|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
No, I'm not talking to you. I was addressing Skorpivo's comment about values that are objectively beneficial to one's own existence.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Ethics [Re: dblaney]
#5438895 - 03/24/06 04:40 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Alright, let's say I'm the leader of a powerful country.
You're already starting your scenario with a dictatorship? Already one step in the wrong direction - but I digress..
I happen to notice that there's a large group of people who are being extremely lazy, are not really contributing to society as a whole, and are corrupting alot of people.
If it is a powerful country as you say, then I would surmise that such a group of people remain proportionate to the group of people who are actually productive.
Using rationality, I reason that I should get rid of these people somehow, because they are not contributing to the productivity of society, and are actually being detrimental to it.
BlueCoyote is right after all. Your rationality has not been matured if that would be your decision. I would rationally decide that: There will generally always be a group of leechers and looters. But to initiate force against their own consent would not solve the problem. It would only lead to more problems, down the road. Teaching and promoting a philosophy that is consistent with their goals, lives and with reality is the moral way to pro-actively counteract such behavior. To initiate force upon them is to destroy their ability to reason, thus hindering their survival. Not to mention such acts open the door for other evils, thus hindering your own survival, one way or another.
It seems to me like this idea for a backbone of any ethical system could be used to justify practically any act, such as the Holocaust.
Let us not forget that this ethical standard is contingent upon one fundamental choice: To further one's existence. [Acts such as the Holocaust are extremely detrimental to one's own survival - not only because of the obvious, but because such an act already stems from a malovelent premise.]
One exists. One is aware of their own existence. One decides to further their own existence. One realizes that to live, one must make choices. One realizes that some choices promote one's existence, some choices destroy one's existence. One learns that one must make choices that promote one's existence. One learns that one must have standards that gauge and measure one's actions. One discovers that there are values that promote the existence of the rational homo-sapien. One discovers that there are virtues that promote the existence of the rational homo-sapien. One makes their choices in accordance to these virtues to achieve these values.
But for one to do this consistently, consciously and productively, is not always an easy task, and often requires hard effort. But in comparison to the effort and suffering caused by lack of objective principles of ethics, dedication to one's own survival and -most importantly of all- fully conscious, focused thinking, this is quite a minimal price to pay and profitable choice to make.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
I would rationally decide that: There will generally always be a group of leechers and looters. But to initiate force against their own consent would not solve the problem. It would only lead to more problems, down the road. Teaching and promoting a philosophy that is consistent with their goals, lives and with reality is the moral way to pro-actively counteract such behavior. To initiate force upon them is to destroy their ability to reason, thus hindering their survival. Not to mention such acts open the door for other evils, thus hindering your own survival, one way or another.
Oh, brave new world! 
Let us not forget that this ethical standard is contingent upon one fundamental choice: To further one's existence.
So essentially you're saying that self-interest is the most important virtue? That in any situation, if in doubt, act in self-interest? What if an entire country is plotting to kill or assassinate me? Clearly that's not in my self-interest, would your system not then justify invading or destroying that country?
What about a smaller scale? For instance if there was a gang that wanted to hurt or even kill me and my family. Going to the police would be futile as they wouldn't be able to constantly protect me and why would I want to join some witness relocation program? The death of my family and I certainly wouldn't be in my self-interest. So I would have to pre-emptively attack or kill the entire gang in order to secure my self-interest.
If one acts with complete selfishness and is completely self-interested, then I still see many violent and inhumane actions as being justifiable by your system.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Corporal Kielbasa

Registered: 05/29/04
Posts: 17,235
|
Re: Ethics [Re: daimyo]
#5439636 - 03/24/06 09:30 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Where did morals come from? trial and error, more so it was about survival, groups of humans needed a basic law a way to get along with other tribal communities, weather its for trade, or for marriage, basic edicate and communication skills were needed. Or are they subjective/learned?
Learned, the ones that learned survived and over threw lesser advanced Homo Sp., by being able to get along socially amongst the group, and other groups of the same species. This guideline of respect and communication among the groups opened trading,news reports, shared technologies and arts, broadened the gene pool.
Spouts of violence have always been part of it. Breaking points are part of human nature. People can disrespect, disrespect gets retaliation. Weather your the ruler of a kingdom or a bum in an ally none is above this.
|
|