lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-18-2007, 07:26 AM   #81
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Here's a couple of links explaining the Nigerian 419 scam.
I don't see how this relates to the argument of using violence being immoral or not. Moreover, you're not going to suggest that using violence is a appropriate answer towards the initiators of the scam just because there are people who are obviously "naive" enough to fall for that. I mean, seriously, if someone on the street asks you for your bank account data would you tell? And if you would, would you be surprised if they took your money? And would you say you'd have a right to violently go after that person you voluntarily told your data?

Quote:
Go back up and look at my example of what to do if you confront someone threatening a woman with a shotgun. Plead with them to please not to kill them, bang, she's dead, the thug turns and kills you. Even police, a life saving organisation, would use deadly force in this situation, the gun's up, a civillian's life is in imminent danger.
I'm not sure how many civilians got killed in "friendly fire" in an "imminent danger" situation. However, an alternative to deadly force would be man stopping force, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Again, someone has a gun on you, reasoning doesn't work, you can't run, and they want you dead. How are you going to save your moral hide?
Hmm. I think I said it before like this: "yah mon get your butt out there asap but do me a favour this time try to keep the body count nice and low at zero bro kthxbye", but since you seem to insist I'll say it again. ..

Okay, there is a gun, I cannot run, the guy cannot be convinced to let me go and obviously wants to kill me.

Maybe you would decide otherwise, but if possible in any way I'd try to end that life threatening situation rather short termed. The most effective strategy (and almost every species we know uses it) for this is "tactical rearrangement" - in other words: get away as far and as quick as possible. Now, you say I cannot run, (obviously I'm not tied or something otherwise the question about what I'm going to do is futile) but want to. In order to be able to do a tactical rearrangement I'd have to create the opportunity to do so. Evolution has brought up many ways for doing this. Usually they all have the same goal: to irritate the enemy and perform a successful escape. And usually they don't kill the enemy, nor do they cause harm in a way that is inappropriate or overdone. In fact these acts don't even aim at doing harm or taking life.

So to give it to you in exact words for this hypothetical situation: what if I manage to get his gun with a sovereign Jackie Chan move. Where is the need to act violent?

Quote:
I'm sure if the Taliban in Afghanistan would have just allowed America to just waltz in and shut down their terrorist camps, plans for another 9/11, ect then the situation could have been resolved without using violence. The murder, let's be clear here, murder of thousands of innocent people with promise of further attacks seems to suggest that wasn't going to happen.
Invading Afghanistan did not clear the situation any more than not invading would have done it.

Quote:
Immoral then, I've recieved no answer to whether or not I'm immoral. What type of answer? Some sign, for there to be something that makes me think that such acts are wrong, God to speak to me if he exists, anything.
A sign that shows you that violent acts are wrong? How about 9/11? Or instead of an answer, maybe you should ask yourself if you want your country to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away. This is not called "defence" but "revenge".

I think you should not wait for someone else to give you a reason to change your mind. What reason could that be anyway? I mean, if you could think of a reason that would cause you to change your mind, wouldn't that alone be reason enough?

Quote:
Why are they there? They might be there because they have been able to intimidate people enough that they have the run of things, that they can act how they like. Attack someone because they want to fight. Go into some store and take what they want because no one dares to stand up to them, or call the police, their violent acts to get them to this point had seen to that.
Wrong. They are there due to problems in society. They are there because they have nothing better to do. They are there because they don't know any better, and the are there because of bad role models. Most of all they are there because no one taught them otherwise. Maybe someone should?

Quote:
The point is there are times when action must be taken to ensure the safety and protection of society.
Sure. But not violently. Ever thought about alternatives? Do you want a society where protect with heavy guns is necessary even at daytimes? With police shootings on the agenda? I surely don't.



