Morality

[The Feral Underclass]

In a debate at EG a member said...


Originally posted by Ixabert
Fun for some people yet degrading at the same time and highly immoral.

My response was this, which was never answered over there.

Many people claim that things are moral or immoral but what does the word actually mean? You say that "non-reproductive sex" is immoral but you give no real explination to what that actually means. Using the word moral or immoral implies that you understand the basis of morality, of which facts have been produced in order to validate its meaning. In other terms, there has to be a factual prerequsite to the standards of peoples lives which you are claiming exists and understand, and that the person performing "non-reproductive sex" does not understand. What are those prerequisites and why do we not all understand them?

As far as I understand there are no factual prerequisites. It appears you are simply using a word that has been invented by humans, and which really has no consequence on the actions made by them.

I could say "having sex in the ass is filopidopodoo" and it would have the same significance as if I had said "having sex in the ass is immoral." The word immoral, just like the word filopidopodoo has no basis, there is no meaning to it. There are no facts that prove the word has a meaning or a basis, which render the concept of morality useless.

Of course we can attach meaning to it. I could say the word filopidopodoo means that you will damage society by performing a certain act, but that is equally as ridiculous as the word itself. Unless of course you have irrefutable evidence that human actions are defined by whether or not they effect society you have no reason, other than the abstraction in your mind, to claim that something is moral or immoral.

Nothing is moral or immoral. Or, everything is moral or immoral, depending on what it is you happen to believe.

It is subjective fantasy and bares no relevance on what we choose to do with our abilities to make decisions and then act on them.

From a 19th Century Russian Nihilist to his friend...

"I will be immoral! I will be immoral and why should I not? Because the bible wills it? But the bible is just a collection of Babylonian and Hebrew traditions, traditions collected and put together like the Homeric poems, or as is being done still with Basque poems and Mongolian legends. Must I then go back to the state of mind of the half civilized people of the east?

Must I be moral because Kant tells me of a categoric imperative, of a mysterious command which comes to me from the depths of my own being and bids me be moral? But why should this "catagoric imperative" exercise a greater authority over my actions than that other imperative, which at times may command me to get drunk. A word, nothing but a word, like the words 'Providence' and 'Destiny,' invented to conceal our ignorance.

Or perhaps I am to be moral to oblige Bentham, who wants me to believe that I shall be happier if I drown to save a passerby who has fallen into a river than if I watched him drown?

Or perhaps because such has been my education? Because my mother taught me morality? Shall I then go and kneel down in church, honour the Queen, bow before a judge I know to be a scoundrel, simply because our mothers, our good ignorant mothers, have taught us such a pack of nonsense.

I am prejudiced - Like everyone else. I will try to rid myself of prejudice? Even though immorality be distasteful, I will yet force myself to be immoral, as when I was a boy I forced myself to give up fearing the dark, churchyards, ghosts and dead people - all of which I had been taught to fear.

It will be immoral to snap a weapon abused by religion; I will do it, were it only to protect against the hypocrisy imposed on us in the name of a word to which the name morality has been given."

[fallen camarade]

THANK YOU! Finally someone who realizes the futility of persuing "perfect" or "correct" morality. Morality does not exist. It is a cultural figment of the imagination. Morality does not exist in nature. It doesn't exist anywhere buy the minds humans who have created it to regulate actions and senses. For what reason? I have no idea. I've found through exerience that if you probe people that believe differently, they eventually cave in and give answers like "Because it just is". There is no explanation for such things that I can come up with.

There is no right. There is no wrong. There is no filopidopodoo :D

I love the quote, also. My thoughts exactly.

Well done.

[Fidelbrand]

"But the bible is just a collection of Babylonian and Hebrew traditions..."

Agree, Morality is just mores, relativism and folkways.

People tend to think they are moral just to feel a kind of social cohesiveness at times, just like kids laughing at homosexuals in prep school.

Morality is mis-used. Morality needs space. What's more? Morality is not a tool.

[monkeydust]

Hmmm.....

Couldn't one argue that moral scepticism is epistemologically incoherent. If nothing is absolutely certain, then the view that nothing is absolutely certain is also something which we have to doubt. If we have to doubt everything, then we have to doubt our reasons for doubting. In other words, if we are to be truly sceptical then we have to be sceptical about scepticism, in which case we cease to be committed to scepticism.

Apparently........ ;) .

[Invader Zim]

Morality is subjective to society, and as we want to radically alter society, what is currently considered immoral is imaterial IMO. Of course certain exceptions exist.

[Xvall]

I concur in entierity. Most people's views on morality stem from theological beliefs.

[Palmares]

I think morality is being over-simplified here.

Yes, I agree morality as a concept is subjective/relative, but does that entail that we should entirely dismiss it? Certain forms, such as theological morality certainly holds no grounds, unless you are religious.

However, why are we all on this site? Why do we believe what we believe? Why do you want to change the world?

Non-religious morality is based on emotion. We want to change the world because we are angry at the oppressors, and we feel empathy/sympathy for the oppressed. Thus we percieve it to be good (or more accurately 'better') to make the world more egalitarian.

Just think... why do people think killing is wrong/bad, etc? The ten commandments? Well they can shove that up the proverbial arse. But others will say because it is hurting a person (let alone the emotional pain of others). Can you tell me why killing is bad without relating it to emotive morality?

There is certainly no absolute morality, but I just want people to realise there is more to it then just "it's all relative" etc. If we did not have some sort of basis, then anything is hence justifiable.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:37 PM
Hmmm.....

Couldn't one argue that moral scepticism is epistemologically incoherent. If nothing is absolutely certain, then the view that nothing is absolutely certain is also something which we have to doubt. If we have to doubt everything, then we have to doubt our reasons for doubting. In other words, if we are to be truly sceptical then we have to be sceptical about scepticism, in which case we cease to be committed to scepticism.

Apparently........ ;) .
As Geist said "We are trapped by our language, by our wordgames."

[Palmares]

That&#39;s just semantics... <_< :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 11:29 AM
Thus we percieve it to be good (or more accurately &#39;better&#39;) to make the world more egalitarian.
No. I am a communist because it is objectivly right.

Being angry and sympathetic isnt enough. Unless of course you only feel those things because you enjoy feeling them. What is important is applying that anger and sympothy, as you call it, to objective reality.


But others will say because it is hurting a person (let alone the emotional pain of others). Can you tell me why killing is bad without relating it to emotive morality?

What happens when someone has a gun to your head. It is either you or her? What becomes of your morals then?

Hurting someone intentionally doesn&#39;t hold alot of meaning and is most often than not completely unnecessary. Killing someone however may be very necessary to achieve your objectives or "sympothising" with the masses.

Calling murder immoral by your own personal standards is hypocritical. If you are faced with death and you have a choice? Kill or be killed? What will you choose?


There is certainly no absolute morality, but I just want people to realise there is more to it then just "it&#39;s all relative" etc. If we did not have some sort of basis, then anything is hence justifiable.

I said in the thread at talkphilosophy.org in reference to the same argument but relating to sex with children


What I think is important is to identify what morality is. It&#39;s subjective rationalisation of reality, which is objective. If we are to consider the consequences of our actions they should be based on objective reality, rather than subjective thought.

I would not have sex with a child because that child may not be able to perform the act, or may not be able to make a rational decision on whether or not they want to even have the act. I would not have a sex with a child because society says it is "immoral." The word doesn&#39;t mean anything.

[Palmares]

Sorry to be ignorant, but could you explain objective reality, and how it justifies communism as &#39;right&#39;? :unsure:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:07 PM
Sorry to be ignorant, but could you explain objective reality
Material facts. You are typing on a computer. That is a material fact. Capitalists exploit the workers to create profit. That is a fact. Objective reality is what is proven by its existence or the creation of it as real.

A car is produced by a worker from pieces of metal, which he touches and forms to create a car that someone sits in and drives. It exists.


and how it justifies communism as &#39;right&#39;? :unsure:

Marx analysed these facts and came to objective conclusions about reality, how it developed and ultimately how to change it. He made mistakes obviously that need to be updated, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat theory, but he looked at society and came to conclusions based on real things that can be proven.

Marx analysed societal facts and concluded that the class system exists. He then proved that it exists because of people’s relations to the means of production. He looked at society and determined that it changes and forms based on those class distinctions, which ultimately create tensions within society.

