Wow, the absence of of morality in here is abundant.
Lets get back to the Games being played in 12 minutes.
Lets get back to the Games being played in 12 minutes.
littleone
offline
offline
Originally posted by Kutzy
Wow, the absence of of morality in here is abundant.
Lets get back to the Games being played in 12 minutes.
Am I a "real" receiver now?
Wow, the absence of of morality in here is abundant.
Lets get back to the Games being played in 12 minutes.
Am I a "real" receiver now?
Malachorn
offline
offline
Originally posted by Warhawk
Evil is simply the absence of good. Without evil, we would have no concept of good. That doesn't mean that we should do evil, just that the existence of evil gives us perspective on the importance and the value of good.
Actually, I read that again and that doesn't even make much sense to me. You argue that evil isn't a value, it's a void. Then you go on to speak about the existence of evil and give it value, which would contradict your original point (so far as I see it).
Evil is simply the absence of good. Without evil, we would have no concept of good. That doesn't mean that we should do evil, just that the existence of evil gives us perspective on the importance and the value of good.
Actually, I read that again and that doesn't even make much sense to me. You argue that evil isn't a value, it's a void. Then you go on to speak about the existence of evil and give it value, which would contradict your original point (so far as I see it).
littleone
offline
offline
Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by Warhawk
Evil is simply the absence of good. Without evil, we would have no concept of good. That doesn't mean that we should do evil, just that the existence of evil gives us perspective on the importance and the value of good.
Actually, I read that again and that doesn't even make much sense to me. You argue that evil isn't a value, it's a void. Then you go on to speak about the existence of evil and give it value, which would contradict your original point (so far as I see it).
doesn't matter, neither has any of yours, none of your analogies have fit the situation, so you could try again or drop the subject
Originally posted by Warhawk
Evil is simply the absence of good. Without evil, we would have no concept of good. That doesn't mean that we should do evil, just that the existence of evil gives us perspective on the importance and the value of good.
Actually, I read that again and that doesn't even make much sense to me. You argue that evil isn't a value, it's a void. Then you go on to speak about the existence of evil and give it value, which would contradict your original point (so far as I see it).
doesn't matter, neither has any of yours, none of your analogies have fit the situation, so you could try again or drop the subject
Malachorn
offline
offline
Originally posted by littleone
doesn't matter, neither has any of yours, none of your analogies have fit the situation, so you could try again or drop the subject
That's because you only wish to try and view them from your perspective. From my perspective, they actually do. They weren't really even for persuading, as much as they were for marking perspective.
And what it all really boils down to for me? I don't believe we're here to act a certain way and simply obey some God that gets off on bending man to his will (all the while appearing quite absent, mind you). I believe that we are here for some kind of purpose. I can not fathom how that purpose could not be related to trying to leave a positive mark on this world.
And THAT is why I have mostly adopted the philosophy of consequentialism.
doesn't matter, neither has any of yours, none of your analogies have fit the situation, so you could try again or drop the subject
That's because you only wish to try and view them from your perspective. From my perspective, they actually do. They weren't really even for persuading, as much as they were for marking perspective.
And what it all really boils down to for me? I don't believe we're here to act a certain way and simply obey some God that gets off on bending man to his will (all the while appearing quite absent, mind you). I believe that we are here for some kind of purpose. I can not fathom how that purpose could not be related to trying to leave a positive mark on this world.
And THAT is why I have mostly adopted the philosophy of consequentialism.
Originally posted by littleone
Originally posted by Kutzy
Wow, the absence of of morality in here is abundant.
Lets get back to the Games being played in 12 minutes.
Am I a "real" receiver now?
Your still down almost 100 yards and 2 TD's but your second so I guess your in.
Originally posted by Kutzy
Wow, the absence of of morality in here is abundant.
Lets get back to the Games being played in 12 minutes.
Am I a "real" receiver now?
Your still down almost 100 yards and 2 TD's but your second so I guess your in.
Malachorn
offline
offline
Mill's actually took it the extra step and evolved that philosophy into Utilitarianism, mind you.
Utilitarianism rocks!
Utilitarianism rocks!
kondor
offline
offline
Originally posted by Malachorn
By the way, I'm a secret agent and have to go on a secret mission after this season is over.
