Morality

[Montmorency]

ITT: One side makes shit arguments, and the other responds in kind; we all end up swimming in shit.

A lot of otherwise-clever people here are putting together posts so stupid they're not even worth parodying; every step is incorrect.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Joke is on you, because I am not a clever man. You have been wasting time reading shit from a moron.

EDIT: But maybe you can lay the foundation for a non-shit discussion.

[Montmorency]

Not on a mobile I won't. I might start a clean thread in some days.

[Greyblades]

vis-a-vis piracy: give me another way to voice my displeasure to a multi billion dollar company that might actually reach the people in charge and I might consider piracy a wrong. Alternatively give me the oppertunity to get my money back when a product bought turns out to be dog.

[a completely inoffensive name]

vis-a-vis piracy: give me another way to voice my displeasure to a multi billion dollar company that might actually reach the people in charge and I might consider piracy a wrong. Alternatively give me the oppertunity to get my money back when a product bought turns out to be dog.

You could simply refuse to buy and go about your day.

Due to monetary constraints I have not watched any 'superhero' movie of any kind since iron man 2, with the sole exception of the Dark Knight Rises. It really has not impacted me negatively in the slightest, so I don't understand why people assert that pop culture phenomenons should be freely available to everyone.

[Greyblades]

You could simply refuse to buy and go about your day.

I could, but then they wont care about me. I play their games; if it's good and they arent dicks I pay them, otherwise they get another digit to add to the "imaginary profits lost" counter. It's infinitely more effective than the completely legal venues of complaint.

[Kralizec]

I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.

The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.

Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".

[a completely inoffensive name]

I could, but then they wont care about me. I play their games; if it's good and they arent dicks I pay them, otherwise they get another digit to add to the "imaginary profits lost" counter. It's infinitely more effective than the completely legal venues of complaint.

They don't care about you now. What's the difference?

[Greyblades]

They don't care about you now. What's the difference?

If they didnt care they wouldn't spend millions on failing DRM and lawsuits.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If they didnt care they wouldn't spend millions on failing DRM and lawsuits.

Your argument is nonsensical. This is close to the discussion I had with my ex.

I don't like the product I am getting. I want to express that I don't want this product. If I do not buy this product they will continue making the product because I am just one person. If I pirate the product that I hate they will make the product even worse with DRM but at least they acknowledge I exist. It boggles the mind. If you do not like what you are getting, why pirate it in the first place? If you do like it, why is it not worth the asking price? Piracy is thinly veiled greed.

EDIT: Let me express it in this way. Give an argument as to why you are entitled to express your displeasure towards the companies in this particular manner. I can of course tell my local police my displeasure by throwing eggs at the police station, but no matter how legitimate the complaint, that is not acceptable.

[Kralizec]

Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".

That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.

[Greyblades]

I don't like the product I am getting. I want to express that I don't want this product.

Not neccissarily: sometimes I like the prduct but I dont want my money going to the maker because they are abhorrent.

If I do not buy this product they will continue making the product because I am just one person.

Indeed, I am under no delusion that my actions will hurt them any more than they let it. But they keep letting it

If I pirate the product that I hate they will make the product even worse with DRM but at least they acknowledge I exist.

Again, I dont neccissarily hate the product, most of the time I pirate it to find out if I hate it or not. And if they ruin it with DRM it is irrelevant to me because unless I legally buy it I dont have to experience the DRM.

It boggles the mind. If you do not like what you are getting, why pirate it in the first place? If you do like it, why is it not worth the asking price? Piracy is thinly veiled greed.

Actually in my case piracy is thinly veiled Vengeance, I pay those who do good in my eyes, to hell with the rest.

I have been burned many times, and I will not allow myself to continue being burned. Complaining does nothing, boycotting does nothing, piracy for some reason gets them angry. When you want to change something which do you choose?

Let me express it in this way. Give an argument as to why you are entitled to express your displeasure towards the companies in this particular manner. I can of course tell my local police my displeasure by throwing eggs at the police station, but no matter how legitimate the complaint, that is not acceptable.

...You come from a nation founded on petty rebellion, and you tell me what I am doing is unacceptable?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.

