeling of family to the political nation... It is hard to draw a line between moral and healthy... It is usually quite easy to draw a line between legal and moral...
Quote:manored wrote:Did we create love and hate and virtue and vice because we named these qualities??? Humanity found it could not live without its morals, and before that point may not have given it much thought...But morals is found in the nat urial relationship between mother and child, the bonding, and this is transfered to ones nat ion...Natural relationships, as between family members are usually more moral..
Fido wrote:We did create then, only not on purpose.
It is wrong to conceive of morals as created by humans when we have as much been created by them... In gross, when we first began to think of good as an abstract objective good for the whole community we ceased being primates and became human... It is a digression to an animal state to think of good only for one's own self as Good...
Quote:Not so! Nor are morals relative because they tend to the absolute... Morals have to do with self perception and community self consciousness... When Native American allowed themselves to be burned, tortured, and cut up to the point of death, and then cut loose to give the kids a taste for killing, all the time giving encouragement to their captors and offering unburned flesh do you think they did so for some purely subjective gratification??? To appear less than strong, brave, and enduring would have been extending an open invitation to attack ones family, friends and nation... Courage, the highest moral and honorable attribute must some time be demonstrated to be proved... If such notions seem foreign to us do not expect that the message we give is lost on people harder and longer suffering than ourselves... When we show ourselves weak, and cruel as well we demand that our society be washed off the face of the earth...When we do as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, we show our weakness to the world, and weaken ourselves further with the demonstration...It is a fool's game we play..Fido wrote:Whenever they were very moral societies or not is entirely subjective.
Some of the most moral societies have killed their own... Oedipus killing his father was not moral though it was accidental... Orestes killing his mother was entirely moral, and her killing of Agamenon were both entirely moral actions...
Fido wrote:Revenge is foolish, it harms both sides and gives room for the escalation of the said harm. I do not see why a society that does not avenge would be immoral.
Among the American Indians, if one person killed another outside of their immediate family, and it was found that no blood money offered was worth the life of the victim, and so, the murderer must be executed, then no one but his own family would execute him, because that death, even if justified by all would demand blood vengeance... No one but Orestes could have killed his mother, and no city would allow a murderess or murderer to live within its wall... Ancients, the most moral of people, were very particular about their honor, and about no one killing one of theirs without revenge... In Anglo Saxon England, one who killed in self defense also need pay blood money... There was no way around it...If you killed some one you had to pay... We are paying it to families today for wrongful deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan...In Athens, in fact, no one but the family could bring charges for homicide. and no one could bring charges against a free man for the life of a slave...Slaves were thought of as not having family...Some one kills one of ours and we blow our noses and get on with our lives... It is because we are demoralized; but moral actions like defense and war do not make a people immoral, but prove morality, which once more for the thick brained among us, has to do with the relationship between and individual and his community...
Your not seeing is not my problem... Societies that practiced vengeance also practiced group responsibility and control... Just as with Orestes, each community was expected to police itself, and keep out the bad element, and we see that spirit in our most abused form of Comedy, the cop show, which would be, if it were turned around from the perspective of the criminal, -a tragedy...They did not only think they would be judged by other ethnic groups for harboring criminals, but by their God as well...That is why the Athenians used to take even the bodies of their condemned to the border, and throw them over... Those people considered themselves good, honorable, and worthy of honorable treatment from others... The line between humanity and animals was the city limits to many... We are the same... It is not wrong to kill ones enemies, and the way we have tilted the picture all of Islam is our enemy... We make the laws we expect the world to follow regardless of their laws which may be far older and more sacred... No one like feud justice, and most people,if given the opportunity gave up the right to immediate justice for the promise that the whole of society would make an issue of justice, and this is the social contract, the beginning of modern government... It is not as though no good came out of it... But no good has been for long forth coming because once there is law there will be people who turn law to their own benefit and care nothing for justice.