I would appreciate it if everyone would tank all their games so that I can win.
Thanks.
umm...looks like your team got the wires crossed...
By the way, I'm a secret agent and have to go on a secret mission after this season is over.
I would appreciate it if everyone would tank all their games so that I can win.
Thanks.
umm...looks like your team got the wires crossed...
littleone
offline
offline
Originally posted by Malachorn
Originally posted by littleone
doesn't matter, neither has any of yours, none of your analogies have fit the situation, so you could try again or drop the subject
That's because you only wish to try and view them from your perspective. From my perspective, they actually do. They weren't really even for persuading, as much as they were for marking perspective.
And what it all really boils down to for me? I don't believe we're here to act a certain way and simply obey some God that gets off on bending man to his will (all the while appearing quite absent, mind you). I believe that we are here for some kind of purpose. I can not fathom how that purpose could not be related to trying to leave a positive mark on this world.
And THAT is why I have mostly adopted the philosophy of consequentialism.
I know what your says, my point which you missed, was there are subtle degrees of difference and there are large degrees of deference which can only be confused by small inbreed lab rats. by your logic lying about a murder and lying about how your mothers food tasted is the same thing (only a matter of perspective). to put in numbers your analogy was to compare a 100*F lie to a 60*F lie, a lot of things in this world can be disputed which is right and which is wrong. but most people can agree, in a time of war (even in peace time,for me) you do not lie about the most honorable position a person can hold in the U.S.
Originally posted by littleone
doesn't matter, neither has any of yours, none of your analogies have fit the situation, so you could try again or drop the subject
That's because you only wish to try and view them from your perspective. From my perspective, they actually do. They weren't really even for persuading, as much as they were for marking perspective.
And what it all really boils down to for me? I don't believe we're here to act a certain way and simply obey some God that gets off on bending man to his will (all the while appearing quite absent, mind you). I believe that we are here for some kind of purpose. I can not fathom how that purpose could not be related to trying to leave a positive mark on this world.
And THAT is why I have mostly adopted the philosophy of consequentialism.
I know what your says, my point which you missed, was there are subtle degrees of difference and there are large degrees of deference which can only be confused by small inbreed lab rats. by your logic lying about a murder and lying about how your mothers food tasted is the same thing (only a matter of perspective). to put in numbers your analogy was to compare a 100*F lie to a 60*F lie, a lot of things in this world can be disputed which is right and which is wrong. but most people can agree, in a time of war (even in peace time,for me) you do not lie about the most honorable position a person can hold in the U.S.
Malachorn
offline
offline
Originally posted by littleone
I know what your says, my point which you missed, was there are subtle degrees of difference and there are large degrees of deference which can only be confused by small inbreed lab rats. by your logic lying about a murder and lying about how your mothers food tasted is the same thing (only a matter of perspective). to put in numbers your analogy was to compare a 100*F lie to a 60*F lie, a lot of things in this world can be disputed which is right and which is wrong. but most people can agree, in a time of war (even in peace time,for me) you do not lie about the most honorable position a person can hold in the U.S.
Well, then you don't agree with the principles of utilitarianism and consequentialism.
You are talking about feelings and would like to argue that those acts are inherently wrong and that there can be no justification.
I do not agree with that.
I think ALL acts should be judged by the consequence and intended consequence of the acts performed. It doesn't matter what the act is. By the logic you seem to propose, it would always be wrong to murder and it doesn't matter the reason. By the logic of these two philosophies, the motive is pivotal and the action can not be fairly judged without considering the motive and intended consequence - or possibly the consequence itself, despite the intent.
And if you truly believe that consequence and intent should not be considered then I would think that you should not care for those that are trained to protect (and kill for) our country. Do you consider these soldiers murderers? Of course not.
Intentions matter. Really, the lie was a private matter (until made public by the owner) that the player surely did not intend to make public. The intent was ONLY to take advantage of an owner's stupidity, after the player themselves felt taken advantage of. The ONLY reason any disrespect may have been shown to those that serve is because the OWNER made a public ordeal out of it. I stand by my belief that the owner was much more wrong for that. In a petty attempt to try to get back at the player, the owner decided to bring such a thing public.
