News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)

Started by billy rubin, February 10, 2021, 03:37:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

No one

Who are we sniffing out?

I'd be ok with, and even outwardly celebrate:
Trump
McConnell
Kiddie diddlers
Rapists
Graham
Any member of the kkk, isis, proud boys, or any other group of inbred ass backward fucktards
Cruz
Anyone responsible for the death of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ronell Foster, Jordan Edwards, the goes on
Trump

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: No one on February 16, 2021, 08:51:01 PM
Who are we sniffing out?

I'd be ok with, and even outwardly celebrate:
Trump
McConnell
Kiddie diddlers
Rapists
Graham
Any member of the kkk, isis, proud boys, or any other group of inbred ass backward fucktards
Cruz
Anyone responsible for the death of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ronell Foster, Jordan Edwards, the goes on
Trump

Don't forget Trump.

Old Seer

Morals is the same as what makes one human. There's morals by intent and immorals by intent. Then there's "static" morals, when a person or society is immoral without realization of it. A society based on morality normally believes their immorality is moral, and very likely passed from a previous generation.  Selective morals is when one is moral but approves immorality upon those they hate, oft times under a guise of it's moral to punish, cause suffering or harm, on those they hate. Then there's the concept of-it's moral to harm those they deem immoral which amounts to morality of convenience. An action cannot be immoral, only a person can, the action originates from the mind and is due to the will or ignorance of a person.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

billy rubin

i don't believe in morals.

what people call morals are generally self-serving excuses for what they would be doing anyway.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Old Seer

Quote from: billy rubin on March 05, 2021, 10:47:41 PM
i don't believe in morals.

what people call morals are generally self-serving excuses for what they would be doing anyway.
That may be because they're immoral. Morals basically are a relationship regulator. If there were one person in the world there would be no morals. If/when another person enters the world morals come into existence. :-)
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Icarus

Morals  are what a particular individual or associated group of individuals say that they are.  Sort of subjective one might observe.  Not to suggest that those individuals invariably practice their moral announcements.

Attila the Hun and Joan of Arc had a different set of rules that some might call  moral differences. 

I am amused, sadly amused, that so many outed (mostly not outed and carefully concealed)married fundamentalist preachers  have indulged in carnal knowledge with one of the nice innocent ladies in his congregation, or his teen aged church secretary.   That is the long ago story of how and why, among other experiences, I became an atheist.   

But perhaps this thread intends to be more about socially accepted norms as a measure of morality................


Randy

Quote from: Icarus on March 06, 2021, 12:14:05 AM
Morals  are what a particular individual or associated group of individuals say that they are.  Sort of subjective one might observe.  Not to suggest that those individuals invariably practice their moral announcements.

Attila the Hun and Joan of Arc had a different set of rules that some might call  moral differences. 

I am amused, sadly amused, that so many outed (mostly not outed and carefully concealed)married fundamentalist preachers  have indulged in carnal knowledge with one of the nice innocent ladies in his congregation, or his teen aged church secretary.   That is the long ago story of how and why, among other experiences, I became an atheist.   

But perhaps this thread intends to be more about socially accepted norms as a measure of morality................
And even then it depends on the mass of people who think a certain way is moral despite the rest of the world. I think morality is highly subjective.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

billy rubin

Quote from: Old Seer on March 06, 2021, 12:03:41 AM
That may be because they're immoral. Morals basically are a relationship regulator. If there were one person in the world there would be no morals. If/when another person enters the world morals come into existence. :-)

its  deceit that comes into existence with two people in the world.

not morals.

morals exist with one person in the world.

if morals exist.

IMHO


more people have been to berlin than i have

Old Seer

Deceit would be immoral. Honesty would be moral. There must be more then one person for there to be morals + or -. There must be more then one person to be human. Morals maintains one's humanity. Immorals makes enemy, inhumanity. 
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Old Seer

Quote from: Old Seer on March 06, 2021, 04:31:57 AM
Deceit would be immoral. Honesty would be moral. There must be more then one person for there to be morals + or -. There must be more then one person to be human. Morals maintains one's humanity. Immorals makes enemy, inhumanity.
Back to the main side of the topic. What it amounts to is, should we do immoral things to bring about benefits of the immorality, or should the benefits of an immoral undertaking be used. Universal law dictates there is no choice. If someone is in danger of great harm it would be immoral "not" to use what was learned from immoral conduct to alleviate the situation for that person. Morals must work along with knowledge gained. No one can readjust how the universe is constructed so we're trapped by existing within it and subject to it.

What civilization do is attempt the adjust nature (universal law) to make things work that the way they want, but it always fails. Normally it will develop into a quest for immortality which also always fails. One of the themes of the Nazis was the search for immortality. The far easterners tried eating raw fish before the cells died thinking the life force would be taken up by the body and crate immortality. We can see that it failed as all that thought so have died since. That's where eating raw fish developed by becoming an acquired taste. The Nazis were big in the search for immortality. Immoral processes were undertaken in the search. Inhumane mentality had to be in use to do such things. The first requirement then to do such things was to be inhuman/immoral. So, should we use knowledge acquired by immoral processes--I say yes, because the knowledge has been gained. Knowledge gained becomes a liability while ignorance cannot be libel. There's a point where one must accept universal law and not tamper in inhumane conduct.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.
I'm not a Theist
https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Randy

Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Randy on March 06, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.

I think they dehumanised those groups of people to such an extent that moral obligation didn't even factor in. They did it because those groups were seen as less than human, and being less than human, could be treated as if they were roaches.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Randy

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 06, 2021, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 06, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.

I think they dehumanised those groups of people to such an extent that moral obligation didn't even factor in. They did it because those groups were seen as less than human, and being less than human, could be treated as if they were roaches.
A mass brain washing perhaps. I think it's kind of like the siege on Capitol Hill. Did their morals change about breaking and entering? Were they simply a part of mob mentality? Does any of that excuse the morality, or lack thereof, of their actions?
"Maybe it's just a bunch of stuff that happens." -- Homer Simpson
"Some people focus on the destination. Atheists focus on the journey." -- Barry Goldberg

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Randy on March 07, 2021, 01:13:34 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 06, 2021, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 06, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.

I think they dehumanised those groups of people to such an extent that moral obligation didn't even factor in. They did it because those groups were seen as less than human, and being less than human, could be treated as if they were roaches.
A mass brain washing perhaps. I think it's kind of like the siege on Capitol Hill. Did their morals change about breaking and entering? Were they simply a part of mob mentality? Does any of that excuse the morality, or lack thereof, of their actions?

Yes I think so. There could also be other factors at play, such as the Bystander Effect. There's something about mob mentality and large groups of people moving in one direction that really seem to result in each individual in the group being a total idiot.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


billy rubin

i read teh capture and trial of adalf eichmann as a child. still available

https://www.amazon.com/Capture-Trial-Adolf-Eichmann/dp/B0000CM1UR

but this is more germane

QuoteBanality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.[1] Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

Explaining this phenomenon, Edward S. Herman has emphasized the importance of "normalizing the unthinkable." According to him, "doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on 'normalization.' This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as 'the way things are done.'"[2]

the thing about eichmann that she emphasized was that he went about th ebusiness of exteminating jews with the dispassion of a storeclerk. there was no drama or emotion, it was just the same as counting change or sweeping the sidewalk.

eitchmann personally killed only one jew-- a small boy he caught in his garden stealing apples from his tree. he beat the boy to deatyh with a walking stick. all the rest of the stuff was totally separate frpom any emotional involvemebt.


more people have been to berlin than i have