Based on all these facts, he concluded that communism was the logical, or objective consequence of class society. The workers are the last oppressed class in society and that the tensions created because of those divisions, will eventually create unrest, and lead the workers to overthrow the ruling class which hinders their ability to progress as a class or people. Communism is the logical conclusion.

The way I have outlined it is very vulgar, but its the best I can do.

[Palmares]

I understand now. I guess an example is dialectical materialism (and historical materialism):

Thesis - Capitalism
Antithesis - Socialism
Synthesis - Communism

So it&#39;s about logic (based on the objective material world).

Not the way I look at the world though. Thanks nevertheless TAT, I&#39;ll ponder this further.

[commiecrusader]

Morals are a set of ideas/expectations of behaviour held by a group of people. Of course they are subjective and based on the society in which one lives, but so are a lot of things doesnt mean they don&#39;t exist. And just because they are often based on religious or theological ideas doesnt mean they are bad either. Just because an idea comes from a Bible doesnt necessarily mean its wrong. Im not religious but I can appreciate that it isn&#39;t good to murder people, or steal from them etc, because i wouldn&#39;t want it to happen to me.

As for why people have morals, I would suggest it is because if there weren&#39;t certain expectations of behaviour any society except a primitivist one would crumble. Even a Commie or Socialist society would have morals. People would still be expected to work. That could be seen as a moral. Murder would still not be acceptable. That could be seen as a moral.

Morals aren&#39;t concrete they are theoretical, a collection of ideas, and as such there is not much negative effect on someone who breaks a societies morals, laws are a different matter. However, to disregard the whole idea of morality because of this is the same as to disregard Communism as a collection of ideas, a perfect societ, but one which could never happen.

[Comfort]

I think there is such a thing as morality, though it is relative to the culture we grow up in. When we feel guilt, it is because we have done something wrong; or immoral. Not that everything wrong is immoral, but everything immoral is wrong. I believe, and most everybody would agree (through out the history of this world, of course there are exceptions but there are ALWAYS exceptions), that murdering is immoral and wrong. Not killing, but murdering. And the line is never clear between the two (from a group basis). Stealing is another immoral action to do, though "taking back what is ours" is again not a clear line.

Human&#39;s greatest flaw is pride, which comes with the ability to deceive ourselves. When American Presidents (actually most leaders) sit back and watch Pol Pot murder hundreds of thousands of people, we will see them make excuses for not intervening. When multinationals pillage Venezuala, no doubt the CEOs and boards make excuses for themselves such as "if we werent there, there would be no jobs. we may pay them little but at least its something."

I am a Christian so I strongly believe in morality. Concience and guilt (sounds bad but look at it as good) are tools God has given us to discern right from wrong. Everybody is armed with them, the questions is if we disable them by deceiving ourselves. I can pick out guys like Prez Bush Jr as a golden hypocrite but unfortunetly we all are. I could go on longer but then I&#39;ll lose myself and anyone that reads this.

"Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of everything be demanded and voted." OH NO GOD FORBID&#33;&#33; ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:24 PM
Of course they are subjective and based on the society in which one lives, but so are a lot of things doesnt mean they don&#39;t exist.
That depends on how you quantify existence? I would say that for something to exist, you would have to prove it existed. You cannot prove that a moral exists? All you can show is that one person has a prejudice against or for something.


Im not religious but I can appreciate that it isn&#39;t good to murder people,

It isn&#39;t good?

The problem with humanity is it judges based on what is concieved to be good or bad. It very rarely takes into consideration what is logical. That is one of the major problems facing the communist movement. Murder is not good, in what instance? What happens if it is necessary?

A rather dark and crude moral conundrum, but I will pose it nonetheless. I could say that it was immoral to have sex with ones sister, but what happens when someone puts a gun to your mothers head and says "if you dont fuck your sister then I will kill your mother." What choice would you make? Would you accept your morality simply because you or society concieve it to be right?

It would be distasteful to sleep with your sister, but to do it would prevent your mother being killed. Of course there are two people involved in this problem. Logically you and your sister could simply make an agreement to save your mothers life. But what happens if your sister refuses? Then what would you do?

Ultimatly, what is sex? What is incest? What is rape? What would these things mean in such a situation? If you cannot claim morality to be universal, you cannot claim it at all.


i wouldn&#39;t want it to happen to me.

So this is how you define morality?


As for why people have morals, I would suggest it is because if there weren&#39;t certain expectations of behaviour any society except a primitivist one would crumble.

That depends on how you expect humans to exist. Do you expect them to become subserviant to a set of subjective codes? Or do you expect them to be logical?


Even a Commie or Socialist society would have morals.

No, a communist society would have logic.


People would still be expected to work. That could be seen as a moral.

Your saying it is moral to work? Why?


Murder would still not be acceptable.

How can you say that? Murder will be necessary.


to disregard the whole idea of morality because of this is the same as to disregard Communism as a collection of ideas, a perfect societ, but one which could never happen.

Why?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:36 PM
When we feel guilt, it is because we have done something wrong; or immoral.
How and why?


Not that everything wrong is immoral, but everything immoral is wrong.

How are you coming to this conclusion. By who&#39;s standards are you claiming this?


I believe, and most everybody would agree (through out the history of this world, of course there are exceptions but there are ALWAYS exceptions), that murdering is immoral and wrong.

But not for god?

You use the word immoral without defining its meaning. Why is murdering immoral?


Not killing, but murdering.

So that&#39;s gods get out of jail free card is it? So it is not immoral for me to kill someone, but it&#39;s immoral for me to murder them? What is the difference exactly?


Stealing is another immoral action to do, though "taking back what is ours" is again not a clear line.

But your proving that morality does not exist. If it did exist thre would be a clean line and a prerequsite that we would all understand?

I said in my original post...


Using the word moral or immoral implies that you understand the basis of morality, of which facts have been produced in order to validate its meaning. In other terms, there has to be a factual prerequsite to the standards of peoples lives which you are claiming exists and understand, and that the person performing "non-reproductive sex" does not understand. What are those prerequisites and why do we not all understand them?

You are clearly showing that there is no clear line and therefore no prerequsite that we understand. So how can morality exist?


Human&#39;s greatest flaw is pride, which comes with the ability to deceive ourselves.

That&#39;s humanities greatest flaw?


I am a Christian so I strongly believe in morality.

So your rerequiste is god?


Concience and guilt (sounds bad but look at it as good) are tools God has given us to discern right from wrong.

Based on his own laws? Why didn&#39;t he just creates to do good? I suppose that would be quite boring for him wouldn&#39;t it?


"Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of everything be demanded and voted."

But first we must all subject ourselves to the control and authority of a pixie like illusion. Namly god&#33;

[monkeydust]

As Geist said "We are trapped by our language, by our wordgames."



I know you&#39;re right, but you&#39;ve gotta admit that word games are a good way for amateur philosophers (like me) to sound clever.

Here&#39;s another gem:

To deny the existence of moral truth is in fact to make a moral judgement in itself. In denying that man can know the nature of morality, one implies that they themselves know the nature of morality, namely that it cannot be known. Therefore, their argument is a contradicton in terms.

It&#39;s all bollocks, I know.

[commiecrusader]

It isn&#39;t good?

The problem with humanity is it judges based on what is concieved to be good or bad. It very rarely takes into consideration what is logical. That is one of the major problems facing the communist movement. Murder is not good, in what instance? What happens if it is necessary?

A rather dark and crude moral conundrum, but I will pose it nonetheless. I could say that it was immoral to have sex with ones sister, but what happens when someone puts a gun to your mothers head and says "if you dont fuck your sister then I will kill your mother." What choice would you make? Would you accept your morality simply because you or society concieve it to be right?

It would be distasteful to sleep with your sister, but to do it would prevent your mother being killed. Of course there are two people involved in this problem. Logically you and your sister could simply make an agreement to save your mothers life. But what happens if your sister refuses? Then what would you do?

Ultimatly, what is sex? What is incest? What is rape? What would these things mean in such a situation? If you cannot claim morality to be universal, you cannot claim it at all.
I believe I said morals were subjective which means they are based upon a given situation, they arent just a broad sweeping brush-stroke, and in a situation like the one you outline above you have to weigh up which is the worse thing to do, allow your mum to die, or shag your sister. Whichever of these is the lesser evil is the correct decision.