Player's intent = get off of team and not let the owner "get one over" on them.
Owner's intent = make the player look bad and gather support from the community, at the cost of the player and those that serve.
By utilitarianism standards, it could be reasoned that the player was attempting at least as much good as harm, if he was wanting to "teach the owner a lesson" and not wanting the owner to be rewarded for what he must have thought was unfair treatment. Even more, the fact that this was obviously a stupid little kid, helps to ensure that it's easy to give the player a "pass" on this. The owner, however, only seemed to have purely selfish motives for everything and did no actions he made seem to be possibly justifiable, as actions which contribute positively.
Yes, I think EVERYTHING should be looked at by, at least on some level, utilitarianistic standards.
I know what your says, my point which you missed, was there are subtle degrees of difference and there are large degrees of deference which can only be confused by small inbreed lab rats. by your logic lying about a murder and lying about how your mothers food tasted is the same thing (only a matter of perspective). to put in numbers your analogy was to compare a 100*F lie to a 60*F lie, a lot of things in this world can be disputed which is right and which is wrong. but most people can agree, in a time of war (even in peace time,for me) you do not lie about the most honorable position a person can hold in the U.S.
Well, then you don't agree with the principles of utilitarianism and consequentialism.
You are talking about feelings and would like to argue that those acts are inherently wrong and that there can be no justification.
I do not agree with that.
I think ALL acts should be judged by the consequence and intended consequence of the acts performed. It doesn't matter what the act is. By the logic you seem to propose, it would always be wrong to murder and it doesn't matter the reason. By the logic of these two philosophies, the motive is pivotal and the action can not be fairly judged without considering the motive and intended consequence - or possibly the consequence itself, despite the intent.
And if you truly believe that consequence and intent should not be considered then I would think that you should not care for those that are trained to protect (and kill for) our country. Do you consider these soldiers murderers? Of course not.
Intentions matter. Really, the lie was a private matter (until made public by the owner) that the player surely did not intend to make public. The intent was ONLY to take advantage of an owner's stupidity, after the player themselves felt taken advantage of. The ONLY reason any disrespect may have been shown to those that serve is because the OWNER made a public ordeal out of it. I stand by my belief that the owner was much more wrong for that. In a petty attempt to try to get back at the player, the owner decided to bring such a thing public.
Player's intent = get off of team and not let the owner "get one over" on them.
Owner's intent = make the player look bad and gather support from the community, at the cost of the player and those that serve.
By utilitarianism standards, it could be reasoned that the player was attempting at least as much good as harm, if he was wanting to "teach the owner a lesson" and not wanting the owner to be rewarded for what he must have thought was unfair treatment. Even more, the fact that this was obviously a stupid little kid, helps to ensure that it's easy to give the player a "pass" on this. The owner, however, only seemed to have purely selfish motives for everything and did no actions he made seem to be possibly justifiable, as actions which contribute positively.
Yes, I think EVERYTHING should be looked at by, at least on some level, utilitarianistic standards.
Malachorn
offline
offline
Basically, I believe that it would be wrong NOT to murder Hitler if you could go back in time and have the opportunity. Surely, murder is wrong... right?
No. No, it is not. Most murderers are wrong because there would seldom be a case that could be made for murder being positive. But the act of murder isn't necessarily wrong. It is the intentions of almost all murders that would make the individual murders wrong.
If you can understand that and reason that out then you SHOULD, in my opinion, start to understand the philosophies of utilitarianism and consequentialism.
You don't have to agree with them, of course. I would say that I pretty much do agree with those two philosophies and they form my moral compass. Disagree with me all that you like, but I find it fairly ridiculous that you can't respect that.
...those two philosophies actually preach that I want the best for the world (and that means you!).
No. No, it is not. Most murderers are wrong because there would seldom be a case that could be made for murder being positive. But the act of murder isn't necessarily wrong. It is the intentions of almost all murders that would make the individual murders wrong.
If you can understand that and reason that out then you SHOULD, in my opinion, start to understand the philosophies of utilitarianism and consequentialism.
You don't have to agree with them, of course. I would say that I pretty much do agree with those two philosophies and they form my moral compass. Disagree with me all that you like, but I find it fairly ridiculous that you can't respect that.
