Objectivism, what do you think?

[Djoser]

Ugh, never liked Utilitarianism. It's like "the greatest good" to the extreme.

There shouldn't be any underlying moral motive to perform certain actions. Just for the sake of and/or the benefit of the person we're helping out.

[Fuzzly Bear]

i don't see the point in arguing for the fact that killing babies is inherently wrong if people are going to have to do it anyway. is it so wrong to do it if they have no choice, is it then immoral?

if people get together and sit down and decide upon a moral code, then surely their morality is a construct? can you really arrive upon what is moral through logic and reasoning? human beings are not rational creatures. they may be able to think up an ideal moral code (or a utopia) but they're not going to be able to follow that through.


blah blah blah morality ethics bullshit what is good anyway who gives a fuck whatever

---

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/...t+at+this/

[Asshole]

(08-29-2011 05:57 AM)Djoser Wrote:  Just for the sake of and/or the benefit of the person we're helping out.

seeing each person as an ends instead of a mean? that's called kantianism

[shakur420]

Yeah, I agree, if they get together and decide, then it's a construct, a law, not an absolute. Of course. What if we think of a human who is isolated? Away from these constructs. Won't they have this automatic response to protect their baby? It's when they get together with people and someone convinces them that sacrificing their baby is somehow correct, part of "society's" moral code, for survival, tribute, national security (lol), whatever. Isn't it then that people ignore the basic logic we all understand? The logic that you don't kill babies?

Our societies bomb the fuck out of civilian populations, yet we still have an underlying moral code that we shouldn't kill innocents, right? How do we account for this? I suspect it's because of those constructs. Because people in society get together and try to convince us that our logic is correct - don't kill - but there are exceptions, determined by them. It seems to me at least that it's those constructs that take us away from our natural tendencies. Again, we can try to hypothesis with cases of isolation. When a guy like Crocodile Dundee comes into the city, when he sees a hungry kid on the street, what does he do? He feeds him, right? When a kid, like that kid from "The Jungle Book", comes into "civilization", and sees hunger and poverty everywhere, what's his first reaction going to be? Feed them, right? Feed them all. It's when someone convinces him that it's not "viable" or "realistic" and that he must "accept it", when he's faced with a specific education, a propaganda, a construct, that he begins to ignore his elementary logic, no?

lol, anyone with real life examples is welcome to add, I feel like kind of a chump referencing a cartoon and movie character.

[Asshole]

and we need some social constructs, else our experiment lasting the whole length of behaviorly modern humanity into dialectic materialism will be a failure

[Djoser]

Social constructs are inevitable. Cuss words are construct and so on

What Shak wrote reminded me of something. If a child or people are left alone and not told what is right and wrong, what will their morals be? Will they even have morals? Will they be able to tell us, "this is wrong" and "this is right"? What you're told as to what is right and wrong, which influences your morals, stays within you for awhile before you develop thought for yourself. Then what you see in society plus your own personal experience, you begin to challenge some of those thoughts, then creating your own. Do we have these morals because we're told about right and wrong? If so, then would that be evidence for morals being relevant throughout and so called moral truths being nonexistent?

[shakur420]

^Yeah, that's what I mean. I think there are some things, like killing babies, that isolated people will automatically recognize. Though again, no concrete evidence for it, but I think you could argue it. I tend to lean that way.

[Fuzzly Bear]

it's a mighty big assumption

is it morality or is it wanting someone to help out hunting/gathering/whatever

[1871]

Some people are born with morals some without.

Morals come from empathy and political morals from deviousness.

Political morals come from religious morals which came from the idea that some people were born with morals and some without.