The more specific the example, the less of a problem it becomes philosophically imo. You still do not have to reply even if he is threatening you. You always have the ability to be silent. Posing a scenario where the murderer somehow has the ability to compel you to say something starts to become silly. If the point of the example is that there is a situation where there are only two possible choices, lie or have the man be killed then I still don't see the problem that people have. You have a forced a situation where someone's duty is to be broken. Categorical Imperative in its first formulation is to treat people as ends in themselves not as a means to an end. Given the choice between the death of a rational being or lying, you must lie because to let the person die for the sake of upholding duty is in fact breaking your duty by treating his life as a means to an end (satisfying duty).

Not a perfect answer obviously. But then again, I try to live according to Aristotle's ethics than Kant.

[Ironside]

That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.

So where in the Bible is cocaine classed as immoral? And why is cocaine classed as immoral, while alchohol isn't?

Where's slavery immoral?

Were you a blank sheet before you red those passages and then suddenly came to the conclusion that they were immoral actions?

Moral relativism doesn't mean that there's no morals. It's an aknowledgement that the basis of morals comes from the dominating thoughts and emotions that runs through society. Those change with time and place. The diadvantage is that it's easier to claim that something you do is moral, since that argument can always be told (although far from won).
The advantage is that there's no armour of God to wear. The one where's someones actions are always good because they're done under the banner of God, while filing the serial numbers off, and you'll have that obvious villain for your next novel (OT God's acts, done by a fantasy god? Evil god. Not fullblown, but evil nevertheless). Christian sects are fond of making that holy man's coveting of wives into a virtue for example.

Both foundations will have people that yarns that all their acts or wants are moral, and they will then try to justify their act as moral (the lesser version is to acknowledge that the act is evil, but justified).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Again, I dont neccissarily hate the product, most of the time I pirate it to find out if I hate it or not. And if they ruin it with DRM it is irrelevant to me because unless I legally buy it I dont have to experience the DRM.

Actually in my case piracy is thinly veiled Vengeance, I pay those who do good in my eyes, to hell with the rest.

I have been burned many times, and I will not allow myself to continue being burned. Complaining does nothing, boycotting does nothing, piracy for some reason gets them angry. When you want to change something which do you choose?

Clarify, how are you getting "burned" what exactly is the problem if you admit that the product itself is not necessarily the problem. Is it the fact that you don't get to know whether you will like the product before hand? It's entertainment dude. I'm not going to get mad if I pay to enter Laugh Factory and walk out with merely a handful of chuckles.

...You come from a nation where your most memorable event is civil disobediance, and you tell me what I am doing is unacceptable?

Civil disobedience is not inherently righteous. Also, there is a clear distinction between private and government policies with the role of civil disobedience.

[HoreTore]

Reg. piracy:

Nationalize everything. Make everything free, pay the artists through taxation. A perfect solution, fit for anyone named Stalin. I see no reason why a world-famous singer/guitar player/actor/whatever should be excused from working part time at the local Wal-Mart to make ends meet.

Show-biz is an utter waste of money. The less money they get, the better it is.

Piracy is only really morally problematic if you respect the free market. Being a stinkin' commie, I don't have much respect for the free market.

[Greyblades]

Clarify, how are you getting "burned" what exactly is the problem if you admit that the product itself is not necessarily the problem. Is it the fact that you don't get to know whether you will like the product before hand? It's entertainment dude. I'm not going to get mad if I pay to enter Laugh Factory and walk out with merely a handful of chuckles.

No, but when I pay for a copy of frankenstien and the last act is replaced by 50 shades of grey I am going to get dissapointed. When I pay to watch star wars and I get some 5 year old's reenactment I get annoyed. When I go to see a play on the intricacies of the elizabethan court and it turns out the message is: the sky is green, I'm goinng to get mad. This is what we get in the gaming industry: unfinished tripe and abrupt changes in quality. Buggy games and crappy stories all due to cut corners, and precisely because it is entertainment I am not allowed to get my money back for false advertising.

