0
   

Human Nature, A Paradox.

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 06:32 pm
binnyboy wrote:
Quote:
You can argue that the AMORAL folks are the result of somewhat unnatural, to our species, circumstances.

So, here, by unnatural, you mean atypical. And I will agree that I am the result of atypical circumstances. But not drastically. I was once a christian and would still believe in all that hooey with morals along with it if I had not slowly but surely realized it was baloney.


Hmmm - I wish the circumstances were a damn sight MORE atypical.

I do wonder if we are discussing the same thing, though, Binnyboy.

Can you tell me more about what you mean by amoral?

Do you have any ethics by which you live?

Like - and I so do not mean to be offensive here, I am just trying to figure out parameters - but, for instance, would you have sex with a five year old, if you wanted to, and knew you could get away with it?

If you knew you could safely steal all your employer's money, would you?

If your employer is a person, and would be destroyed by the act, would you still do it?

Would you kill someone you were angry with if you knew you could get away with it?
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 01:52 pm
Quote:
Let's look in our own society (I guess these would be sub-clumps). There is one clump that believes that our Country should be based on religious believe. They feel homosexuality is immoral. There is another clump that as their view of "freedom" and "rights".

So how do we work out these beliefs? Is there a coming together with singing and hugs? No.

Each side yells at the other "fanatic!" or "godless!". One side wants to eliminate "secularism", the other side wants to eliminate "fundamentalism". Even within our ordered, the basic process is to discredit, defeat and eliminate the other belief system.


Of course disagreements will occur as much as disagreements between quantum mechanics and einstein's theories had existed. As I have said before most cultures basically have the same core of morality but the difference comes in the presence of "exceptions". Most religious beliefs have more basis on metaphysical assumptions of a God than on actual moral reasoning. Although it might have started out as moral reasoning.

The denial of homosexuality comes because of fear, not because of moral dillemma.

Quote:
Look at the terror war.

The West believes that they are moral and that the actions of Al Qaeda are amoral. Guess what, the followers of Al Qaeda believe that they are on the side of morality fighting against the evil West. If you think about it you will realize that "they" have as strong a belief that "they" are right and that their enemy is evil as "we" do.

Do you think this will become one clump? No. Eventually one of these clumps will defeat (and hopefully assimilate) the other. But the loser will without doubt need to give up much of their system of beliefs to submit to the winner.


It is possible for people to be misguided in their thinking of what is right. If you look at the leaders of these terror movements, do you actually think that all they're after is what they think is "right"? I think that they want power, and perhaps does so out of narcisstic, nationalistic or religious pride more than anything else. They brainwashed people to follow them as much as Hitler tricked the Germans into believing that Jews are the source of their problems. Like my History teacher once said, many times in history, the truly evil people hides behind the misguided majority. They command and control, but often do not do the dirty works himself/herself.

Do I know whether the West is right in being in the Middle East? No, I don't know, because I do not have all the facts needed to make such a judgment. What I know, however, is that these terrorists in killing innocent people have done something wrong.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 02:11 pm
Ray wrote:
It is possible for people to be misguided in their thinking of what is right. If you look at the leaders of these terror movements, do you actually think that all they're after is what they think is "right"?



Yes, I do.


Quote:
I think that they want power, and perhaps does so out of narcisstic, nationalistic or religious pride more than anything else.


Really!

That is very interesting.

I think you are wrong.


Quote:
They brainwashed people to follow them as much as Hitler tricked the Germans into believing that Jews are the source of their problems. Like my History teacher once said, many times in history, the truly evil people hides behind the misguided majority. They command and control, but often do not do the dirty works himself/herself.


Sounds like your history teacher thought in very simplistic terms...much as you seem to be doing.



Quote:
Do I know whether the West is right in being in the Middle East? No, I don't know, because I do not have all the facts needed to make such a judgment. What I know, however, is that these terrorists in killing innocent people have done something wrong.


Not in their opinion.

And you seem to be putting an awful lot of weight on your opinion.

You are actually asserting that you KNOW they have done something wrong. MY GUESS: You don't know that at all.
0 Replies
 
Vivien
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 02:12 pm
dys and dlowan I agree with you
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 04:21 pm
Quote:
Yes, I do.


This is as valid as what I just said.

Quote:
Really!

That is very interesting.

I think you are wrong.

It's good that you have an opinion, but so do I.

Quote:
Sounds like your history teacher thought in very simplistic terms...much as you seem to be doing.


Oh no, he was talking about dictatorships, which seems to be mostly the case in history. I was the one that applied it to the terrorists, let's not drag my teacher here.

Quote:
Not in their opinion.

And you seem to be putting an awful lot of weight on your opinion.

You are actually asserting that you KNOW they have done something wrong. MY GUESS: You don't know that at all.


Of course I was stating an opinion and not a fact. If I wanted to put in fact, I'd put in numbers, and historical events. I didn't think I need to state that I was merely stating a hypothesis.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 05:37 pm
Ray wrote:
Quote:
Yes, I do.


This is as valid as what I just said.


You asked a question...I answered it.

Quote:
Quote:
Really!

That is very interesting.

I think you are wrong.

It's good that you have an opinion, but so do I.


No problem.

