If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
yes, but they didn't pop into the world with all that moral baggage, and it's certainly the case that taking from babies elicits a very strong response once they have hold of something. So all these things have to start somewhere.
Is that true though? Reasoning isn't something we develop, it's our ground state of being. We pay attention first and foremost to the world around us, and all the socialisation comes later to try and stop us doing it.
Which leads to a great problem (at least for me). As those do not exist, do i do the thing I feel to be moral, or do I abandon all morality and just become another sociopath, or do I find something else to subjugate my will to? Or do i make a play to grab some of those reins of power knowing full well that it's all bollocks but I'll get a damn comfortable life provided for by idiots who don't think as clearly as I do?
It takes 14 years to turn a normal human being into the broken robot that schooling produces. Children naturally question everything, you have to more or less beat it out of them. Early on in life you learn that the only law is power, due to the fact that your parents will force you to do things even though the contradict themselves, even though it makes no sense and even though you have no wish to.
This is then reinforced through school etc.
I can see why you might think that, but you are wrong. A really quick way to learn is to copy what other people do. So people naturaly do this. Those actions and ways of thinking which are most useful survive, those which are least useful die off. So while it might look like many people are taking part in action to make them a "society", they are actually all individually doing what they have learned but simultaneously.
This is the basis of meme theory, as I understand it.
Yes, and we usually go along with things we know are utter crap - like ideas about god and countries and so forth. Once we have gone along with them a little way, we have invested in them and are reluctant to let them go. Especially if we have done things for those fictions, or getting some benefit from them and some horrible person comes along and removes the rationale behind them, you are just left with the horrible actions you have undertaken and no justification.
This might explain some of the physchosomatic responses I have gotten from people whio claim monsy from me for nothing when I ask simple questions. "Oh shit, i am just a thief" **hyperventialate**
That's government run education systems for you.
do you believe in anything Klintock?
Yeah. Everything.
And then I go and check to see what's actually true and what isn't out in the real world. I guess my primary belief is in the real world.
But enough of that...
If we are saying someone does have this universal morality of doing no harm to any person or sentient being or living being...then they are a Bhuddist.
Ok, it's a matrix style universe or only exists in the thought of a frog in a well. It's got nothing to do with the question. Does our now apparently simulated world have a universal morality?
Except of course that Bhuddism is a religion and like all religions made up of utter crap, and unverifiable presumptions that the sane wouldn't give house room.
oh well carry on.
Weeeeelll as politics is just an argument about who is going to be violently assaulted and stolen from theres nothing moral about it.
From what I can gather from the two opposing viewpoints, no one who has posted here should be in favour of any government of any type.
Yeah, Kant, mediocre in my opinion, but i guess since i wasnt grasped by what he had to say, that might affect my perspective on it.
Glad you asked.
Here's why.
If there isn't a universal moral code, then the governments attempts to create one are immoral. They should be leaving everyone alone.
If there is a universal moral code the governments blatant ignorings of it are immoral. They should be following the code.
"Thou shall not steal"
Unless you have a costume on and are called "taxman."
"Thous shall not kill"
Unless you have a costume on and are called "soldier."
Its a universal moral rule.
Its not a universal morale code as it is. Certainly not everyone believes it.
So do I. But then I think that there is a universalmoral code.
Sonow we have a universal rule that you should do what's morally best in any situation you find yourself. You've also added that you should be the one inventing and choosing both the rules and which of those you should follow AND you make excuse for them being broken depending on circumstances.
Does government allow for any of this? No, of course not, it's their way or jail.
Now, this I find interesting. I think that killing is always wrong on some fundamental level, but sometimes understandable. That doesn't make it right, it just means we wouldn't feel it useful to punish such action.
In other words we would forgive such action.
And again, you wouldn't have that choice. When the draft is used it isn't voluntary.
I can get what you are saying and have to ask the question why government is exempt from this general moral pronouncement? They'll kill if they want, they do it every day.
I can see that, but whay would they remain exempt from the morality that they saw fit to impose on everyone else? theres no need to actively break all normal rules in order to defend them, is there?
I don't need to actively seek out burglars to defend my house, I don't need to go around murdering people to protect myself from murderers, I don't need to steal from all my neighbours to guard against theives.......so why does the government need to do all those things?
This still doesn't answer the question of why one group would be exempt from all those rules............aside from the fact that if all those things have been discovered from long experimentation to be bad then why is anyone doing them?
No worries.. but......could you throw some hefty verbals into the mix please? I am missing Blagsta.......
I like you Scarlett, this is an attitude i can personally relate to and agree with!
but as you still have the freedom to choose to go along with the draft or face whatever the punishment is, it is still voluntary.
Say the man who wants to impose his moral code on everyone. :rolleyes:
You don't have the choice of whether to be punished or not, so there is no choice on your part.
What about pre or post-human existence?
Conflict isn't always based on national interests. If killing was deemed universally wrong, society without government would be even more untenable. How easy would it be for gangsters to take over and starting running their own form of government if the people refused to resist?
If killing is always morally wrong, then how are people to resist attacks upon their natural rights? What happens when someone tries to violently steal, attacks or tries to impose authority over you?
It can't be, they don't exist.
If tiwas seen as universally wrong, totally impossible. Government of any kind would be completely impossible.
Ooooh good point. I think this would fall into the category of understandable wrong, not actual right. I guess the dividing line would be around the initiation of violence. I can't see any system apart from government that makes it wrong to protect yourself against a thief.
You resist them. Of course that assumes that you have correctyl identified what is going on. Goverments are great at hiding theft, murder etc under a cloak of words to make them more acceptable. theft becomes taxation, and we have to have that don't we, or our favourite TV programme won't get made.....murder becomes different from killing etc etc
Without government the worst you can have is a riot.