So this is how you define morality?
No, but it is one of the things i try to consider before doing something to someone else. I guess you could say one of my morals is not to do to someone something I wouldn&#39;t want done to myself. Not that i have a list I adhere to, I don&#39;t really know how to express what I mean here...


That depends on how you expect humans to exist. Do you expect them to become subserviant to a set of subjective codes? Or do you expect them to be logical?
You could say that your belief in being &#39;logical&#39; is your own morality. Anything can be a moral. I could have a morality that murdering people is a good thing, but it would be a very unpopular one.


No, a communist society would have logic.
See above. Furthermore, people aren&#39;t going to act like robots just because they are communist. If someone sees no point in continuing their existence through depression, the &#39;logical&#39; thing to do would be to kill oneself. The right thing to do would be to try and change your life.


Your saying it is moral to work? Why?
Im not saying it is moral to work no. I am giving it as an example. It would be an idea held by the majority of the society that people should work so it could be regarded as a moral. If I was slacking, living off your work, would you like it? Or would you say I was in the wrong. Logically you should conclude that it is unfair that I lie around feeding off your labour. And as i said before, logic could be seen as your morality.


How can you say that? Murder will be necessary.
Killing, yes, Murder, no. Whilst as words this is a stupid distinction, I will try to explain what I mean. It will be necessary to kill the Bourgeoisie, since they actively oppose a leftie system. However, to randomly murder an innocent is wrong. It boils down to the situational thing again I guess. Killing for a justifiable reason such as &#39;kill or be killed&#39; or &#39;killing for the greater good&#39; would be in my opinion, and my morality, acceptable. Not desirable but acceptable. You don&#39;t have to aggree with my morals because they are flexible, ephereal things as everyone&#39;s are.


Why?
Because the idea of Communism is just that, an idea, it isn&#39;t something physical which can be proved to exist. The same goes for any sort of moral framework.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:34 PM
I believe I said morals were subjective which means they are based upon a given situation,
So then you can never have a moral code that you follow universally?


Whichever of these is the lesser evil is the correct decision.

But only you can make a decision based on what you concieve to be "right" or "wrong." What happens if you conclude it is fine to have sex with your sister to save your mothers life, but your sister refuses? Then what would you do?


You could say that your belief in being &#39;logical&#39; is your own morality.

Morality is not all encompasing though. It is a judgement (or idea) on the "goodness" or "badness" of human actions. To be logical you have to ignore the concepts of good or bad, right or wrong.


Anything can be a moral.

No it can&#39;t.


I could have a morality that murdering people is a good thing, but it would be a very unpopular one.

To have that kind of moral, you would have to concieve that it was good or right to murder.


If someone sees no point in continuing their existence through depression, the &#39;logical&#39; thing to do would be to kill oneself. The right thing to do would be to try and change your life.

By your subject definition. Only the depressed person can know what the "right" thing to do is.


It would be an idea held by the majority of the society that people should work so it could be regarded as a moral.

Working is not a moral. Believing that working is virtuous and right is a moral.


If I was slacking, living off your work, would you like it?

I wouldn&#39;t care.


Or would you say I was in the wrong.

No, i&#39;d probably say you were making a choice, which was illogical.


Logically you should conclude that it is unfair that I lie around feeding off your labour.

Why is that a logical conclusion? Logically I would conclude that you were being illogical. If you didn&#39;t work you would starve to death, but that&#39;s your choice. I am working because I want to eat and I want to help society function. If you decided not to work, then you would not be helping society and become disefranchised, and would eventually starve.


Killing, yes, Murder, no.

That doesn&#39;t make any sense. There is really no difference.


However, to randomly murder an innocent is wrong.

But it could be argued that someone in the bourgeoisie is innocent.


Killing for a justifiable reason such as &#39;kill or be killed&#39; or &#39;killing for the greater good&#39; would be in my opinion, and my morality, acceptable.

It&#39;s so strange how human beings rationalise things. How did you come to this conclusion that it was "morally acceptable."


Because the idea of Communism is just that, an idea, it isn&#39;t something physical which can be proved to exist.

But the idea of communism is the conclusion of something physical that can be proven to exist.


The same goes for any sort of moral framework.

No, morality is based on subjective interpretation, not objective logic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:34 PM
I believe I said morals were subjective which means they are based upon a given situation,
So then you can never have a moral code that you follow universally?


Whichever of these is the lesser evil is the correct decision.

But only you can make a decision based on what you concieve to be "right" or "wrong." What happens if you conclude it is fine to have sex with your sister to save your mothers life, but your sister refuses? Then what would you do?


You could say that your belief in being &#39;logical&#39; is your own morality.

Morality is not all encompasing though. It is a judgement (or idea) on the "goodness" or "badness" of human actions. To be logical you have to ignore the concepts of good or bad, right or wrong.


Anything can be a moral.

No it can&#39;t.


I could have a morality that murdering people is a good thing, but it would be a very unpopular one.

To have that kind of moral, you would have to concieve that it was good or right to murder.


If someone sees no point in continuing their existence through depression, the &#39;logical&#39; thing to do would be to kill oneself. The right thing to do would be to try and change your life.

By your subject definition. Only the depressed person can know what the "right" thing to do is.


It would be an idea held by the majority of the society that people should work so it could be regarded as a moral.

Working is not a moral. Believing that working is virtuous and right is a moral.


If I was slacking, living off your work, would you like it?

I wouldn&#39;t care.


Or would you say I was in the wrong.

No, i&#39;d probably say you were making a choice, which was illogical.


Logically you should conclude that it is unfair that I lie around feeding off your labour.

Why is that a logical conclusion? Logically I would conclude that you were being illogical. If you didn&#39;t work you would starve to death, but that&#39;s your choice. I am working because I want to eat and I want to help society function. If you decided not to work, then you would not be helping society and become disefranchised, and would eventually starve.


Killing, yes, Murder, no.

That doesn&#39;t make any sense. There is really no difference.


However, to randomly murder an innocent is wrong.

But it could be argued that someone in the bourgeoisie is innocent.


Killing for a justifiable reason such as &#39;kill or be killed&#39; or &#39;killing for the greater good&#39; would be in my opinion, and my morality, acceptable.

It&#39;s so strange how human beings rationalise things. How did you come to this conclusion that it was "morally acceptable."


Because the idea of Communism is just that, an idea, it isn&#39;t something physical which can be proved to exist.

But the idea of communism is the conclusion of something physical that can be proven to exist.


The same goes for any sort of moral framework.

No, morality is based on subjective interpretation, not objective logic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 11:34 PM
I believe I said morals were subjective which means they are based upon a given situation,
So then you can never have a moral code that you follow universally?


Whichever of these is the lesser evil is the correct decision.

But only you can make a decision based on what you concieve to be "right" or "wrong." What happens if you conclude it is fine to have sex with your sister to save your mothers life, but your sister refuses? Then what would you do?


You could say that your belief in being &#39;logical&#39; is your own morality.

Morality is not all encompasing though. It is a judgement (or idea) on the "goodness" or "badness" of human actions. To be logical you have to ignore the concepts of good or bad, right or wrong.


Anything can be a moral.

No it can&#39;t.


I could have a morality that murdering people is a good thing, but it would be a very unpopular one.

To have that kind of moral, you would have to concieve that it was good or right to murder.


If someone sees no point in continuing their existence through depression, the &#39;logical&#39; thing to do would be to kill oneself. The right thing to do would be to try and change your life.

By your subject definition. Only the depressed person can know what the "right" thing to do is.


It would be an idea held by the majority of the society that people should work so it could be regarded as a moral.

Working is not a moral. Believing that working is virtuous and right is a moral.


If I was slacking, living off your work, would you like it?

I wouldn&#39;t care.


Or would you say I was in the wrong.

No, i&#39;d probably say you were making a choice, which was illogical.


Logically you should conclude that it is unfair that I lie around feeding off your labour.

Why is that a logical conclusion? Logically I would conclude that you were being illogical. If you didn&#39;t work you would starve to death, but that&#39;s your choice. I am working because I want to eat and I want to help society function. If you decided not to work, then you would not be helping society and become disefranchised, and would eventually starve.


Killing, yes, Murder, no.

That doesn&#39;t make any sense. There is really no difference.


However, to randomly murder an innocent is wrong.

But it could be argued that someone in the bourgeoisie is innocent.