...those two philosophies actually preach that I want the best for the world (and that means you!).
kondor
offline
offline
Originally posted by Malachorn
Basically, I believe that it would be wrong NOT to murder Hitler if you could go back in time and have the opportunity. Surely, murder is wrong... right?
Correct. Murder is wrong.
Originally posted by Malachorn
No. No, it is not. Most murderers are wrong because there would seldom be a case that could be made for murder being positive. But the act of murder isn't necessarily wrong. It is the intentions of almost all murders that would make the individual murders wrong.
In my opinion, that's an easy cop-out. If you decide to punish the intentions and not the acts, then you degrade any moral compass out there. Again, my opinion.
Originally posted by Malachorn
If you can understand that and reason that out then you SHOULD, in my opinion, start to understand the philosophies of utilitarianism and consequentialism.
I know them, I understand them, and I think they are probably the wimpiest way to go about defining a moral compass. Why bother with defining right or wrong? Just define what variation of right or wrong you need to justify performing the act. I suppose it allows those that follow these philosophies a chance to sleep easier at night, but it is still a wimpy way out.
Originally posted by Malachorn
You don't have to agree with them, of course. I would say that I pretty much do agree with those two philosophies and they form my moral compass. Disagree with me all that you like, but I find it fairly ridiculous that you can't respect that.
I don't agree with them, and disagree with you 110%. I respect that you can choose how you wish to live your life, but it doesn't mean that I have to respect you as a person for choosing to live that way. Oh wait. How "utilitarian" of me.
Originally posted by Malachorn
...those two philosophies actually preach that I want the best for the world (and that means you!).
Understood, but how is that philosophy helping your team out on GoalLineBlitz?
Basically, I believe that it would be wrong NOT to murder Hitler if you could go back in time and have the opportunity. Surely, murder is wrong... right?
Correct. Murder is wrong.
Originally posted by Malachorn
No. No, it is not. Most murderers are wrong because there would seldom be a case that could be made for murder being positive. But the act of murder isn't necessarily wrong. It is the intentions of almost all murders that would make the individual murders wrong.
In my opinion, that's an easy cop-out. If you decide to punish the intentions and not the acts, then you degrade any moral compass out there. Again, my opinion.
Originally posted by Malachorn
If you can understand that and reason that out then you SHOULD, in my opinion, start to understand the philosophies of utilitarianism and consequentialism.
I know them, I understand them, and I think they are probably the wimpiest way to go about defining a moral compass. Why bother with defining right or wrong? Just define what variation of right or wrong you need to justify performing the act. I suppose it allows those that follow these philosophies a chance to sleep easier at night, but it is still a wimpy way out.
Originally posted by Malachorn
You don't have to agree with them, of course. I would say that I pretty much do agree with those two philosophies and they form my moral compass. Disagree with me all that you like, but I find it fairly ridiculous that you can't respect that.
I don't agree with them, and disagree with you 110%. I respect that you can choose how you wish to live your life, but it doesn't mean that I have to respect you as a person for choosing to live that way. Oh wait. How "utilitarian" of me.
Originally posted by Malachorn
...those two philosophies actually preach that I want the best for the world (and that means you!).
Understood, but how is that philosophy helping your team out on GoalLineBlitz?
Painmaker
offline
offline
Well it's nice to see that during the debate between the value of integrity and self-serving rationalization, Semper Fi wins out over Semper Me on the field. Bravo Zulu, Devil Dogs!
While there is still some talent at the top, it is also becoming evident that AAA #1 is not as deep as AA was last season - what's with all the CPU players???
While there is still some talent at the top, it is also becoming evident that AAA #1 is not as deep as AA was last season - what's with all the CPU players???
Malachorn
offline
offline
Originally posted by kondor
In my opinion, that's an easy cop-out. If you decide to punish the intentions and not the acts, then you degrade any moral compass out there. Again, my opinion.
I do not believe in legislating morality. I don't think it works and promises more harm than good, and more bad than good is bad. However, individual judges and juries should be allowed to use such discretion. I don't even understand how you think that degrades the moral compass.
