Need some backup! Ethical Dilema

[Shahed]

Hi Guys !

Hope you a great evening ! I sure did (maybe more about that later).

So as some of you are aware I've been heavy in the dating scene and I'm learning a hell of a lot about women, much more than I possibly ever could have otherwise.

Some guys are approaching me in bars and clubs and trying to befriend me to use what I know. I have absolutely no problem at all with teaching (what little) I know. However a couple of weeks ago I went to Brussels, and walked into a cafe on the main square. Saw a few babes, went straight in, had a blast with them. I took the number of the girl I found most attractive, physically emotionally and intelectually and moved over to an empty table (that was to see if she'll come and join me). As I sat down this young man, about 22, clean shaved baby face (guy's never been in a fight, lives with parents, well off), nice clothes but typical average nice guy outfit, with a little hint of bad boy (cowboy boots real low key, military-ish jacket which doesn't fit him at all, typical short hair gelled up, highstreet blue shirt). He asked me what I just did, and I told him: I got myself a date. Why ? She your girl ? he said no, apologised for asking, and said he was impressed with how I just walked up to the girls him and his friends had been eyeing all night. Well I told him, you shouldn't have been sitting there eyeing should you ? I felt like a fight was coming, when the chick I was hitting on came over and joined me at the table. The guy wanted to leave but I told her I'll get back to her in a few minutes. I don't shy from young wimps. The guy said he wanted me to show him how I did it. I asked him to sit down and ordered a beer for both of us.

Anyway... too much detail so long story short. He wants a girl that has a boyfriend who studies about 2 hours drive away from her. He seemed all right at first but when he said this I felt uneasy. He told me the whole story and I know exactly what to do to get him the girl. I offered to come over to his university and hand her to him, provided he show me around campus, so I can get some dates of my own. This was bait too, to see if he has any values at all. From the story he told me, it's obvious he can get the girl easy. Now check this, the guy says he is a virgin. And I believe him because he just acts it. He's far from a man yet, very far.

So, I just carried on the conversation getting to know as much as I could about him. Then my chick came back, I told him to wait for me, he went back to his friends. After another 30 minutes with the girl, her friends wanted to leave (since they were just sitting there watching me make out with her). Anyway, we set up a low key coffee meet for next week and she left. I got back to the young guy and offered him a drive home. Got to know a bit more about him on the way. he was almost desperate to see me in action again, telling me about all kinds of joints we could go to, together. He had also studied seduction and was able to name some of the techniques I had used.

He's ok but his obsession with having his first time to be another man's woman is getting to me. He doesn't know anything about their relationship, what is 100% CLEAR is that she will cheat on her guy. I can tell this with absolute certainty from what he has told me. He wants me to help him get better with women, wants to go out with me this weekend and I "instruct" him on how to pick up women. But I feel he's a bad guy, the kind of guy who, when he has power will abuse it. If I show him what I know I cannot be sure that he will not use it to harm others, but I cannot know for sure because he's such a baby, you can't really tell.

What would you guys do ? Should I help him ?

[Shahed]

You know what.. forget it. I just reread my post and the answer is obvious.

[LeftEyeNine]

A "good guy" wouldn't come over and ask "how you did it all".

Good guys generally are instructed when the chat flows that direction; when their flaws are exposed or when they confess them right away.

After all, I wouldn't help someone to be a "hunter". Especially when you have a "bad feeling" about it.

[Shahed]

Sure, many good guys with confidence do come up and say wow that was brilliant, how the hell did you do that. They have the courage and decency to come up and comment rather than be confined to the dark shadows of jealously and anger. Their objective is fair: find and attract the woman (or women) of their choice. This is every man's right just as much as it is every woman's right to find and attract the man (or men) she desires.

But they don't say hey please tell me how I can steal a woman from another man.

[Papewaio]

Do a Cheney and shoot your fellow hunter. If he is a bad guy load him with bad advice and let him sink.

PS I love reading your stories, remind me of my Uncles ones (and these were 15 year olds picking up women in their mid twenties).

[Shahed]

Sounds like he was the playing the right game!. That would be quite an achievement, or maybe not. Clearly nobody ever mentioned what a joy it is for a woman to know or think she is your first.