Killing for a justifiable reason such as &#39;kill or be killed&#39; or &#39;killing for the greater good&#39; would be in my opinion, and my morality, acceptable.

It&#39;s so strange how human beings rationalise things. How did you come to this conclusion that it was "morally acceptable."


Because the idea of Communism is just that, an idea, it isn&#39;t something physical which can be proved to exist.

But the idea of communism is the conclusion of something physical that can be proven to exist.


The same goes for any sort of moral framework.

No, morality is based on subjective interpretation, not objective logic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:02 PM
To deny the existence of moral truth is in fact to make a moral judgement in itself.
That&#39;s not true. Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." To say that moral truth does not exist is not a moral statement. It is the rejection that human action and character is defined by subjective perceptions.


In denying that man can know the nature of morality, one implies that they themselves know the nature of morality,

I am not claiming that humans cannot know the nature of morality, they do know the nature of it, but based on their own perception, that is why I am saying that the nature of morality does not exist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:02 PM
To deny the existence of moral truth is in fact to make a moral judgement in itself.
That&#39;s not true. Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." To say that moral truth does not exist is not a moral statement. It is the rejection that human action and character is defined by subjective perceptions.


In denying that man can know the nature of morality, one implies that they themselves know the nature of morality,

I am not claiming that humans cannot know the nature of morality, they do know the nature of it, but based on their own perception, that is why I am saying that the nature of morality does not exist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:02 PM
To deny the existence of moral truth is in fact to make a moral judgement in itself.
That&#39;s not true. Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." To say that moral truth does not exist is not a moral statement. It is the rejection that human action and character is defined by subjective perceptions.


In denying that man can know the nature of morality, one implies that they themselves know the nature of morality,

I am not claiming that humans cannot know the nature of morality, they do know the nature of it, but based on their own perception, that is why I am saying that the nature of morality does not exist.

[DaCuBaN]

morality is based on subjective interpretation, not objective logic

Indeed - logic is taking fact into account, and drawing a conclusion based on that.

5+5=10 agreed? 5 being fact, = being logic: Morality is utterly delinked from this. What I&#39;m not sure is what exactly you are getting at here The Anarchist Tension...


Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character."

Indeed: We humans seem to be judgemental creatures for reasons unknown to me and we all do hold some form of moral code and judge others by it, often subconsciously. It is indeed utterly subjective - Take an example of two persons playing totally different picked riffs on guitars, one in D the other in C. Whilst on occassion they will strike accord with one another, predominantly they are dischordant.


I am saying that the nature of morality does not exist.

To which I must admit: I am in whole-hearted concordance. I consider myself (for better or worse) an overly moralistic person - for example, I don&#39;t like people getting excessively drunk, nor filandering. I&#39;ll bet there are plenty of others on this site who hold their own &#39;morals&#39; and differ fundamentally from my own.

Stop thinking there&#39;s good in everyone; We all just analyse our surroundings - ergo all is subjective. Especially our judgements, or morality.

[DaCuBaN]

morality is based on subjective interpretation, not objective logic

Indeed - logic is taking fact into account, and drawing a conclusion based on that.

5+5=10 agreed? 5 being fact, = being logic: Morality is utterly delinked from this. What I&#39;m not sure is what exactly you are getting at here The Anarchist Tension...


Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character."

Indeed: We humans seem to be judgemental creatures for reasons unknown to me and we all do hold some form of moral code and judge others by it, often subconsciously. It is indeed utterly subjective - Take an example of two persons playing totally different picked riffs on guitars, one in D the other in C. Whilst on occassion they will strike accord with one another, predominantly they are dischordant.


I am saying that the nature of morality does not exist.

To which I must admit: I am in whole-hearted concordance. I consider myself (for better or worse) an overly moralistic person - for example, I don&#39;t like people getting excessively drunk, nor filandering. I&#39;ll bet there are plenty of others on this site who hold their own &#39;morals&#39; and differ fundamentally from my own.

Stop thinking there&#39;s good in everyone; We all just analyse our surroundings - ergo all is subjective. Especially our judgements, or morality.

[DaCuBaN]

morality is based on subjective interpretation, not objective logic

Indeed - logic is taking fact into account, and drawing a conclusion based on that.

5+5=10 agreed? 5 being fact, = being logic: Morality is utterly delinked from this. What I&#39;m not sure is what exactly you are getting at here The Anarchist Tension...


Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character."

Indeed: We humans seem to be judgemental creatures for reasons unknown to me and we all do hold some form of moral code and judge others by it, often subconsciously. It is indeed utterly subjective - Take an example of two persons playing totally different picked riffs on guitars, one in D the other in C. Whilst on occassion they will strike accord with one another, predominantly they are dischordant.


I am saying that the nature of morality does not exist.

To which I must admit: I am in whole-hearted concordance. I consider myself (for better or worse) an overly moralistic person - for example, I don&#39;t like people getting excessively drunk, nor filandering. I&#39;ll bet there are plenty of others on this site who hold their own &#39;morals&#39; and differ fundamentally from my own.

Stop thinking there&#39;s good in everyone; We all just analyse our surroundings - ergo all is subjective. Especially our judgements, or morality.

[ComradeChris]

The idea of morality does indeed exist (as a human term; like any other human term). It stops us from doing primal things. In a society, you have to give up some freedoms. Our laws are based on the collective morals. People, however, seem to manipulate this with religion and laws (like the idea of theft; probably a capitalistic creation). I&#39;m sure most people agree that cold-blooded murder is "immoral" (sorry to use the word we&#39;re trying to disprove). I&#39;m sure many of us don&#39;t want to live in constant fear of being killed because there&#39;s no law against it. Any angry person could commit the act against us. Now, if people lived primally, morals do not exist; because we resemble a pack of animals more than a society. And of course, there are always exceptions in society; people who don&#39;t believe in the same morals as others. As the values (synonym for morals) change in a society, so will the laws that uphold the earlier tradition. I mean even as a primitive culture, we allowed murder in various forms. I&#39;m speaking of infancide, euthinasia (which is debatable), wife beheadings (King Louis or Henry, I can&#39;t remember which), etc. Now those things are shunned upon. Now, in "western" culture those values have been removed, making them both illegal, and immoral. However, if a society deems something a value, who are we to say that it&#39;s immoral? Because people don&#39;t see eye to eye, doesn&#39;t make them evil (well, I hate to judge, but maybe there are a few cases) or good.

[ComradeChris]

The idea of morality does indeed exist (as a human term; like any other human term). It stops us from doing primal things. In a society, you have to give up some freedoms. Our laws are based on the collective morals. People, however, seem to manipulate this with religion and laws (like the idea of theft; probably a capitalistic creation). I&#39;m sure most people agree that cold-blooded murder is "immoral" (sorry to use the word we&#39;re trying to disprove). I&#39;m sure many of us don&#39;t want to live in constant fear of being killed because there&#39;s no law against it. Any angry person could commit the act against us. Now, if people lived primally, morals do not exist; because we resemble a pack of animals more than a society. And of course, there are always exceptions in society; people who don&#39;t believe in the same morals as others. As the values (synonym for morals) change in a society, so will the laws that uphold the earlier tradition. I mean even as a primitive culture, we allowed murder in various forms. I&#39;m speaking of infancide, euthinasia (which is debatable), wife beheadings (King Louis or Henry, I can&#39;t remember which), etc. Now those things are shunned upon. Now, in "western" culture those values have been removed, making them both illegal, and immoral. However, if a society deems something a value, who are we to say that it&#39;s immoral? Because people don&#39;t see eye to eye, doesn&#39;t make them evil (well, I hate to judge, but maybe there are a few cases) or good.

[ComradeChris]

The idea of morality does indeed exist (as a human term; like any other human term). It stops us from doing primal things. In a society, you have to give up some freedoms. Our laws are based on the collective morals. People, however, seem to manipulate this with religion and laws (like the idea of theft; probably a capitalistic creation). I&#39;m sure most people agree that cold-blooded murder is "immoral" (sorry to use the word we&#39;re trying to disprove). I&#39;m sure many of us don&#39;t want to live in constant fear of being killed because there&#39;s no law against it. Any angry person could commit the act against us. Now, if people lived primally, morals do not exist; because we resemble a pack of animals more than a society. And of course, there are always exceptions in society; people who don&#39;t believe in the same morals as others. As the values (synonym for morals) change in a society, so will the laws that uphold the earlier tradition. I mean even as a primitive culture, we allowed murder in various forms. I&#39;m speaking of infancide, euthinasia (which is debatable), wife beheadings (King Louis or Henry, I can&#39;t remember which), etc. Now those things are shunned upon. Now, in "western" culture those values have been removed, making them both illegal, and immoral. However, if a society deems something a value, who are we to say that it&#39;s immoral? Because people don&#39;t see eye to eye, doesn&#39;t make them evil (well, I hate to judge, but maybe there are a few cases) or good.