Originally posted by kondor
I know them, I understand them, and I think they are probably the wimpiest way to go about defining a moral compass. Why bother with defining right or wrong? Just define what variation of right or wrong you need to justify performing the act. I suppose it allows those that follow these philosophies a chance to sleep easier at night, but it is still a wimpy way out.
I think that is terribly wrong and it is MUCH easier to simply adopt an easy guide to morality. If you simply believe in the ten commandments, for example, then there isn't much questioning about what is ultimately right. You already think you know. Utilitarianism preaches that answers are not that simple at all and your actions should ultimately be judge by their consequences. Even things that should seem obvious (to lie or not to lie) become very tricky. Every simple action has to be weighed very heavily against the ultimate outcome.
No, those pressures and uncertainties do not make it "easier" in the least. From my point of view it is much "easier" and "wimpier" to simply classify different actions as good or bad and not consider the consequences of ever performing certain actions.
Originally posted by kondor
I don't agree with them, and disagree with you 110%. I respect that you can choose how you wish to live your life, but it doesn't mean that I have to respect you as a person for choosing to live that way. Oh wait. How "utilitarian" of me.
No. If you wanted to be "utilitarian" then you would ONLY care about the intended consequences and the actual consequences of my actions and whether or not they benefit the whole. It is true that respect is hardly ever an issue and becomes quite insignificant, actually, but you would have to HAVE to agree with the ideas.
Originally posted by kondor
Understood, but how is that philosophy helping your team out on GoalLineBlitz?
It wouldn't.
In my opinion, that's an easy cop-out. If you decide to punish the intentions and not the acts, then you degrade any moral compass out there. Again, my opinion.
I do not believe in legislating morality. I don't think it works and promises more harm than good, and more bad than good is bad. However, individual judges and juries should be allowed to use such discretion. I don't even understand how you think that degrades the moral compass.
Originally posted by kondor
I know them, I understand them, and I think they are probably the wimpiest way to go about defining a moral compass. Why bother with defining right or wrong? Just define what variation of right or wrong you need to justify performing the act. I suppose it allows those that follow these philosophies a chance to sleep easier at night, but it is still a wimpy way out.
I think that is terribly wrong and it is MUCH easier to simply adopt an easy guide to morality. If you simply believe in the ten commandments, for example, then there isn't much questioning about what is ultimately right. You already think you know. Utilitarianism preaches that answers are not that simple at all and your actions should ultimately be judge by their consequences. Even things that should seem obvious (to lie or not to lie) become very tricky. Every simple action has to be weighed very heavily against the ultimate outcome.
No, those pressures and uncertainties do not make it "easier" in the least. From my point of view it is much "easier" and "wimpier" to simply classify different actions as good or bad and not consider the consequences of ever performing certain actions.
Originally posted by kondor
I don't agree with them, and disagree with you 110%. I respect that you can choose how you wish to live your life, but it doesn't mean that I have to respect you as a person for choosing to live that way. Oh wait. How "utilitarian" of me.
No. If you wanted to be "utilitarian" then you would ONLY care about the intended consequences and the actual consequences of my actions and whether or not they benefit the whole. It is true that respect is hardly ever an issue and becomes quite insignificant, actually, but you would have to HAVE to agree with the ideas.
Originally posted by kondor
Understood, but how is that philosophy helping your team out on GoalLineBlitz?
It wouldn't.
Malachorn
offline
offline
Originally posted by Painmaker
Well it's nice to see that during the debate between the value of integrity and self-serving rationalization, Semper Fi wins out over Semper Me on the field. Bravo Zulu, Devil Dogs!
If you want to insult ME with the "self-serving" bit (I think its a safe assumption that you do) then that is fine, but I want to stress again that that is the exact opposite of utilitarianism.
And, again, I believe that a moral compass that is formed and blind to consequence would be self-serving, selfish, dangerous, and too often non-beneficial to the whole.
Well it's nice to see that during the debate between the value of integrity and self-serving rationalization, Semper Fi wins out over Semper Me on the field. Bravo Zulu, Devil Dogs!
If you want to insult ME with the "self-serving" bit (I think its a safe assumption that you do) then that is fine, but I want to stress again that that is the exact opposite of utilitarianism.
And, again, I believe that a moral compass that is formed and blind to consequence would be self-serving, selfish, dangerous, and too often non-beneficial to the whole.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
