what is the best moral system

Be true to yourself and others
Do no harm
Be nice to everybody you meet
Don't talk down to people - even children
Listen
Be generous

c.i.

On an adjacent thread I asked the question-Is it morally good or bad to gratuitously consume fossil fuels?Judging from your posts relating to flying all around the world on a regular basis one can only presume you don't think it is harmful to anybody.

What is your position in view of your strictures posted above?

We should not have pre-set models of morals. We don't need pages upon pages of guidelines and codes to tell us what is right in any given situation. What we need is for each of us to have a sharp consiousness and the courage and oportunity to listen to it.

Even the points listed by cicerone imposter might be twisted into something negative if the situation allows for it. The danger is that once the code is written we start thinking differently. It's no longer a point to act correct, it's become more important to act according to the code. Then if, by manipulating the code with rethoric, you are able to do something twisted, it will still be morally sound to your mind.

You've prolly not recognized or acknowledge how this planet works; it's the economy, stupid! The fact that I find pleasure in traveling around the world is based on being frugal during our working years - that would have consumed raw materials earlier than later. All humans consume raw materials whether you approve of it or not. That's what makes the world go around for humans. Developed countries consume more than underdeveloped countries. Trying to equate my lifestyof today is based on relative wealth; nothing more, nothing less.

By my consumption, I help with the economy of those working in the leisure industries. Some countries like Egypt and many in South America depend on tourism for their economy. I'll be leaving for Bali and Singapore tonite. Bali needs tourism to survive. Singapore is a wealthier country, but tourism is important none-the-less. Disneyland and Great America parks in the US also help our economy.

Your assumption that I am "harming" the world is based on ignorance. My stopping to travel will not affect the world consumption of raw materials by any significant amount.

c.i.

Didn't the French aristocracy pre revolution not make roughly similar points?

Do you mean the economy long term or short term?

Your ability to fly has nothing to do with your frugality.You could justify hiring a team of catamites on that argument.Your ability is based on airplane technology and a number of other things.
Frugality can result in lots of different outcomes.My hope is that my frugality will benefit others.I do know that a long-haul flight consumes about 20,000 gallons of fuel on the outward trip.This is dumped into the atmosphere as poisonous gases and reduces sunlight penetration often over countries that can least afford such things.As does the process of making it from crude oil which itself has problems on the supply side.I'll refrain from discussing those.You do know I hope that sunlight consists of a range of wavelengths some of which are invisible and that there is already a deterioration of some of them as a result of jet travel the consequences of which we do not yet know.

I also have difficulty with your connection between frugality and your pleasure.That is too complex a matter as well.It does seem that you express a determination to consume raw materials whenever it is.You make it sound like a job.A duty even.I will admit that my failing to follow your example,and I can easily afford to,is partly caused by my finding where I am to be a perfectly adequate place to
spend my time and my inability to pack a suitcase except under the direst necessity.And anyway I might be missed or,heaven forbid,needed.

I'm afraid that I think a large passenger plane is very similar to a flying pig from what I have heard first hand of the guzzling and the method of dropping the waste out as it goes on whoever happens to be underneath.I also think that being 8 miles up at 500 mph is a somewhat grotesque position for a human being to find himself in.

If you think Bali needs tourism to survive you must have a definition of Bali which eludes me.Are you suggesting that if Bali had a massive outbreak of some disease such as chicken flu,as they call it,and nobody went there,it would die.

I know all humans consume raw materials.It is a question of how much.If everybody in the world consumed at the rate you are defending I think you would find that nights would last all day.And that would be harmful.So what you are defending is the right of the privileged to do it which I accept from a legal point of view but not from a moral point of view.

Your assumption that I made the assumption that you are harming the world is incorrect.I simply asked in view of the ethical ideas you put forward.

You certainly have tried to talk down to me in your last post.To think that I,spendius,would be persuaded to your point of view by your surprisingly ill-written post and ridiculous arguments is arrogance of a very high order.

I am well aware that other like minded posters may rush in to support you-they would wouldn't they.

I'll ask again seeing that you didn't answer.Is it morally good or bad to gratuitously consume fossil fuels?The question has nothing to do with your personal circumstances or predilictions or your view of how an economy works.It is a thread dealing with morality not hedonistic materialism for the few.

Was it Goethe or Nietzsche who said that the trouble with man is that he can't sit quietly in his room.

Enjoy your trip.

You have a personal choice not to fly, but in the overall scheme of things, your choice won't make any difference to this world. There are millions of people flying every day; one more or less doesn't mean anything to our environment. If you feel so guilty about airplane polution, don't fly.

Chicken flu and Bali tourism is a silly assumption.

Consuming fossil fuels has nothing to do with morality. Killing for oil has a morality issue.

You live in a different world from the rest of us. Your questions are inane and stupid.

My morality has nothing to do with you or anybody else. Live with it.

c.i.

I can live with it alright.



It makes a difference to me.I keep my con
tribution to the shiteheap to a minimum.It will make a small difference to the world and if others reading this are persuaded they will be added in.I always have them in mind when I write on a public forum of any sort just like those you persuade will make their difference.

Thanks for defining morality-what millions of people do.



It isn't guilt.It's just common sense to me.




That's been in the news-that's all.How about civil war.Silly it isn't.



You have to get it to consume it and getting it involves killing.In fact the consumption greed may well drive the determination to get it.



Who exactly is this "us".If anything is "inane and stupid" it is using those sorts of epithets on a serious thread and especially when your moral creed includes not talking down and listening and being nice to everyone you meet.It turns out your moral creed only applies to those you approve of.

Your morality does have something to do with me.You placed it on the thread for a start.And if your plane goes overhead I'll be getting a small part of your detritus and so will my friends along with mankind in general most of whom never fly.

Re: what is the best moral system


ellohowareyouisyourtypingimproving

Re: what is the best moral system


how is you intellect inproving?

Listen logicU

JJ has this thing about typing.I don't think it's a fetish.Not yet at least.

We can hope that he'll stop.

I for one, prefer a moral system based on truth.

Who's truth?

Re: what is the best moral system


i ts aa boou tmu ch t h e sammeta hankyoou

Re: what is the best moral system


what about your attitude?

Re: what is the best moral system


n0 CHAN GETHE ERE

Re: what is the best moral system


what about your lack of enthusiasm?

Hey easy on the quotes. I was almost sucked into the screen when I saw that post

The truth, not what a person merely thinks is true.

Anyways, I'd say Kantian deontology (the basic principles) is the best so far.

Sorry, Spendius, when you typed who's truth, did you mean whose truth? or who is truth?