I have been burned many times by great series ending on shit, great promise not being delivered and because I couldnt find out without playing or watching to the end I ended up spending money on products I would have otherwise not have touched with a 10 foot pole. So yeah, I have been burned. Piracy lets me test things before putting down money and it gives me the only way of getting a response from a willfully deaf industry.

Civil disobedience is not inherently righteous. Also, there is a clear distinction between private and government policies with the role of civil disobedience.

My apologies, I should have said: petty rebellion.

[rvg]

So where in the Bible is cocaine classed as immoral? And why is cocaine classed as immoral, while alchohol isn't?

The Bible frowns upon intoxication regardless of its source. Cocaine in itself is neither moral or immoral, it's just a chemical. Same with alcohol.

Where's slavery immoral?

Are you talking about the Ante-bellum South chattel slavery? It's not addressed in the Bible because it did not exist at the time.

Were you a blank sheet before you red those passages and then suddenly came to the conclusion that they were immoral actions?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Moral relativism doesn't mean that there's no morals.

I never claimed otherwise.

The advantage is that there's no armour of God to wear. The one where's someones actions are always good because they're done under the banner of God, while filing the serial numbers off, and you'll have that obvious villain for your next novel (OT God's acts, done by a fantasy god? Evil god. Not fullblown, but evil nevertheless). Christian sects are fond of making that holy man's coveting of wives into a virtue for example.

People can claim whatever they want in the name of whatever they want. That doesn't change the morality of what they do. Also, when I claim that morals laws are absolute, that doesn't mean that I actually know what they are. I only assert that they exist and make a guess about what they might be.

Both foundations will have people that yarns that all their acts or wants are moral, and they will then try to justify their act as moral (the lesser version is to acknowledge that the act is evil, but justified).

Well, that's humans for you, nothing new here.

[The Lurker Below]

This topic is always distressing for because my observations in life have been this:

1. Religion seems nonsensical and silly to me.
2. "Good Christians" are better people than "good atheists".
3. I can't reconcile the two previous statements.

Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.

Concerning #2 I share a similar experience. May I also make a couple more observations about these Good Christians:

1 - they don't evangelize and push their specific religion on others. They focus on the values, not the motivation.
2 - I've only heard a couple of these people suggest that religion should be in schools and have heard others argue distinctly against religion in schools.

[lars573]

Are you talking about the Ante-bellum South chattel slavery? It's not addressed in the Bible because it did not exist at the time.

You should look up the definition of chattel slavery then. It's totally addressed in the Bible because it very much did exist at the time. There are passages in there about it being a slaves duty to obey their master.

[HoreTore]

Enslaving foreign populations to work in agriculture has existed for thousands of years.


Anyway, if rvg claims that the bible is silent on the type of slavery which existed in the US, then how on earth can the bible be said to be a timeless moral guide...?

[rvg]

You should look up the definition of chattel slavery then. It's totally addressed in the Bible because it very much did exist at the time. There are passages in there about it being a slaves duty to obey their master.

No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.

[HoreTore]

No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.

Both the Greeks and the Romans had common forms of slavery without time limits.

[Kralizec]

No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.

I don't really see what the difference is...except that in ancient times slaves would occasionally be emancipated by their masters, as a reward for lifelong service or affectionate reasons.

[rvg]

I don't really see what the difference is...except that in ancient times slaves would occasionally be emancipated by their masters, as a reward for lifelong service or affectionate reasons.

That's the thing: it wasn't a lifelong service, it was a very specific time frame, usually 7 years. Afterwards the slave was able to declare himself free and walk away.

[Kralizec]

As far as I know that is not correct, I could be wrong though. Emancipation was usually a voluntary gesture.

I do know that children of slaves, at least in Rome, were likewise considered the property of the master.

[rvg]

As far as I know that is not correct, I could be wrong though. Emancipation was usually a voluntary gesture.

I do know that children of slaves, at least in Rome, were likewise considered the property of the master.

Not sure about Rome, I'm talking about Israel and Judea.

[HoreTore]

Not sure about Rome, I'm talking about Israel and Judea.

Irrelevant. All the early church fathers knew about the slavery going on around them.

[rvg]

Irrelevant. All the early church fathers knew about the slavery going on around them.

Your observation is irrelevant.