Quote:Just as in Athenian homicide law, murders should be avenged, and to do less is to live dishonoably, and to live dishonorably is to invite extinction... But, Athenian homicide law did not extend protection to slaves, because slaves were cut off from their communities. and thought of as having no family... The object of the law was not justice for all, but justice for Athenians, because with justice ended the need for blood feud and feud is the worst disruption for a settled people...When people think of the law as serving an individual purpose, or in our case, serving the needs of the rich against the poor, it becomes an impediment to justice and makes it all the more certain that people will settle accounts on their own...And there goes your society.Fido wrote:I dont get this, you seem to be imposing notions of an universal morality, such as that killers should be killed.
There for, it is moral to kill one of your own, and honorable IF you find them preying upon your community... No one likes to comtemplate it, but the law make aiding and abeting a crime, even for a family member... Yes, we owe to our families our greatest loyalty, but the nation, being that group that sprang from a common mother, is also our family, and just as we should sacrifice ourselves for our nation, we may be called upon to sacrifice one of our own...Would you not kill one of yours if you found they were killing others of your neighbors??? If you say not; then where is your honor...
Quote:Fido wrote:Honor is a foolish concept to me. Wanting to be respected beyond what is pratically necessary for the society is unproductive. If you are a capable enginner and someone says you are not, its fine to disagree, but if someone says you are a douche, why raise a voice against it? Its their opinion, if they had not said it, you do not know. To wish to punish someone for calling you a douche is to wish to regulate what people think about you. Regulating what people think about us is impossible and ultimately leads to your own harm: Not only we lead people to hate us even more, but we may also make then hide that hate and reduce our ability to understand how those around us see us.
Honor meant something to Electra, and Orestes.. Cu'chulain killed for his honor at the drop of the first insult, and Achilles went and wept like a child by the boats, and then withheld his Myrmidons from the fight, and all for honor...If you have no honor worth defending it is because you have no idea what morality is... And you may be correct to say I do not understand human behavior... I don't, and I do not expect to since so much of it is governed by irrational motives...Morality is still a force in the world, and most of us transfere our feeling of family to the political nation... It is hard to draw a line between moral and healthy... It is usually quite easy to draw a line between legal and moral...
Off course, raising a voice against someone who calls you a douche is perfectly understandeable and human. But there is a point where honor protection leaves the field of the understandeable.
Yes and I second that nominate, not sarcasticly but well intended
Which school did you learn "your" philosophy?
Your patience is much admired, and I will nominate you for sainthood.
Did we create love and hate and virtue and vice because we named these qualities??? Humanity found it could not live without its morals, and before that point may not have given it much thought...But morals is found in the nat urial relationship between mother and child, the bonding, and this is transfered to ones nat ion...Natural relationships, as between family members are usually more moral..
Quote:Not so! Nor are morals relative because they tend to the absolute... Morals have to do with self perception and community self consciousness... When Native American allowed themselves to be burned, tortured, and cut up to the point of death, and then cut loose to give the kids a taste for killing, all the time giving encouragement to their captors and offering unburned flesh do you think they did so for some purely subjective gratification??? To appear less than strong, brave, and enduring would have been extending an open invitation to attack ones family, friends and nation... Courage, the highest moral and honorable attribute must some time be demonstrated to be proved... If such notions seem foreign to us do not expect that the message we give is lost on people harder and longer suffering than ourselves... When we show ourselves weak, and cruel as well we demand that our society be washed off the face of the earth...When we do as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, we show our weakness to the world, and weaken ourselves further with the demonstration...It is a fool's game we play..Whenever they were very moral societies or not is entirely subjective.