But you were going on about what motivates the terrorists...and I am of the opinion that you are wrong.

Just wanted to let your know that.


Quote:
Quote:
Sounds like your history teacher thought in very simplistic terms...much as you seem to be doing.


Oh no, he was talking about dictatorships, which seems to be mostly the case in history. I was the one that applied it to the terrorists, let's not drag my teacher here.



You wrote: "Like my History teacher once said, many times in history, the truly evil people hides behind the misguided majority. They command and control, but often do not do the dirty works himself/herself."

If that is an accurate recitation of what your history teacher once said...then it is my opinion that your history teacher was thinking in very simplistic terms.

I can only consider what you wrote...and you did write that.

In any case, I did not "drag your history teacher here"...you did.


Quote:
Quote:
Not in their opinion.

And you seem to be putting an awful lot of weight on your opinion.

You are actually asserting that you KNOW they have done something wrong. MY GUESS: You don't know that at all.


Of course I was stating an opinion and not a fact. If I wanted to put in fact, I'd put in numbers, and historical events. I didn't think I need to state that I was merely stating a hypothesis.


Well...once again, I can only go by what you actually wrote...rather than what you now say you meant.

You wrote: " What I know, however, is that these terrorists in killing innocent people have done something wrong."

That does not sound like someone offering an opinion. It sounds as though someone is revealing a truth that he KNOWS. In fact...you actually use the words "What I know..." So save your protestations of offering opinions...unless you actually do offer them as opinions.

You are correct that you did not need to state that you were merely stating a hypothesis...but when you state a hypothesis (without stating that it is a hypothesis) it makes a hell of a lot more sense not to state it as something you know.



Interesting discussion, Ray. Do continue it.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 05:50 pm
Where's Dys?

Did we scare him away?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 06:01 pm
um well yeah
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 06:03 pm
Quote:
But you were going on about what motivates the terrorists...and I am of the opinion that you are wrong.


Fair enough. I was actually talking about the leaders, not the ones who followed them. I was trying to bring into people's attention that there is a probability of there being hidden motives in the attacks.

Quote:
You wrote: " What I know, however, is that these terrorists in killing innocent people have done something wrong."


Yes, I do know that "killing innocent people" is wrong. :wink:

I'll try to be more factual next time when stating something of strong claims...

Quote:
You wrote: "Like my History teacher once said, many times in history, the truly evil people hides behind the misguided majority. They command and control, but often do not do the dirty works himself/herself."

If that is an accurate recitation of what your history teacher once said...then it is my opinion that your history teacher was thinking in very simplistic terms.

I can only consider what you wrote...and you did write that.

In any case, I did not "drag your history teacher here"...you did.



It wasn't an accurate recitation, he was making a general analysis of famous 20th century dictators. Those who done more horrible things in history have people to command and usually command them to do such.

Quote:
In order to make one clump from muliple clumps, one clump must defeat another-- either swallow it, or eliminate it. This is almost always what has happened in history. (Look at the history of your country and mine which would be quite different now had this not happened in each case).


My country is formed by provincial unity... But yeah, that seems to be a case in history, but it does not need to be, and it definitely does not occur every time.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 08:21 pm
Good enough, Ray.

We'll talk in another thread, I'm sure.


Hey Dys...Happy Birthday, young man!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2004 09:45 pm
actually, it this topic should settle down to a moderate level of simple discussion I will probably join in. (that was my intent in the beginning, I don't have an agenda)
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 08:18 pm
Well, dys, that'll just bloody well have to wait! Smile

dlowan, what I mean by amoral:
I have no answer to the question of "what should be?"
That makes me amoral.

The consequences of this are more than even I have fully comprehended. It makes me into a hypocrite on at least a few levels, I'm sure. But that's something that applies to most folks, so I've accepted it. When you ask, would I commit those crimes, my answer is no. But I can't give you a very convincing reason why. I CAN tell you that I think it would be in my interest to act in a way that supports a social contract. Not so much golden rule; more like the best future would result if everyone acted in the way I'm acting now. But see, that is putting a value on a certain future. Honestly, my ideal future includes me and the rest of humanity as cyborgs all connected on the www. Drastic changes will follow, of course, but that's the imaginable part of what I think. But clearly this future is not better. It is just different from scorched earth, apocolypse style.

So that is my dilemma. I have a human need to put value on things and order my surroundings. But it may very well be that after we reach my goal (assuming we do so in my lifetime) and I go from being a slave to my emotions to actually making well-informed decisions uninfluenced by hormones that I will decide that all actions are fruitless and terminate my own existence.

And I know that makes it sound like I'm completely screwed up and obviously wrong. But I think I'm closer to the right track than anybody I've ever heard (unless the buddhists are right, which is the only belief set I would give half a chance).
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2004 08:37 pm
Fascinating, Binny!!!

Well, you are not "amoral" - I didn't think you were - and your answers about the acts I questioned you about show that.

I will look at your answer better later.

I agree with you about the Buddhist teaching - and I think you are quite logical in your dilemma.
0 Replies
 
binnyboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2005 11:49 pm
dys, I'd like to start 'er back up but I'm not too good at the whole simple discussion thing Smile It's probably that I'm so often wrong and I'm always busy trying to rationalize myself that it gets very complicated.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 11:18:34