[Comfort]

i noticed that the word "killing" appears often in this subject. i&#39;m too stupid to figure out how to do the quote thing but here is a quote from the above arguements "it will be necassary to kill the bourgoeiuse (how ever you spell that)"

WHY? is it always necassary to kill? because someone does not see eye to eye, because someone opposes us? when communists are in power no doubt other people will have differing views, do we then kill them like Stalin or do we find another way. diplomacy and law, that is the road to equality and peace. fighting fire with fire has never put out a fire.

we seem to be falling into the trap of relativism too easily. things are not always relative, history gives us a base in which to work with. we can trace thoughts, actions and feelings back 2500 years ago and in some cases farther back but it is unclear usually (except in the bible, which is not historic but it gives an idea of one ancient culture...can we enter that minefield?). murdering equals has always been wrong (of course there are exceptions but majority), roman citizen vs roman citizen, greek citizen vs greek citizen, white vs white; any murders between these equals was punishable by law. there is morality in that, what we believe is wrong. nowadays we try to establish that everyone is equal (try) so murdering anyone is wrong. life is not always relative.

i do believe in universal morals, though i would say some are subject to change thankfully, ex. racism. and in response to the attack my Christian beliefs, i am subject to these universal morals and since God is these values then yes, He is my prerequisite.

if you believe God is a pixie illusion so be it. then my most of my beliefs will not make sense, i understand this. but do you say that because you have made Marx your god, or Che your god or logic your god? Marx&#39;s system has failed, Che is dead and logic can explain very little. this sounds judgemental i know but it is not, i go to a christian school so it is helpful to learn from non-christians. what do you all believe in?

and somebody mocked my adam smith quote...clearly it was sarcasm

[Comfort]

i noticed that the word "killing" appears often in this subject. i&#39;m too stupid to figure out how to do the quote thing but here is a quote from the above arguements "it will be necassary to kill the bourgoeiuse (how ever you spell that)"

WHY? is it always necassary to kill? because someone does not see eye to eye, because someone opposes us? when communists are in power no doubt other people will have differing views, do we then kill them like Stalin or do we find another way. diplomacy and law, that is the road to equality and peace. fighting fire with fire has never put out a fire.

we seem to be falling into the trap of relativism too easily. things are not always relative, history gives us a base in which to work with. we can trace thoughts, actions and feelings back 2500 years ago and in some cases farther back but it is unclear usually (except in the bible, which is not historic but it gives an idea of one ancient culture...can we enter that minefield?). murdering equals has always been wrong (of course there are exceptions but majority), roman citizen vs roman citizen, greek citizen vs greek citizen, white vs white; any murders between these equals was punishable by law. there is morality in that, what we believe is wrong. nowadays we try to establish that everyone is equal (try) so murdering anyone is wrong. life is not always relative.

i do believe in universal morals, though i would say some are subject to change thankfully, ex. racism. and in response to the attack my Christian beliefs, i am subject to these universal morals and since God is these values then yes, He is my prerequisite.

if you believe God is a pixie illusion so be it. then my most of my beliefs will not make sense, i understand this. but do you say that because you have made Marx your god, or Che your god or logic your god? Marx&#39;s system has failed, Che is dead and logic can explain very little. this sounds judgemental i know but it is not, i go to a christian school so it is helpful to learn from non-christians. what do you all believe in?

and somebody mocked my adam smith quote...clearly it was sarcasm

[Comfort]

i noticed that the word "killing" appears often in this subject. i&#39;m too stupid to figure out how to do the quote thing but here is a quote from the above arguements "it will be necassary to kill the bourgoeiuse (how ever you spell that)"

WHY? is it always necassary to kill? because someone does not see eye to eye, because someone opposes us? when communists are in power no doubt other people will have differing views, do we then kill them like Stalin or do we find another way. diplomacy and law, that is the road to equality and peace. fighting fire with fire has never put out a fire.

we seem to be falling into the trap of relativism too easily. things are not always relative, history gives us a base in which to work with. we can trace thoughts, actions and feelings back 2500 years ago and in some cases farther back but it is unclear usually (except in the bible, which is not historic but it gives an idea of one ancient culture...can we enter that minefield?). murdering equals has always been wrong (of course there are exceptions but majority), roman citizen vs roman citizen, greek citizen vs greek citizen, white vs white; any murders between these equals was punishable by law. there is morality in that, what we believe is wrong. nowadays we try to establish that everyone is equal (try) so murdering anyone is wrong. life is not always relative.

i do believe in universal morals, though i would say some are subject to change thankfully, ex. racism. and in response to the attack my Christian beliefs, i am subject to these universal morals and since God is these values then yes, He is my prerequisite.

if you believe God is a pixie illusion so be it. then my most of my beliefs will not make sense, i understand this. but do you say that because you have made Marx your god, or Che your god or logic your god? Marx&#39;s system has failed, Che is dead and logic can explain very little. this sounds judgemental i know but it is not, i go to a christian school so it is helpful to learn from non-christians. what do you all believe in?

and somebody mocked my adam smith quote...clearly it was sarcasm

[commiecrusader]

So then you can never have a moral code that you follow universally?
Maybe not universally in completely the same way, but you can have a universal moral code that you can adapt to fit every situation. A moral code, as I explained, is flexible according to the situation.


But only you can make a decision based on what you concieve to be "right" or "wrong." What happens if you conclude it is fine to have sex with your sister to save your mothers life, but your sister refuses? Then what would you do?
Not the best person to ask since I pretty much hate my family for deepseated, personal reasons. But then you would have to reassess the situation against your morals, is it worse to allow your mum to die, or rape your sister? What would your logic tell you to do?


Morality is not all encompasing though. It is a judgement (or idea) on the "goodness" or "badness" of human actions. To be logical you have to ignore the concepts of good or bad, right or wrong.
To be logical, it could be said you simply replace the word &#39;good&#39; with &#39;logical&#39; and &#39;bad&#39; with &#39;illogical&#39;.


No it can&#39;t.
Ok obviously &#39;tree&#39; can&#39;t be a moral but give an example of some sort of expectation of behaviour such as &#39;it is wrong to steal&#39; that couldn&#39;t be a moral. &#39;To be logical&#39; could be your moral code if you want to see it that way. A moral code doesn&#39;t have to be a conscious thing. It can be subconscious too.


To have that kind of moral, you would have to concieve that it was good or right to murder.
Yes I would, but it doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t be a moral.


By your subject definition. Only the depressed person can know what the "right" thing to do is.
Correct again. And how would they assess what to do? By weighing the situation up against their beliefs in what they should do, in other words, their moral code. Even if they decided it in a &#39;logical&#39; way, &#39;to be logical&#39; could be their subconscious moral code.


Why is that a logical conclusion? Logically I would conclude that you were being illogical. If you didn&#39;t work you would starve to death, but that&#39;s your choice. I am working because I want to eat and I want to help society function. If you decided not to work, then you would not be helping society and become disefranchised, and would eventually starve.
In my example I believe I said I was living off your labour. Therefore I wouldn&#39;t die. And just because I was disenfranchised I could theoretically steal stuff from you. I think you&#39;d care then.


That doesn&#39;t make any sense. There is really no difference.
I said it was a somewhat artificial distinction, but explained what I meant by it.


But it could be argued that someone in the bourgeoisie is innocent.
How? They live off exploiting the masses.


It&#39;s so strange how human beings rationalise things. How did you come to this conclusion that it was "morally acceptable."
Kill or be killed: This I guess boils down to the unpleasant motivation of selfishness. I&#39;d rather someone else died rather than me, unless I&#39;d done something to really deserve it.
Killing for the greater good: Because I feel it is better to lose one life or a hundred lives if the majority benefit from that death. I would happily die if my death would ensure the world turning Communist. Everyone else would benefit. I&#39;m sure you feel the same way, except for Anarchism.