[Papewaio]

He was 15, 5' 11", fully grown and had access to the family hotel, yacht and speedboat and could grow a mustache like Tom Selleck (who he had an uncanny resemblance too). Confident funny guy who is a real charmer and likes to see people pleased and happy.

[pevergreen]

Hey Sinan, why dont you throw me a PM detailing some strategies. :wink:

[Vladimir]

Only use your powers for good! Or see if you want the girl for yourself...

It seems like you made your choice though. What an interesting cafe.

[SwordsMaster]

Dude, one of my rules is to never meddle in a relationship. If she was single, that's fair game. And this kid of yours, is better off staying a virgin i think. When he gets desperate enough, he'll do something. If all he can muster is stand in the corner and watch, then he's not hit bottom yet.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Question isn't "should I help him", question is what he will offer you in return.

$1000? Ok, then it's worth your time to help this poor man. $100? Nope, he's obviously an immoral maniac, who deserves to fail. :clown:

[Innocentius]

Am I the only one who is disgusted by human interaction? I just keep thinking of monkeys during the mating season.

Since I have no ethical views what so ever, I think you shouldn't help him and steal his girl (since you're apparently capable of "handing her to him"). But it seems like you've already made your choice.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Am I the only one who is disgusted by human interaction? I just keep thinking of monkeys during the mating season.

Since I have no ethical views what so ever, I think you shouldn't help him and steal his girl (since you're apparently capable of "handing her to him"). But it seems like you've already made your choice.
Monkeys are nicer, they don't play around with feelings etc., but stick to the point. Simple rule: beat the competing men, and she'll like you. Fail to beat them, and she'll not like you. Or, if you're a bonobo, just wait till the others are finished with the woman, then step forward and make the facial expression for "now it's my turn, I wanna do it too", and she nods eagerly, making the expression for "of course" :book: :balloon2:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Sure, many good guys with confidence do come up and say wow that was brilliant, how the hell did you do that. They have the courage and decency to come up and comment rather than be confined to the dark shadows of jealously and anger. Their objective is fair: find and attract the woman (or women) of their choice. This is every man's right just as much as it is every woman's right to find and attract the man (or men) she desires.

But they don't say hey please tell me how I can steal a woman from another man.
I do agree that stealing a woman from a relationship is a bad idea, but let me ask you the following question:

If some men but not all are taught during life about certain tricks for attracting women, and others are not, is the competition really fair and based on love, personality and personal properties alone?

I think that if some mean learn these tricks, then why shouldn't all learn them? Or conversely, if only a few know them, perhaps nobody should use them?

I also think it's not only a matter of learning tricks for how to attract women in itself, but also how to make yourself look like known familiar stereotypes that the women are confident with from mass medial influence telling what is an ideal man, just like mass media affects which women men go after. It's not just about showing yourself a good guy, but also about showing how much like Brad Pitt you are, or how much like the latest reality TV idol you are, etc.

It seems the only way to find out this "code" is to go to pubs and bars regularly and just experiment. But not all people can afford regular pub and bar visits. Does that mean that only rich men should be allowed to attract women?

I think it all comes down to that in the end, the code should either be there for all, or for none, or women should learn how to see through it. Moreover, I don't think the code can be successfully taught from one man to another, there's a lot of experience and personal practise of getting faster reflexes and greater confidence etc., and some tips don't work for all people.

In the end, I think it all comes down to that dating can't be a fair judgement of people by the opposite sex as soon as you leave the state of monkeys, because of these effects. Rather, the rise of civilisation means an end to true love and true attraction, and a rise of artificial substitutes to it. Substitutes which are distributed in likewise artificial ways. Who - whether man or woman - can really judge from the outside whether one man is more morally correct than another in terms of some love affair? Just add on top of all the problems above with fairness, the problems of people who have gone through traumas, bullying etc. How will they gain confidence in front of women, no matter how honest their ideas? How do you know this man you met isn't like Goethe's "Werther" and the woman he longs for like Goethe's "Lotte"?