Last edited by tk102; 06-20-2007 at 02:14 PM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-18-2007, 08:49 AM   #82
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk102
Do you understand that regardless of any argument or scenario that you propose, there is always an action that causes the least amount of distress to others? Whether you're able to figure out what action is and whether you decide to act accordingly is up to you.
I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't try and act as morally as we possibly can. To say that we shouldn't have even gone to war against the Nazis however is well beyond the pale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I don't see how this relates to the argument of using violence being immoral or not.
It's an explanation of what these people do, and the lengths they will go to. Being scammers as well as killers, that means that efforts against them should be with the preperation to use force, even lethal force, if necessary. Given that it doesn't bother them to kill the people they've scammed they arn't going to like cops arriving on their doorstep, it's safe to say they would act immorally, violently. So both to defend themselves and to apprehend the scammers police must be prepared to be immoral as well, to act violently, as violently as necessary whether that means stopping them from harming others, killing them so they can't kill someone else, whatever. Police are actually trained to kill if they need to kill, as a shot to the shoulder still makes an armed suspect a threat. That's why they use lethal hollow point rounds rather than full metal jacket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
So to give it to you in exact words for this hypothetical situation: what if I manage to get his gun with a sovereign Jackie Chan move. Where is the need to act violent?
According to how you view it that would in fact be acting immorally, violently. You're not punching the bejesus out of a polar bear so they slaughter goons, but what Jackie Chan does is still violent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Invading Afghanistan did not clear the situation any more than not invading would have done it.
So explain to me the terrorist plans for further attacks that were discovered in the camps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
A sign that shows you that violent acts are wrong? How about 9/11? Or instead of an answer, maybe you should ask yourself if you want your country to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away. This is not called "defence" but "revenge".
If I was living in Afghanistan I would want the ruling Taliban taken out, no question, even if it is by the dumb **** Western infidels who do not follow Islam and therefore should be destroyed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I think you should not wait for someone else to give you a reason to change your mind. What reason could that be anyway? I mean, if you could think of a reason that would cause you to change your mind, wouldn't that alone be reason enough?
That's just it, I see no reason for me to change my mind. September 11, Taliban terrorists threatening further attacks, the moral thing would be to stop them from happening. Given their willingness to murder thousands and to do so again, milk and cookies would fail. In fact it was turning away from what they did that allowed September 11 to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Wrong. They are there due to problems in society. They are there because they have nothing better to do. They are there because they don't know any better, and the are there because of bad role models. Most of all they are there because no one taught them otherwise. Maybe someone should?
Society's to blame. Would the Jews also be responsible for Germany's economic hardship? Sure every effort should be made to teach right and wrong, unfortunetly some people are told this all their life and they just don't want to hear it. I can give you solid evidence if you need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Sure. But not violently. Ever thought about alternatives? Do you want a society where protect with heavy guns is necessary even at daytimes? With police shootings on the agenda? I surely don't.
That's exactly the situation society is trying to avoid, but that's the way things are going to turn out if people scream 'don't you dare lay a finger on them, it's immoral' and coddling those who choose to act violently just to get their ****ing rocks off.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-18-2007, 09:54 AM   #83
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
It's an explanation of what these people do, and the lengths they will go to. Being scammers as well as killers, that means that efforts against them should be with the preperation to use force, even lethal force, if necessary. Given that it doesn't bother them to kill the people they've scammed they arn't going to like cops arriving on their doorstep, it's safe to say they would act immorally, violently.
Nancy. That still doesn't give the cops the moral right to go in and kill them preemptively.


Quote:
So both to defend themselves and to apprehend the scammers police must be prepared to be immoral as well, to act violently
To act violently or to defend themselves? Defending themselves is not immoral.


Quote:
Police are actually trained to kill if they need to kill, as a shot to the shoulder still makes an armed suspect a threat.
Just because someone is a threat doesn't mean he must be killed.


Quote:
According to how you view it that would in fact be acting immorally, violently. You're not punching the bejesus out of a polar bear so they slaughter goons, but what Jackie Chan does is still violent.
C'mon Nancy, it cannot be that hard. There are hundreds of tricks to get a weapon out of the opponents hands without beating him. I mean, I was talking about simply taking it away.

Would you please start using your head already?


Quote:
So explain to me the terrorist plans for further attacks that were discovered in the camps.
Easy: someone must have put them there? See, whether or not Afghanistan had been invaded, these "plans" would have been there anyway. IF they where really there. I did not see them, or any proof, did you?


Quote:
If I was living in Afghanistan I would want the ruling Taliban taken out, no question, even if it is by the dumb **** Western infidels who do not follow Islam and therefore should be destroyed.
No no. That was not the question. Because you don't live in Afghanistan. How do you want to know what you would want as Afghan? But you live in the US. So, again: Do you want your country (read: the USA) to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away?


Quote:
That's just it, I see no reason for me to change my mind. September 11, Taliban terrorists threatening further attacks, the moral thing would be to stop them from happening.
Hey! That is CORRECT! The moral thing to do is: stop them.