But the idea of communism is the conclusion of something physical that can be proven to exist.
So is the idea of morality. People generally share similar values or act in similar ways in given situations. This has been proven to exist.

[commiecrusader]

So then you can never have a moral code that you follow universally?
Maybe not universally in completely the same way, but you can have a universal moral code that you can adapt to fit every situation. A moral code, as I explained, is flexible according to the situation.


But only you can make a decision based on what you concieve to be "right" or "wrong." What happens if you conclude it is fine to have sex with your sister to save your mothers life, but your sister refuses? Then what would you do?
Not the best person to ask since I pretty much hate my family for deepseated, personal reasons. But then you would have to reassess the situation against your morals, is it worse to allow your mum to die, or rape your sister? What would your logic tell you to do?


Morality is not all encompasing though. It is a judgement (or idea) on the "goodness" or "badness" of human actions. To be logical you have to ignore the concepts of good or bad, right or wrong.
To be logical, it could be said you simply replace the word &#39;good&#39; with &#39;logical&#39; and &#39;bad&#39; with &#39;illogical&#39;.


No it can&#39;t.
Ok obviously &#39;tree&#39; can&#39;t be a moral but give an example of some sort of expectation of behaviour such as &#39;it is wrong to steal&#39; that couldn&#39;t be a moral. &#39;To be logical&#39; could be your moral code if you want to see it that way. A moral code doesn&#39;t have to be a conscious thing. It can be subconscious too.


To have that kind of moral, you would have to concieve that it was good or right to murder.
Yes I would, but it doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t be a moral.


By your subject definition. Only the depressed person can know what the "right" thing to do is.
Correct again. And how would they assess what to do? By weighing the situation up against their beliefs in what they should do, in other words, their moral code. Even if they decided it in a &#39;logical&#39; way, &#39;to be logical&#39; could be their subconscious moral code.


Why is that a logical conclusion? Logically I would conclude that you were being illogical. If you didn&#39;t work you would starve to death, but that&#39;s your choice. I am working because I want to eat and I want to help society function. If you decided not to work, then you would not be helping society and become disefranchised, and would eventually starve.
In my example I believe I said I was living off your labour. Therefore I wouldn&#39;t die. And just because I was disenfranchised I could theoretically steal stuff from you. I think you&#39;d care then.


That doesn&#39;t make any sense. There is really no difference.
I said it was a somewhat artificial distinction, but explained what I meant by it.


But it could be argued that someone in the bourgeoisie is innocent.
How? They live off exploiting the masses.


It&#39;s so strange how human beings rationalise things. How did you come to this conclusion that it was "morally acceptable."
Kill or be killed: This I guess boils down to the unpleasant motivation of selfishness. I&#39;d rather someone else died rather than me, unless I&#39;d done something to really deserve it.
Killing for the greater good: Because I feel it is better to lose one life or a hundred lives if the majority benefit from that death. I would happily die if my death would ensure the world turning Communist. Everyone else would benefit. I&#39;m sure you feel the same way, except for Anarchism.


But the idea of communism is the conclusion of something physical that can be proven to exist.
So is the idea of morality. People generally share similar values or act in similar ways in given situations. This has been proven to exist.

[commiecrusader]

So then you can never have a moral code that you follow universally?
Maybe not universally in completely the same way, but you can have a universal moral code that you can adapt to fit every situation. A moral code, as I explained, is flexible according to the situation.


But only you can make a decision based on what you concieve to be "right" or "wrong." What happens if you conclude it is fine to have sex with your sister to save your mothers life, but your sister refuses? Then what would you do?
Not the best person to ask since I pretty much hate my family for deepseated, personal reasons. But then you would have to reassess the situation against your morals, is it worse to allow your mum to die, or rape your sister? What would your logic tell you to do?


Morality is not all encompasing though. It is a judgement (or idea) on the "goodness" or "badness" of human actions. To be logical you have to ignore the concepts of good or bad, right or wrong.
To be logical, it could be said you simply replace the word &#39;good&#39; with &#39;logical&#39; and &#39;bad&#39; with &#39;illogical&#39;.


No it can&#39;t.
Ok obviously &#39;tree&#39; can&#39;t be a moral but give an example of some sort of expectation of behaviour such as &#39;it is wrong to steal&#39; that couldn&#39;t be a moral. &#39;To be logical&#39; could be your moral code if you want to see it that way. A moral code doesn&#39;t have to be a conscious thing. It can be subconscious too.


To have that kind of moral, you would have to concieve that it was good or right to murder.
Yes I would, but it doesn&#39;t mean it can&#39;t be a moral.


By your subject definition. Only the depressed person can know what the "right" thing to do is.
Correct again. And how would they assess what to do? By weighing the situation up against their beliefs in what they should do, in other words, their moral code. Even if they decided it in a &#39;logical&#39; way, &#39;to be logical&#39; could be their subconscious moral code.


Why is that a logical conclusion? Logically I would conclude that you were being illogical. If you didn&#39;t work you would starve to death, but that&#39;s your choice. I am working because I want to eat and I want to help society function. If you decided not to work, then you would not be helping society and become disefranchised, and would eventually starve.
In my example I believe I said I was living off your labour. Therefore I wouldn&#39;t die. And just because I was disenfranchised I could theoretically steal stuff from you. I think you&#39;d care then.


That doesn&#39;t make any sense. There is really no difference.
I said it was a somewhat artificial distinction, but explained what I meant by it.


But it could be argued that someone in the bourgeoisie is innocent.
How? They live off exploiting the masses.


It&#39;s so strange how human beings rationalise things. How did you come to this conclusion that it was "morally acceptable."
Kill or be killed: This I guess boils down to the unpleasant motivation of selfishness. I&#39;d rather someone else died rather than me, unless I&#39;d done something to really deserve it.
Killing for the greater good: Because I feel it is better to lose one life or a hundred lives if the majority benefit from that death. I would happily die if my death would ensure the world turning Communist. Everyone else would benefit. I&#39;m sure you feel the same way, except for Anarchism.


But the idea of communism is the conclusion of something physical that can be proven to exist.
So is the idea of morality. People generally share similar values or act in similar ways in given situations. This has been proven to exist.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

You can not legislate morality. You can debate it, protest it, but the government should never have laws regarding morality. If the government kept out of all moral issues and people merely debated them themselves inteligently, it&#39;d be much better than it is now.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

You can not legislate morality. You can debate it, protest it, but the government should never have laws regarding morality. If the government kept out of all moral issues and people merely debated them themselves inteligently, it&#39;d be much better than it is now.

[Anti-Capitalist1]

You can not legislate morality. You can debate it, protest it, but the government should never have laws regarding morality. If the government kept out of all moral issues and people merely debated them themselves inteligently, it&#39;d be much better than it is now.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM
What would your logic tell you to do?
Logic would conclude that if you wanted your mother to survive you would have to rape your sister.


To be logical, it could be said you simply replace the word &#39;good&#39; with &#39;logical&#39; and &#39;bad&#39; with &#39;illogical&#39;.

Good and bad are subjective concepts and therefore don&#39;t exist because you cannot prove that they exist. You are not replacing the words because a logic conclusion could be seen as a "bad" thing by some people.

The concepts of good and bad are interchangeable, where as Logic only has one conclusion.


&#39;To be logical&#39; could be your moral code if you want to see it that way.

Morality is the judgement of "right" or "wrong" on actions or beliefs. Logic is devoid of any concept other than what is proven. Being logical cannot be a moral code because morality is based on ideas that cannot be proven to exist.


A moral code doesn&#39;t have to be a conscious thing. It can be subconscious too.

How?


In my example I believe I said I was living off your labour.

That would be impossible unless you stole.


Therefore I wouldn&#39;t die. And just because I was disenfranchised I could theoretically steal stuff from you. I think you&#39;d care then.

Your conception of communist society is very primitive in my opinion. Attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas.

If you stole something from me I would not "care." I have the whole of society to support me. I have my community and my friends to fall back on and to offer me help if I needed it.

Imagine if all your friends where working for society and for their community as a unit and as comrades and you refused? Not only that but you stole. You would find living in that community very upsetting. If you didnt end up feeling guilty, you would end up having to leave. Where would you go?