All I can say for sure is that I think inactivity and trying to avoid being drawn into the whole thing is the only safe bet from a moral point of view. All other options are morally risky. If you go in and play God to judge over this man or his rival based on some impressions from his surface, you're on very slippery moral grounds.

[SwordsMaster]

Man, it's way simpler than that. It isn't about tricks or a facade. It's about becoming attractive in the same way as you become fit by hitting the gym, you can become attractive by hitting on the ladies. Ok, not exactly, but the wordplay was too good to miss. What I mean is, attractiveness is something that can be acquired with practice. It's about learning to think in a specific way. About yourself as much as about them.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, that's pretty much what I said: practise and experience, learning by doing. But the parable as above applies: a man who can't afford to go to the gym, can not easily become as strong as he who can. A man who can't afford to go to pubs and bars regularly, can't get the practise as easily. And so, monetary injustice dictates "attraction". Is it then truly pure attraction? I think not - I think it's a phenomenon somewhat correlated to attraction, and that's all.

[SwordsMaster]

Yes, that's pretty much what I said: practise and experience, learning by doing. But the parable as above applies: a man who can't afford to go to the gym, can not easily become as strong as he who can. A man who can't afford to go to pubs and bars regularly, can't get the practise as easily. And so, monetary injustice dictates "attraction". Is it then truly pure attraction? I think not - I think it's a phenomenon somewhat correlated to attraction, and that's all.

Well, if we no longer have to battle toothy animals, then Darwinism must take a new definition, doesn't it?

[Geoffrey S]

First impression: he wants her to the exclusion of any other women. Not a good sign, but one seen far too often. It's self-denial and it always shows. If he doesn't have the guts to approach any woman what gives him the arrogance to think this one person would be interested in him?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well, if we no longer have to battle toothy animals, then Darwinism must take a new definition, doesn't it?
The question is, is the new Darwinism we create (indeliberately) a sound one? Many countries have economical systems which make it really difficult to move from one class to another in less than 3 generations. Thus individuals aren't really judged any more. That creates a very different evolutionary pressure from the one present in a monkey society, and it has taken different forms at different times in history. Reading some parts of history, I am truly disgusted by which selection pressures we've created for ourselves. We've made great massrapists and massmurderers the most successful, men who would make Sodom and Gomorra look cute, while we've seen the death of men and women who were an example of virtue.

Besides, is any man-created and man-decided type of evolutionary pressure - even if indeliberately created - morally justifiable? I can't think of any form of evolutionary pressure except the one present in a monkey type of society, that could be justified by any valid argumentation that doesn't include a notion that some people are, for no good reason whatsoever, worth more than others.

Indeed, if you select who should succeed, you must remember that you simultaneously select who should die. That borders to atrocies such as genocide. Does any human being have the right to play God in that manner? Or should we leave that judgement to nature/God, i.e. a judge that is a neutral, outside part, and that we know will give quite good minimum guarantees in fairness, and that will favor some degree of morality over none at all. I think the latter. I also think civilisation will only truly come to peace once it learns how to implement the truly amazing features present in the natural monkey society within the limitations imposed by civilisation. Only then will we truly have overcome the curse that man received some 10,000 years ago.

Until then, there will always be "maniacs" standing outside of society. Men who commit atrocies to switch from oppressing one group (his own) to another, and if they are victorious they are called heroes, if they lose, they are called massmurderers. And the masses keep misunderstanding the true cause of their actions - not the oppression of their group or the new group to be oppressed, but the fundamental failure in civilisation that civilisation has so far never been able to give rise to a society form which is morally justifiable or morally legitimate. As long as there's no legitimacy for the society form, there will always be revolts. And both the rebels and the rulers of such a society are equally foolish and brutish. When society changes so slowly that individuals can't easily rise from one class to another in a lifetime, but only groups as a whole can do so by revolt, then is it truly surprising that it is groups who overthrow groups, and groups to which evil men belong, not these evil individuals themselves, that become victims of vae victis when a revolt is successful? And that innocent people die again and again while people just keep saying "we can't let it happen again", but often take part in repeating it a few years later, or can't prevent their children from doing it. I say civilisation is a curse, and the sooner the greatest minds among mankind start realizing this and seek solutions to how to fix this, the better. I don't possess the tools for that work. But I can say for sure that I will greet that man as a Messiah, who has them, and uses them, because he will be able to put an end to the worst of the atrocies and injustices that haunt the world at present.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Edit

[Husar]

What gives anyone the arrogance to think that anyone else might be interested in them?