Quote:
Given their willingness to murder thousands and to do so again, milk and cookies would fail.
I'm not really sure how often the US have proven they are willing to murder thousands and to do so again, and yes, in their case milk and cookies DID FAIL oh so often too. And yet they wonder when others take opportunity to do as they do.


Quote:
In fact it was turning away from what they did that allowed September 11 to happen.
Oh really? I thought it was over-self-confidence and lack in airport/flight security.


Quote:
Would the Jews also be responsible for Germany's economic hardship?
Err. What? No. Gay marriage is to blame. Tsk.


Quote:
Sure every effort should be made to teach right and wrong, unfortunetly some people are told this all their life and they just don't want to hear it.
Or, alternatively, they're teaching it wrong? Or giving wrong examples/role models? Like preaching freedom and peace while invading other countries and killing their innocent citizens.



Last edited by tk102; 06-20-2007 at 02:16 PM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-19-2007, 09:29 AM   #84
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Dragon Age: Origins
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Thread cleaned and re-opened. Please try to stay on topic. Re-read the thread title and the first post if you're not sure what the topic is.

Last edited by tk102; 06-20-2007 at 02:20 PM.
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-20-2007, 07:22 PM   #85
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
To act violently or to defend themselves? Defending themselves is not immoral.
Using what Jackie Chan does in his films as a method of self defence, I had a look at his films and noticed that Around the World in 80 Days has violence in it, Jackie Chan violence. So does The Medallion, Shanghai Knights, The Tuxedo, Shanghai Noon, Rush Hour, in fact most if not all of his movies have him doing things that are class as violent. So by defending yourself the way Jackie Chan would you are being immoral, violent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Easy: someone must have put them there? See, whether or not Afghanistan had been invaded, these "plans" would have been there anyway. IF they where really there. I did not see them, or any proof, did you?
As a matter of fact I did, they were on the FBI web site for all to see, as well as the Al Qaeda training manual that may or may not still be there. They didn't include video games used as flight simulators as people thought but rather the hijackers went to flying schools for their training. So were their plans planted in Afghanistan? I realise this is off topic but how can that be? The Taliban based in Afghanistan were responsible for 9/11. There were videos of them taking credit for the attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
No no. That was not the question. Because you don't live in Afghanistan. How do you want to know what you would want as Afghan? But you live in the US. So, again: Do you want your country (read: the USA) to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away?
Most of the hijackers may have been Saudis but it was their decision to join the terrorist network in Afghanistan and take on the mission, so the Taliban camps in Afghanistan were a more logical target than the country the hijackers came from. If America fell to the level of Taliban ruled Afghanistan, in other words if the people were made to suffer in a war torn country so no one could stand against them while they set out on terrorist attacks the world over, I'd be the same as the Northern Alliance, no question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
I'm not really sure how often the US have proven they are willing to murder thousands and to do so again, and yes, in their case milk and cookies DID FAIL oh so often too. And yet they wonder when others take opportunity to do as they do.
The diffirence is that America's targets have been people such as Saddam, Bin Laden, Aidid. They don't go "the village is the town of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated, they are unarmed". Terrorists however seem to revel in doing this, their targets being of no military or strategic value but intended for maximum loss of innocent life and promise further bloodshed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Oh really? I thought it was over-self-confidence and lack in airport/flight security.
When the Beirut barracks were the target of terrorists America did the moral thing and looked away, they didn't use violence. The same with the Khober Towers, America looked away, the same with the USS Cole, America looked away. Each time they did it emboldened terrorists to the point where they thought they would get away with 9/11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Or, alternatively, they're teaching it wrong? Or giving wrong examples/role models? Like preaching freedom and peace while invading other countries and killing their innocent citizens.
Can you prove America sets out to kill innocent people? Innocent people is at the forefront of our minds including the ones in the Twin Towers. In any case I'm thinking more along the lines of teaching in the school, in the home, about not harming others, about doing the right thing. Or not teaching children things like "Our Gods say America is evil empire. You kill as many as you can and go to Paradise".
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2007, 08:42 AM   #86
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
So by defending yourself the way Jackie Chan would you are being immoral, violent.
If you attack, yes, but if you're in defence, no. Also I was rather stressing the fact of simple disarming than doing it like Jackie.