People shouldn&#39;t or wouldn&#39;t care about having possesions stolen because they can be replaced. What people should do is pity people who behalf in such a way. It would be very sad to see another human fight against a system that was designed to create political, economic and social freedom for them.

Try living in a society, where your community pited you and where you had to steal in order to survive. It would send you mad. Why would you rather steal and not be apart of society, when you can be a part of society and have everything you need?


How? They live off exploiting the masses.

My point was that your example has no conclusion. There are many arguments that could be had and many conclusions to be drawn if you look at it in this narrow way. Saying it is "morally" right to kill someone for exploiting someone else can easily be counted with it is immoral to kill someone who exploits someone. Then what do you say?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM
What would your logic tell you to do?
Logic would conclude that if you wanted your mother to survive you would have to rape your sister.


To be logical, it could be said you simply replace the word &#39;good&#39; with &#39;logical&#39; and &#39;bad&#39; with &#39;illogical&#39;.

Good and bad are subjective concepts and therefore don&#39;t exist because you cannot prove that they exist. You are not replacing the words because a logic conclusion could be seen as a "bad" thing by some people.

The concepts of good and bad are interchangeable, where as Logic only has one conclusion.


&#39;To be logical&#39; could be your moral code if you want to see it that way.

Morality is the judgement of "right" or "wrong" on actions or beliefs. Logic is devoid of any concept other than what is proven. Being logical cannot be a moral code because morality is based on ideas that cannot be proven to exist.


A moral code doesn&#39;t have to be a conscious thing. It can be subconscious too.

How?


In my example I believe I said I was living off your labour.

That would be impossible unless you stole.


Therefore I wouldn&#39;t die. And just because I was disenfranchised I could theoretically steal stuff from you. I think you&#39;d care then.

Your conception of communist society is very primitive in my opinion. Attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas.

If you stole something from me I would not "care." I have the whole of society to support me. I have my community and my friends to fall back on and to offer me help if I needed it.

Imagine if all your friends where working for society and for their community as a unit and as comrades and you refused? Not only that but you stole. You would find living in that community very upsetting. If you didnt end up feeling guilty, you would end up having to leave. Where would you go?

People shouldn&#39;t or wouldn&#39;t care about having possesions stolen because they can be replaced. What people should do is pity people who behalf in such a way. It would be very sad to see another human fight against a system that was designed to create political, economic and social freedom for them.

Try living in a society, where your community pited you and where you had to steal in order to survive. It would send you mad. Why would you rather steal and not be apart of society, when you can be a part of society and have everything you need?


How? They live off exploiting the masses.

My point was that your example has no conclusion. There are many arguments that could be had and many conclusions to be drawn if you look at it in this narrow way. Saying it is "morally" right to kill someone for exploiting someone else can easily be counted with it is immoral to kill someone who exploits someone. Then what do you say?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:11 PM
What would your logic tell you to do?
Logic would conclude that if you wanted your mother to survive you would have to rape your sister.


To be logical, it could be said you simply replace the word &#39;good&#39; with &#39;logical&#39; and &#39;bad&#39; with &#39;illogical&#39;.

Good and bad are subjective concepts and therefore don&#39;t exist because you cannot prove that they exist. You are not replacing the words because a logic conclusion could be seen as a "bad" thing by some people.

The concepts of good and bad are interchangeable, where as Logic only has one conclusion.


&#39;To be logical&#39; could be your moral code if you want to see it that way.

Morality is the judgement of "right" or "wrong" on actions or beliefs. Logic is devoid of any concept other than what is proven. Being logical cannot be a moral code because morality is based on ideas that cannot be proven to exist.


A moral code doesn&#39;t have to be a conscious thing. It can be subconscious too.

How?


In my example I believe I said I was living off your labour.

That would be impossible unless you stole.


Therefore I wouldn&#39;t die. And just because I was disenfranchised I could theoretically steal stuff from you. I think you&#39;d care then.

Your conception of communist society is very primitive in my opinion. Attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas.

If you stole something from me I would not "care." I have the whole of society to support me. I have my community and my friends to fall back on and to offer me help if I needed it.

Imagine if all your friends where working for society and for their community as a unit and as comrades and you refused? Not only that but you stole. You would find living in that community very upsetting. If you didnt end up feeling guilty, you would end up having to leave. Where would you go?

People shouldn&#39;t or wouldn&#39;t care about having possesions stolen because they can be replaced. What people should do is pity people who behalf in such a way. It would be very sad to see another human fight against a system that was designed to create political, economic and social freedom for them.

Try living in a society, where your community pited you and where you had to steal in order to survive. It would send you mad. Why would you rather steal and not be apart of society, when you can be a part of society and have everything you need?


How? They live off exploiting the masses.

My point was that your example has no conclusion. There are many arguments that could be had and many conclusions to be drawn if you look at it in this narrow way. Saying it is "morally" right to kill someone for exploiting someone else can easily be counted with it is immoral to kill someone who exploits someone. Then what do you say?

[monkeydust]

That&#39;s not true. Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." To say that moral truth does not exist is not a moral statement. It is the rejection that human action and character is defined by subjective perceptions.


I do see your point.

Clearly saying that "There is no morality" is not stating whether something is, or is not, right or wrong.

But to say that there is no absolute morality is to still make a moral judgement, albeit one of a "second order".

This is due to the fact that, in saying that there is no "right or wrong", one implies that morality cannot be known to man. However, in making this statement, one already asserts some prior knowledge about the nature of morality, namely that it does not exist.

In any case, my point is merely Philosophical verbal wankery, and I do generally agreewith your stance on this issue, so I guess we should leave it here.

[monkeydust]

That&#39;s not true. Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." To say that moral truth does not exist is not a moral statement. It is the rejection that human action and character is defined by subjective perceptions.


I do see your point.

Clearly saying that "There is no morality" is not stating whether something is, or is not, right or wrong.

But to say that there is no absolute morality is to still make a moral judgement, albeit one of a "second order".

This is due to the fact that, in saying that there is no "right or wrong", one implies that morality cannot be known to man. However, in making this statement, one already asserts some prior knowledge about the nature of morality, namely that it does not exist.

In any case, my point is merely Philosophical verbal wankery, and I do generally agreewith your stance on this issue, so I guess we should leave it here.

[monkeydust]

That&#39;s not true. Morality is defined as the "judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." To say that moral truth does not exist is not a moral statement. It is the rejection that human action and character is defined by subjective perceptions.


I do see your point.

Clearly saying that "There is no morality" is not stating whether something is, or is not, right or wrong.

But to say that there is no absolute morality is to still make a moral judgement, albeit one of a "second order".

This is due to the fact that, in saying that there is no "right or wrong", one implies that morality cannot be known to man. However, in making this statement, one already asserts some prior knowledge about the nature of morality, namely that it does not exist.

In any case, my point is merely Philosophical verbal wankery, and I do generally agreewith your stance on this issue, so I guess we should leave it here.

[che's long lost daughter]

The meaning of morality solely depends on the person&#39;s own definition of it. WHat may be moral to one may not be to the other. Now the question is, what makes a thing moral or immoral?

I don&#39;t know if someone has already said this of morality, I haven&#39;t read the whole thread.

[che's long lost daughter]

The meaning of morality solely depends on the person&#39;s own definition of it. WHat may be moral to one may not be to the other. Now the question is, what makes a thing moral or immoral?

I don&#39;t know if someone has already said this of morality, I haven&#39;t read the whole thread.

[che's long lost daughter]

The meaning of morality solely depends on the person&#39;s own definition of it. WHat may be moral to one may not be to the other. Now the question is, what makes a thing moral or immoral?

I don&#39;t know if someone has already said this of morality, I haven&#39;t read the whole thread.

[commiecrusader]

Good and bad are subjective concepts and therefore don&#39;t exist because you cannot prove that they exist. You are not replacing the words because a logic conclusion could be seen as a "bad" thing by some people.

The concepts of good and bad are interchangeable, where as Logic only has one conclusion.
Logic doesn&#39;t only have one conclusion. It depends how you analyse the situation, how you view it, your general outlook on life. With the whole &#39;rape your sister or your mum dies&#39; situation, you demonstrate this perfectly.
Logic would conclude that if you wanted your mother to survive you would have to rape your sister. Your viewing the situation through &#39;I want to save my Mum&#39; glasses, but if you looked at it through &#39;I don&#39;t want to save my Mum&#39;s life&#39; then you get a different outlook. How would logic tell you which was worse out of an instant, painless death to your mum, or the permanent mental anguish experienced by you and your sister following the rape, not to mention any temporary physical injuries. Your sister would be lost to you and would hate you forever. Surely you must rely on some sort of moral framework, subconscious or otherwise. I don&#39;t see how you can logically assess that situation.