[Innocentius]

Until then, there will always be "maniacs" standing outside of society. Men who commit atrocies to switch from oppressing one group (his own) to another, and if they are victorious they are called heroes, if they lose, they are called massmurderers. And the masses keep misunderstanding the true cause of their actions - not the oppression of their group or the new group to be oppressed, but the fundamental failure in civilisation that civilisation has so far never been able to give rise to a society form which is morally justifiable or morally legitimate. As long as there's no legitimacy for the society form, there will always be revolts. And both the rebels and the rulers of such a society are equally foolish and brutish. When society changes so slowly that individuals can't easily rise from one class to another in a lifetime, but only groups as a whole can do so by revolt, then is it truly surprising that it is groups who overthrow groups, and groups to which evil men belong, not these evil individuals themselves, that become victims of vae victis when a revolt is successful? And that innocent people die again and again while people just keep saying "we can't let it happen again", but often take part in repeating it a few years later, or can't prevent their children from doing it. I say civilisation is a curse, and the sooner the greatest minds among mankind start realizing this and seek solutions to how to fix this, the better. I don't possess the tools for that work. But I can say for sure that I will great that man as a Messiah, who has them, and uses them, because he will be able to put an end to the worst of the atrocies and injustices that haunt the world at present.

Agreed that civilisation is a curse (even though I'm no primitivist) I think sitting around waiting for a Messiah to appear/rise to power and fix all problems with the help from some smart guys is no way of solving a problem that will most likely solve itself. Your idea reminds me of The Grand Inquisitor, but in the end I believe (and sort of hope) that mankind will just destroy itself. Probably not during our lifespans, possibly not within the next millenium, but eventually. Sitting around waiting for the sun to kill us sounds a lot more boring than just nuking each other.

Revolts a predestined to occur, since systems will always create outcasts. We can't escape systems, not even if we decided to let everything go, went out into the woods and just sat there until we died (which wouldn't take too long). The only way to minimize the effect of such revolts is by pure opression, where no "morals" or "ethics" can be allowed to stay in the way for the strive of total peace and calmaty, but I guess that idea doesn't appeal to too many people.

I kind of lost track on what I wanted to say, but I suppose there'sa simpler way to express your theory: Successful guys create angry unsuccessful guys. I'll return to this subject once I can remember what I intended to write.


What gives anyone the arrogance to think that anyone else might be interested in them?

Testosterone and a lack of self-insight. Can a man who truly knows himself take himself seriously?

[Husar]

Testosterone and a lack of self-insight. Can a man who truly knows himself take himself seriously?
Yes. Can a man who is confined to his own senses really believe the information he gets is true? And if he can't then how does he know he exists? And why is it different with women?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Agreed that civilisation is a curse (even though I'm no primitivist) I think sitting around waiting for a Messiah to appear/rise to power and fix all problems with the help from some smart guys is no way of solving a problem that will most likely solve itself. Your idea reminds me of The Grand Inquisitor, but in the end I believe (and sort of hope) that mankind will just destroy itself. Probably not during our lifespans, possibly not within the next millenium, but eventually. Sitting around waiting for the sun to kill us sounds a lot more boring than just nuking each other.

Well, what has been done is a quite rigorous problem description and analysis (i.e., there are many and long lists of world problems). What can be done in this lifetime is to structure the parts of the various problems in a good way, summarize them and seek common patterns, as well as seeking game theory and system theory solutions (by making computer simulations) to see what possibilities exist for eliminating harmful and unjust pressures and incentives, and sort of get back to a position where judgement from man to man is replaced by judgement by an independent, neutral, objective authority. Somewhat like the idea of "Helios" from Deus Ex, but in the end I think the laws of nature and reality are the only fair judges, and the only realistic way of implementing a guaranteed to be fair and justifiable judgement to replace the current man-made judgement.