Quote:
As a matter of fact I did, they were on the FBI web site for all to see, as well as the Al Qaeda training manual that may or may not still be there. They didn't include video games used as flight simulators as people thought but rather the hijackers went to flying schools for their training. So were their plans planted in Afghanistan? I realise this is off topic but how can that be? The Taliban based in Afghanistan were responsible for 9/11. There were videos of them taking credit for the attacks.
This has nothing to do with further plans you were talking about here:
Quote:
So explain to me the terrorist plans for further attacks that were discovered in the camps.
Quote:
Terrorists however seem to revel in doing this, their targets being of no military or strategic value but intended for maximum loss of innocent life and promise further bloodshed.
This is the very nature of terrorism, hence the name.

Quote:
Can you prove America sets out to kill innocent people?
When you bomb cities, you may not necessarily "set out" to kill innocent people, but you definitely must calculate the loss of many civilian lives.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2007, 09:01 AM   #87
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
How would you take the gun off someone who wanted to kill you without violence? Regardless of the level of force you use it's still by definition violence, which is immoral.

Below are several links directly exposing the plans recovered from Afghanistan I neglected to mention, including plans to smuggle nuclear weapons to use on America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaed...tates_response
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45313
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003923.php

Every death is a tragedy in war, but again there's a vast diffirence between disarming butchers who use weapons on innocents and said butchers targeting those who cannot defend themselves.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2007, 10:03 AM   #88
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
How would you take the gun off someone who wanted to kill you without violence? Regardless of the level of force you use it's still by definition violence, which is immoral.
You've obviously not seen many Jackie Chan/ Steven Seagal/ Jet Li/ Hau Zu/ Ruck Zuck movies then
However. The point was there are actually ways to take a weapon from someone without hitting him.

Quote:
Below are several links directly exposing the plans recovered from Afghanistan I neglected to mention, including plans to smuggle nuclear weapons to use on America.
These links do not prove anything. They are not providing any evidence. Although I would not doubt the existence of any such plans in general, from whoever against whoever.

Quote:
but again there's a vast diffirence between disarming butchers who use weapons on innocents and said butchers targeting those who cannot defend themselves.
"Butchers"? Like those "butchers" who drop a-bombs over cities? Or napalm over villages? Or those who carpet bomb populated areas?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2007, 05:53 PM   #89
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
They prove that there were plans found in Afghanistan that indicated further terrorist attacks. Unless you'd like to claim they were planted.

Like those who hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Like those who use car bombs and suicide bombers to kill as many people as they can. Like those who support terrorism. We are finding better and better ways to do this, just look at Afghanistan.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2007, 06:14 PM   #90
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
You've obviously not seen many Jackie Chan/ Steven Seagal/ Jet Li/ Hau Zu/ Ruck Zuck movies then
However. The point was there are actually ways to take a weapon from someone without hitting him.
Of course, though, there's always the possibility of failure. What if, during the attempt, you don't disarm him? If you're unable to, then he's a bit more angry and cautious and still has his finger on the trigger. You could say that failure can also occur while using deadly weapons, but at the same time the chance for it is lower(doing a jackie-chan style move, despite how easy it looks in the movies, is probably quite a bit more difficult than aiming for the chest).



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-21-2007, 06:18 PM   #91
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
And frankly, in those situations if you don't think "**** morality" and do whatever is necessary to stop the assailent or escape the chances of you dying are drastically increased.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 02:27 AM   #92
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion
Of course, though, there's always the possibility of failure. What if, during the attempt, you don't disarm him? If you're unable to, then he's a bit more angry and cautious and still has his finger on the trigger. You could say that failure can also occur while using deadly weapons, but at the same time the chance for it is lower(doing a jackie-chan style move, despite how easy it looks in the movies, is probably quite a bit more difficult than aiming for the chest).
I know, but the scenario was that I was going to die anyway.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 07:43 AM   #93
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
You would rather die and be moral than save your life using violence and be immoral?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:17 AM   #94
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Did I say that?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:21 AM   #95
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Answer the question.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:24 AM   #96
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
No please?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:26 AM   #97
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Then based on what you have said then I would say that you would rather be killed than be immoral.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:33 AM   #98
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
No please :/

Okay, means short version: no.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:37 AM   #99
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
No, you wouldn't rather be killed or no would won't answer the question?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:42 AM   #100
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
I did answer the question.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:46 AM   #101
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Humor me, repeat it in a little more detail as it's quite ambiguis.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 09:53 AM   #102
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
The answer to your question from post #93 is: "No."