Your not seeing is not my problem... Societies that practiced vengeance also practiced group responsibility and control... Just as with Orestes, each community was expected to police itself, and keep out the bad element, and we see that spirit in our most abused form of Comedy, the cop show, which would be, if it were turned around from the perspective of the criminal, -a tragedy...They did not only think they would be judged by other ethnic groups for harboring criminals, but by their God as well...That is why the Athenians used to take even the bodies of their condemned to the border, and throw them over... Those people considered themselves good, honorable, and worthy of honorable treatment from others... The line between humanity and animals was the city limits to many... We are the same... It is not wrong to kill ones enemies, and the way we have tilted the picture all of Islam is our enemy... We make the laws we expect the world to follow regardless of their laws which may be far older and more sacred... No one like feud justice, and most people,if given the opportunity gave up the right to immediate justice for the promise that the whole of society would make an issue of justice, and this is the social contract, the beginning of modern government... It is not as though no good came out of it... But no good has been for long forth coming because once there is law there will be people who turn law to their own benefit and care nothing for justice.
Quote:Just as in Athenian homicide law, murders should be avenged, and to do less is to live dishonoably, and to live dishonorably is to invite extinction... But, Athenian homicide law did not extend protection to slaves, because slaves were cut off from their communities. and thought of as having no family... The object of the law was not justice for all, but justice for Athenians, because with justice ended the need for blood feud and feud is the worst disruption for a settled people...When people think of the law as serving an individual purpose, or in our case, serving the needs of the rich against the poor, it becomes an impediment to justice and makes it all the more certain that people will settle accounts on their own...And there goes your society.I dont get this, you seem to be imposing notions of an universal morality, such as that killers should be killed.
Quote:Honor is a foolish concept to me. Wanting to be respected beyond what is pratically necessary for the society is unproductive. If you are a capable enginner and someone says you are not, its fine to disagree, but if someone says you are a douche, why raise a voice against it? Its their opinion, if they had not said it, you do not know. To wish to punish someone for calling you a douche is to wish to regulate what people think about you. Regulating what people think about us is impossible and ultimately leads to your own harm: Not only we lead people to hate us even more, but we may also make then hide that hate and reduce our ability to understand how those around us see us.
Off course, raising a voice against someone who calls you a douche is perfectly understandeable and human. But there is a point where honor protection leaves the field of the understandeable.
No primitive person would leave home without his honor...No one could live in their community without their honor... That is the meaning of our word: rehabilitate.... No one could be restored to their home, habitation, without their honor, so the word means: restored to honor... And we forget that in our treatment of prisoners and ex cons... We are too busy punishing them to bring them back into equality with us, so we pay a terrible price for our cruelty...
Honor, and morality come from a time without money and wealth as we know it... If a poor person has to leave home searching for food or wealth of any sort, he must leave women and children behind, and there the honor of ones neighbors and the high esteem they hold for you and yours is their sole protection... So how would such people view you if you let some one take your goods or kill your family with impunity??? That sort of action took the honor of a person as much a rape is thought to steal the honor of a woman even today... In the larger frame, individual honor translates into national honor, and in that sense, ethics resembles ethnic, for every community was judged by the quality of its individuals... We are moral as the price of membership in our communities... Try to join any club, or marry into any clan proclaming you will not be bound by any subjective morality, and expect to decide all your behavior for yourself based upon an individuals limited sight and knowledge... Societies Know more about what behavior is healthy, and what contributes to peace and the welbeing of society... Societies don't learn much, but they forget little...
You never seem to make any sense. Have you ever heard of ying and yang? The two items you list must necessarily exist together, because they are never separate. One without the other means you're dead.
Wow you do seem very bright in my opinion but I do question why you see no value in honor.
Yor quote [I suppose its better to not go down the meaning of honor as well. Then I think about it, there are so many meanings that I dont really know what it means, or is supposed to mean. Ultimately, its meaning doesnt really matters]
I wonder if you should have replied to the last as you did the first and that is, Your quote [There would be a point in discussing what meaning it should have though.]
Like our emotions, which are moral forms, they exist because we exist, and they must contribute to our survival or else we are wasting our time with them..
You really have gave some good thoughts to be thought about fido over the long period of time that you have been giving them! Great work and research that you have done.
Some may come behind this post to share their ignorance as to how you have it all wrong, just ignore them as they are acting out emotional and they have a reason to. It may not be a rational reason but it is a reason non the less.