So it's not only about waiting for a Messiah, though I fear there may be no human being alive at present who would be capable of doing the above-mentioned work, and we can't even be sure the above-mentioned is really the thing to do. But scientifically and philosophically speaking, it's probably the best that ordinary humans can do at present.



I kind of lost track on what I wanted to say, but I suppose there'sa simpler way to express your theory: Successful guys create angry unsuccessful guys. I'll return to this subject once I can remember what I intended to write.

Yes, but I have noticed one thing. When you see a successful guy that you know worked hard to get to where he is, and where he despite this skillful fighting has still not succumbed to foolish pride and arrogance, but realizes that he on behalf of his success is no more worth than any other human being, then you can feel nothing but admiration. When there's like this, it's not not the biased judgement of men, but only the fair judgement of either neutral parties such as nature or man-made laws who by chance just happened to hit the head of the nail this once. And then it is difficult to feel as strongly aggravated about his success, even when trying hard to do so, as when the success is undeserved, or deserved but the possibility isn't open to yourself.

Civilisation was probably created by the despicable thought that nature and reality - that which is - is an unfair judge, and that these individuals themselves who broke the society of nature, thought that their own laws were better. The good thing is that people with such beliefs can be more easily contained and suppressed than others, because their so unrighteous desires are much weaker than the desire for true justice of those masses who have been victims of civilisation. And if people go back to a state of justice and a neutral fair judge, and in doing so still remember the horrors of the civilisation they left, then it would be possible to prevent these greedy individuals that soon or later appear everywhere from overthrowing the neutral judge to take that role for themselves.

The big problem is that civilisation can't be easily abandoned. It is not sufficient to go back to nature, for instance. A solution must take into account that modern technology will still exist in that scenario, for instance. And so the problem gets quite complex.



but in the end I believe (and sort of hope) that mankind will just destroy itself

If all righteousness dies, then I too believe (and hope) that this will be the consequence. Without anyone striving to move away from Nash equilibria, there can at the end of time only be at most one man surviving, and one man is not enough to repopulate earth. But I hope much more strongly for a world in which righteousness will defeat greed, and where the curse of civilisation can be lifted.

[Viking]

Well, what has been done is a quite rigorous problem description and analysis (i.e., there are many and long lists of world problems). What can be done in this lifetime is to structure the parts of the various problems in a good way, summarize them and seek common patterns, as well as seeking game theory and system theory solutions (by making computer simulations) to see what possibilities exist for eliminating harmful and unjust pressures and incentives, and sort of get back to a position where judgement from man to man is replaced by judgement by an independent, neutral, objective authority. Somewhat like the idea of "Helios" from Deus Ex, but in the end I think the laws of nature and reality are the only fair judges, and the only realistic way of implementing a guaranteed to be fair and justifiable judgement to replace the current man-made judgement.

So it's not only about waiting for a Messiah, though I fear there may be no human being alive at present who would be capable of doing the above-mentioned work, and we can't even be sure the above-mentioned is really the thing to do. But scientifically and philosophically speaking, it's probably the best that ordinary humans can do at present.


Yes, but I have noticed one thing. When you see a successful guy that you know worked hard to get to where he is, and where he despite this skillful fighting has still not succumbed to foolish pride and arrogance, but realizes that he on behalf of his success is no more worth than any other human being, then you can feel nothing but admiration. When there's like this, it's not not the biased judgement of men, but only the fair judgement of either neutral parties such as nature or man-made laws who by chance just happened to hit the head of the nail this once. And then it is difficult to feel as strongly aggravated about his success, even when trying hard to do so, as when the success is undeserved, or deserved but the possibility isn't open to yourself.

Civilisation was probably created by the despicable thought that nature and reality - that which is - is an unfair judge, and that these individuals themselves who broke the society of nature, thought that their own laws were better. The good thing is that people with such beliefs can be more easily contained and suppressed than others, because their so unrighteous desires are much weaker than the desire for true justice of those masses who have been victims of civilisation. And if people go back to a state of justice and a neutral fair judge, and in doing so still remember the horrors of the civilisation they left, then it would be possible to prevent these greedy individuals that soon or later appear everywhere from overthrowing the neutral judge to take that role for themselves.