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 10:01 AM   #103
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
But then by using violence to save your life you would be immoral.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-22-2007, 10:08 AM   #104
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
To survive means just that: to survive. The concept of moral comes after that.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-28-2007, 11:07 AM   #105
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Where did we come up with the concept of violence as immoral? I mean I understand the underlying principle but it seems we're just now spouting random scenarios and saying "WOOD U UZ VIOLNCE N DIS SITUATYN?"




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-28-2007, 04:19 PM   #106
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Actually, I did say that at some point. (post #71)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raybert
"whoever is aware of the fact that he can act in a way that will destroy life, or will be harmful or affect other lifeforms in a somewhat negative way, has responsibility to avoid doing so" See, Nancy, acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever. But not helping others in need also ain't acting moral. The point is in real life you often face situations where you have to find a way to act as most morally as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Windu
I mean I understand the underlying principle but it seems we're just now spouting random scenarios and saying "WOOD U UZ VIOLNCE N DIS SITUATYN?"
Yeah, the situation temporarily got out of control, eh? ^^;;

However, the more I think about it, the way I said it it means that when someone resorts to violence, even if this usage of violence is the ultimate factor whether he dies or not, it is immoral. E.g. in case of a knife attack the attacker is killed or wounded by his own knife. Or even if the attacked person simply manages to knock out the aggressor during his attack. That is not exactly what I meant (but I think it was also a reason for the discussion). I think when you simply react to an attack that you encounter unprepared, which I guess is also a reaction mostly of instinctive nature and to protect yourself from being hit/hurt, it hardly can be considered as immoral act.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-28-2007, 05:18 PM   #107
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Well in that case, morality is simply temporarily abandoned in pursuit of self preservation.





That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-03-2007, 04:30 PM   #108
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
While I'd say that an optimal solution is to try to find a way to defuse a situation with non violence, it's incredibly naive and even presumptuous to state that the use of violence is absolutely immoral in any other context than immediate self defense. In part b/c not everyone values nonviolent solutions, but also b/c not everyone agrees on what constitutes morality in the first place. What is the first principle upon which your system is based? Pain prevention ? Aesthetics? Truth? Control/Order? Honor? God said so? Besides, quick violent action doesn't need necessitate death, especially in light of the many non lethal weapons available (or so to be) to the authorities.

As to the value of a mathematical equation...the values will much depend on the system you choose to base it on. Not quite the same as saying 1+1=2 (which at least appears universal in its acceptance), but perhaps valid in assigning a hierarchy of moral actions w/in a particular value system.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-04-2007, 07:59 AM   #109
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
While I'd say that an optimal solution is to try to find a way to defuse a situation with non violence, it's incredibly naive and even presumptuous to state that the use of violence is absolutely immoral in any other context than immediate self defense.
I think the point was, if you use violence against others to achieve whatever goal, it is immoral. If you use violence against others in any other context than reaction towards violence, it is immoral. And if you use violence although you don't need to, it is immoral.

Quote:
What is the first principle upon which your system is based? Pain prevention ? Aesthetics? Truth? Control/Order? Honor? God said so?
Respect.

Quote:
Besides, quick violent action doesn't need necessitate death, especially in light of the many non lethal weapons available (or so to be) to the authorities.
This seems rather irrelevant, because death isn't necessarily caused through violence. Also we were talking about violence in general, not deadly violence.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-04-2007, 03:34 PM   #110
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
But that's just the problem, YOU think it's immoral b/c of your first principle, in this case respect or in someone elses, empathy. That is merely your opinion(s). The question of need does not boil down to a knee jerk predisposition toward the revulsion toward the use of violence as a tool or reaction. Also, as regards the last point, a big reason for opposition to violence is the very real possibility of death or grievous injury in the first place. As far as we know, we only get once around, so there is a sort of self-preservation motivation at work.

It's questionable which is worse/immoral: a certain amount of death now to nip something in the bud or idly standing by waiting for the "evil force" to grind itself down over a 1000+ yrs of history or an almost cataclysmic 6 years via brutal fighting. To think onself moral b/c they avoided a fight now is vanity. Using the nazis as was done before this thread was split off, putting herr Hitler in his place before he was ready would very possibly have resulted in death and destruction, but unlikely on the scale that followed (unlikely b/c now we'll never know).


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-06-2007, 07:50 PM   #111
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
I think saying that someone who has to use force, violence, to resolve a situation (police having to shoot someone who is about to shoot someone else for example) is very much splitting hairs.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:06 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.