The big problem is that civilisation can't be easily abandoned. It is not sufficient to go back to nature, for instance. A solution must take into account that modern technology will still exist in that scenario, for instance. And so the problem gets quite complex.


If all righteousness dies, then I too believe (and hope) that this will be the consequence. Without anyone striving to move away from Nash equilibria, there can at the end of time only be at most one man surviving, and one man is not enough to repopulate earth. But I hope much more strongly for a world in which righteousness will defeat greed, and where the curse of civilisation can be lifted.

No secular morales exist, you are striving for the impossible.

[Innocentius]

Well, what has been done is a quite rigorous problem description and analysis (i.e., there are many and long lists of world problems). What can be done in this lifetime is to structure the parts of the various problems in a good way, summarize them and seek common patterns, as well as seeking game theory and system theory solutions (by making computer simulations) to see what possibilities exist for eliminating harmful and unjust pressures and incentives, and sort of get back to a position where judgement from man to man is replaced by judgement by an independent, neutral, objective authority. Somewhat like the idea of "Helios" from Deus Ex, but in the end I think the laws of nature and reality are the only fair judges, and the only realistic way of implementing a guaranteed to be fair and justifiable judgement to replace the current man-made judgement.

How are we supposed to reach objectivity? Agreed that objectivity is something to strive for, but it is an unreachable goal as the human mind will always be limited by itself, thus excluding the option of a neutral authority. Subjectivity on the other hand can, is and must be cruel, but is the only viable option.

Nature will play its part whether we want it to or not.


Yes, but I have noticed one thing. When you see a successful guy that you know worked hard to get to where he is, and where he despite this skillful fighting has still not succumbed to foolish pride and arrogance, but realizes that he on behalf of his success is no more worth than any other human being, then you can feel nothing but admiration. When there's like this, it's not not the biased judgement of men, but only the fair judgement of either neutral parties such as nature or man-made laws who by chance just happened to hit the head of the nail this once. And then it is difficult to feel as strongly aggravated about his success, even when trying hard to do so, as when the success is undeserved, or deserved but the possibility isn't open to yourself.

I would not admire that person. True, he has reached a higher level of consciousness about himself and of the world, which would perhaps earn him my respect, but he is still a slave to society and "the system", with which I refer to pretty much everything: human behaviour, social rules and codes, nature's way etc. Only a truly free man could earn my personal admiration (again, it comes down to subjectivity), but since that is impossible, no person is worth anything, and the mere realization of this isn't enough to raise anyone above the rest. The very fact that you speak of admiration still means this person is superior to you, at least in your eyes.


Civilisation was probably created by the despicable thought that nature and reality - that which is - is an unfair judge, and that these individuals themselves who broke the society of nature, thought that their own laws were better. The good thing is that people with such beliefs can be more easily contained and suppressed than others, because their so unrighteous desires are much weaker than the desire for true justice of those masses who have been victims of civilisation. And if people go back to a state of justice and a neutral fair judge, and in doing so still remember the horrors of the civilisation they left, then it would be possible to prevent these greedy individuals that soon or later appear everywhere from overthrowing the neutral judge to take that role for themselves.

Go back? Man has never been free, and pre-civilized societies were still not fair, free and just. Going back also wouldn't help mankind, since we are all (apparently) determined to develope, in one way or the other. Why it is like that I can't say, but we always want to move from point A to point B (some want to move back to point -A). The only reasonable way to reach this neutrality is therefore to go directly to point 0 where there can be no judgement, as there is nothing to judge. No matter how long and hard we strive for it, even if we use the most humane or inhumane methods ever possible to imagine, we will never achieve what we want (in this case neutrality, objectivity and eternal bliss) since the strife itself is what makes us alive. No strife, no life. No life, no judgement (and therefore objectivity).


If all righteousness dies, then I too believe (and hope) that this will be the consequence. Without anyone striving to move away from Nash equilibria, there can at the end of time only be at most one man surviving, and one man is not enough to repopulate earth. But I hope much more strongly for a world in which righteousness will defeat greed, and where the curse of civilisation can be lifted.

Greed is just a sign of individual will to progress. I can't see what would be inheritantly negative about it.


No secular morales exist, you are striving for the impossible.

Untrue. It is very much possible to uphold and maintain morals while keeping God (short word for everything religious, in this case) out of it. The question is if morale is real at all and if we need it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No secular morales exist, you are striving for the impossible.
Monkeys don't have explicit religious morals, yet they have rules, because there are patterns of behavior that nature itself - their judgement - rewards and punishes, respectively. Universal secular moral values are a means, not an end. The end for us humans too is the justifiable judgement which we would like to create from universal secular moral values if we would manage to find them. But if we already have such a justifiable judgement, without knowing every detail about the moral values that judgement is based upon, we no longer need to search for universal secular moral values - a task which many philosophers have already failed at.

As it happens, the laws of nature is such a justifiable judgement, and what's more, the moral values it enforces (if you try to reconstruct what it rewards and punishes, respectively), lie very close to our emotional, instinctive morality, and is almost somewhat of an average of everybody's morality values today.

So, in this way, we circumvent the need for universal morality, because it's a justifiable judgement that is what we really seek, and we can obtain it in other ways than by finding a universal morality upon which we try to build a man-made judgement.

[Geoffrey S]

While I can see the point behind saying that no person is worth more or less than any other based on their achievements (since who can claim to be an objective judge?) the fact that people perceive themselves or others to be such is the driving force behind people even trying to surpass themselves and others. Being objective isn't attainable or even a good thing, in my opinion.

[Rodion Romanovich]

How are we supposed to reach objectivity? Agreed that objectivity is something to strive for, but it is an unreachable goal as the human mind will always be limited by itself, thus excluding the option of a neutral authority. Subjectivity on the other hand can, is and must be cruel, but is the only viable option.
[...]
Go back? Man has never been free, and pre-civilized societies were still not fair, free and just.

Edit: see post nr 27



I would not admire that person. True, he has reached a higher level of consciousness about himself and of the world, which would perhaps earn him my respect, but he is still a slave to society and "the system", with which I refer to pretty much everything: human behaviour, social rules and codes, nature's way etc.

The point was, the man/woman I described would have had to achieved this success in a fair society, in a fair competition. Fair, in the sense that the judgement was fair, i.e. that the judgement was justifiable. Then he doesn't need to be a slave to a despicable system, nor is he necessarily narrow-minded. He may be a slave to a fair judge, but what does that matter? We are all slaves to reality, nature and that-which-is, no matter what we choose to do. We neither can nor should try to deny reality, nature and that-which-is. I define freedom as "being slave to nothing else but reality, nature and that-which-is". The point was however, that the justifiability of nature as judge, is so strong that those who oppose nature and reality as judge, have very weak or no justification for doing so, and that it's hard to feel envy for those who succeed in such a system where the judgement was so justifiable.



Only a truly free man could earn my personal admiration (again, it comes down to subjectivity), but since that is impossible, no person is worth anything, and the mere realization of this isn't enough to raise anyone above the rest. The very fact that you speak of admiration still means this person is superior to you, at least in your eyes.

How would you define a "truly free man"?


Greed is just a sign of individual will to progress. I can't see what would be inheritantly negative about it.
Greed favors short-term thinking, often making people prepared to hurt themselves AND others for a short term goal, with the long term effect being ALL being worse off. Greed is what civilisation was built by and upon. Greed is suppressed by instinct even in the simplest of herd animals, and even in the most evil of humans you can think of. Because when evolution comes into play, the long term effects of actions strive to destroy greed. Just think of how many people you could theoretically have robbed and murdered today, if nothing that had happened a minute after doing it would have mattered to you. Try testing to think that way for a while. That is what greed is, but in practise it usually occurs on another time scale of course. Sometimes it's pleasure in 1 week traded against suffering in 1 year, sometimes it's pleasure in 5 years traded against suffering in 50 years, etc. Greed is not the same as ambition.

[Rodion Romanovich]

While I can see the point behind saying that no person is worth more or less than any other based on their achievements (since who can claim to be an objective judge?) the fact that people perceive themselves or others to be such is the driving force behind people even trying to surpass themselves and others. Being objective isn't attainable or even a good thing, in my opinion.
Well, individuals can still be subjective as much as they want, if the society is properly formed. To find a way of allowing this, and allowing stability against human fragility in moral values and weakness to various temptations, greed etc., is part of the core issue, I think. That's the very problem that needs to be solved. A hard problem, which we've not solved yet, but this may not be because it is impossible, but rather because we've not really ever made a serious enough attempt at solving it.

[Viking]

This is way^5 off-topic, by the way. :inquisitive:



Untrue. It is very much possible to uphold and maintain morals while keeping God (short word for everything religious, in this case) out of it. The question is if morale is real at all and if we need it.



Monkeys don't have explicit religious morals, yet they have rules. What we need isn't to discover secular morality rules, but to find a judge which can be justifiable - such as nature. Then we don't need to bother about which rules this judge will enforce. As it happens, our instincts are adapted to make us feel natural about following these rules in most cases (but not all), so the mindset part of the transition isn't difficult, as the moral rules actually enforced by this judge are almost the same as an average of the morality of all people on earth. Not exactly, but that doesn't matter. It's the fact that the judge is justifiable that makes the whole difference. A morality is a means, the judgement is the ends. If we can achieve the ends - a justifiable judgement, without this particular means (secular morality), we wouldn't need secular morality.

Ok, I put it wrong. What I really meant is close to this:


How are we supposed to reach objectivity? Agreed that objectivity is something to strive for, but it is an unreachable goal as the human mind will always be limited by itself, thus excluding the option of a neutral authority. Subjectivity on the other hand can, is and must be cruel, but is the only viable option.


No secular AND objective morales exist. Voilà.


If there is anything man should be afraid of, it is this

https://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2572/060719itokawa02kj1.jpg


and this

https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2937/magnetarpanel2smej1.jpg

Morales gone wrong happpens all the time and can be corrected at any time; while these things, on the other hand, needs some love and caring; you'll only have one chance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yeah, now we're deep into OT land, but ah well...



How are we supposed to reach objectivity? Agreed that objectivity is something to strive for, but it is an unreachable goal as the human mind will always be limited by itself, thus excluding the option of a neutral authority. Subjectivity on the other hand can, is and must be cruel, but is the only viable option.

For now, only thing I claim to be sure of is that the pre-civilisation society was so great in so many ways that it's absolutely amazing, and that indeed nature is a justifiable judge, and so it is much better than anything society has ever been able to offer, and it was a society where people could and should act by their most basic instincts, and where this actually worked, because the instincts had been adapted to this way of life. Unlike modern society, where primitive basic instincts lead to people exploiting all the loopholes of society, and commit atrocies.

The challenge is the question: can something similar to the pre-civilisation situation where nature was the judge be created today? You answer that it is impossible to do it. What I think is that it seems very likely that this is the case, but it's not be proven that it's impossible. Moreover, there are varying degrees of subjectivity. For instance, if you make a study and it will only pass if ratified by people from many different interest groups, subjectivity can't as easily pass. Or, for example, if a study is made as a pure mathematical or logical problem, isolated from its real-life setting, you can at least make that part of the study objective, even if there's some subjectivity in how the problem was modeled. But in short, there ARE many known ways of fighting and limiting subjectivity by means of organising society in a particular way. Balance of power, terror balance, treaties to exchange offensive strength on both sides for increased defensive strength on both sides, etc. All of these, and many others, can force people to strive for more objectivity or face tremendous suffering or destruction. So there's not a hopeless mess in which no objectivity is possible, rather it's a hopeless mess in that it seems we've still not found any substitute justifiable judge for nature, which we abandoned when creating civilisation.

[Samurai Waki]

Steal my woman? I'm a barbarian, you can try, but i'll tell you how its going to work out in the end...

Thats the foundation of a long, lasting life. Don't walk into the Lion's Den. You never know what kind of person you're really dealing with. Especially us young-uns.