Morality is the judgement of "right" or "wrong" on actions or beliefs. Logic is devoid of any concept other than what is proven. Being logical cannot be a moral code because morality is based on ideas that cannot be proven to exist.
A fair point, and one that defeats that aspect of my argument admittedly. But could you not say that your logical way of looking at things is akin to a moral code? Obviously now you&#39;ve said that, not the same as, but similar?


How?
I don&#39;t see quite what the misunderstanding is here and don&#39;t really know how to explain further. Morals can be subconscious the same way as anything can. Sometimes I certainly and I&#39;m sure other people do, feel that they shouldn&#39;t do something, instinctively, without analysing it in any depth. For example, I feel like that always if I&#39;m ever about to punch someone or something without a really good reason, and therefore don&#39;t punch people unless I have a really good reason.


That would be impossible unless you stole.
Of course it would, I didn&#39;t think I needed to be that explicit with you.


Attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas.
How can you say that for sure? Yes these views will be widely held but there is bound to always be a few rotten apples surely?


Imagine if all your friends where working for society and for their community as a unit and as comrades and you refused? Not only that but you stole. You would find living in that community very upsetting. If you didnt end up feeling guilty, you would end up having to leave. Where would you go?

People shouldn&#39;t or wouldn&#39;t care about having possesions stolen because they can be replaced. What people should do is pity people who behalf in such a way. It would be very sad to see another human fight against a system that was designed to create political, economic and social freedom for them.

Try living in a society, where your community pited you and where you had to steal in order to survive. It would send you mad. Why would you rather steal and not be apart of society, when you can be a part of society and have everything you need?
This is all entirely irrelevant. Of course I would feel all these things but that is completely beside the point. It is about how you would feel. Maybe you wouldn&#39;t feel angry or anything but I&#39;m sure some people would feel anger at the fact that I theoretically was living off their labour without contributing anything to society myself.


My point was that your example has no conclusion. There are many arguments that could be had and many conclusions to be drawn if you look at it in this narrow way. Saying it is "morally" right to kill someone for exploiting someone else can easily be counted with it is immoral to kill someone who exploits someone. Then what do you say?
True if you see exploitation as a good thing. But no-one on here cept in the opposing ideologies bit would think this... would they?

[commiecrusader]

Good and bad are subjective concepts and therefore don&#39;t exist because you cannot prove that they exist. You are not replacing the words because a logic conclusion could be seen as a "bad" thing by some people.

The concepts of good and bad are interchangeable, where as Logic only has one conclusion.
Logic doesn&#39;t only have one conclusion. It depends how you analyse the situation, how you view it, your general outlook on life. With the whole &#39;rape your sister or your mum dies&#39; situation, you demonstrate this perfectly.
Logic would conclude that if you wanted your mother to survive you would have to rape your sister. Your viewing the situation through &#39;I want to save my Mum&#39; glasses, but if you looked at it through &#39;I don&#39;t want to save my Mum&#39;s life&#39; then you get a different outlook. How would logic tell you which was worse out of an instant, painless death to your mum, or the permanent mental anguish experienced by you and your sister following the rape, not to mention any temporary physical injuries. Your sister would be lost to you and would hate you forever. Surely you must rely on some sort of moral framework, subconscious or otherwise. I don&#39;t see how you can logically assess that situation.


Morality is the judgement of "right" or "wrong" on actions or beliefs. Logic is devoid of any concept other than what is proven. Being logical cannot be a moral code because morality is based on ideas that cannot be proven to exist.
A fair point, and one that defeats that aspect of my argument admittedly. But could you not say that your logical way of looking at things is akin to a moral code? Obviously now you&#39;ve said that, not the same as, but similar?


How?
I don&#39;t see quite what the misunderstanding is here and don&#39;t really know how to explain further. Morals can be subconscious the same way as anything can. Sometimes I certainly and I&#39;m sure other people do, feel that they shouldn&#39;t do something, instinctively, without analysing it in any depth. For example, I feel like that always if I&#39;m ever about to punch someone or something without a really good reason, and therefore don&#39;t punch people unless I have a really good reason.


That would be impossible unless you stole.
Of course it would, I didn&#39;t think I needed to be that explicit with you.


Attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas.
How can you say that for sure? Yes these views will be widely held but there is bound to always be a few rotten apples surely?


Imagine if all your friends where working for society and for their community as a unit and as comrades and you refused? Not only that but you stole. You would find living in that community very upsetting. If you didnt end up feeling guilty, you would end up having to leave. Where would you go?

People shouldn&#39;t or wouldn&#39;t care about having possesions stolen because they can be replaced. What people should do is pity people who behalf in such a way. It would be very sad to see another human fight against a system that was designed to create political, economic and social freedom for them.

Try living in a society, where your community pited you and where you had to steal in order to survive. It would send you mad. Why would you rather steal and not be apart of society, when you can be a part of society and have everything you need?
This is all entirely irrelevant. Of course I would feel all these things but that is completely beside the point. It is about how you would feel. Maybe you wouldn&#39;t feel angry or anything but I&#39;m sure some people would feel anger at the fact that I theoretically was living off their labour without contributing anything to society myself.


My point was that your example has no conclusion. There are many arguments that could be had and many conclusions to be drawn if you look at it in this narrow way. Saying it is "morally" right to kill someone for exploiting someone else can easily be counted with it is immoral to kill someone who exploits someone. Then what do you say?
True if you see exploitation as a good thing. But no-one on here cept in the opposing ideologies bit would think this... would they?

[commiecrusader]

Good and bad are subjective concepts and therefore don&#39;t exist because you cannot prove that they exist. You are not replacing the words because a logic conclusion could be seen as a "bad" thing by some people.

The concepts of good and bad are interchangeable, where as Logic only has one conclusion.
Logic doesn&#39;t only have one conclusion. It depends how you analyse the situation, how you view it, your general outlook on life. With the whole &#39;rape your sister or your mum dies&#39; situation, you demonstrate this perfectly.
Logic would conclude that if you wanted your mother to survive you would have to rape your sister. Your viewing the situation through &#39;I want to save my Mum&#39; glasses, but if you looked at it through &#39;I don&#39;t want to save my Mum&#39;s life&#39; then you get a different outlook. How would logic tell you which was worse out of an instant, painless death to your mum, or the permanent mental anguish experienced by you and your sister following the rape, not to mention any temporary physical injuries. Your sister would be lost to you and would hate you forever. Surely you must rely on some sort of moral framework, subconscious or otherwise. I don&#39;t see how you can logically assess that situation.


Morality is the judgement of "right" or "wrong" on actions or beliefs. Logic is devoid of any concept other than what is proven. Being logical cannot be a moral code because morality is based on ideas that cannot be proven to exist.
A fair point, and one that defeats that aspect of my argument admittedly. But could you not say that your logical way of looking at things is akin to a moral code? Obviously now you&#39;ve said that, not the same as, but similar?


How?
I don&#39;t see quite what the misunderstanding is here and don&#39;t really know how to explain further. Morals can be subconscious the same way as anything can. Sometimes I certainly and I&#39;m sure other people do, feel that they shouldn&#39;t do something, instinctively, without analysing it in any depth. For example, I feel like that always if I&#39;m ever about to punch someone or something without a really good reason, and therefore don&#39;t punch people unless I have a really good reason.


That would be impossible unless you stole.
Of course it would, I didn&#39;t think I needed to be that explicit with you.


Attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas.
How can you say that for sure? Yes these views will be widely held but there is bound to always be a few rotten apples surely?


Imagine if all your friends where working for society and for their community as a unit and as comrades and you refused? Not only that but you stole. You would find living in that community very upsetting. If you didnt end up feeling guilty, you would end up having to leave. Where would you go?

People shouldn&#39;t or wouldn&#39;t care about having possesions stolen because they can be replaced. What people should do is pity people who behalf in such a way. It would be very sad to see another human fight against a system that was designed to create political, economic and social freedom for them.

Try living in a society, where your community pited you and where you had to steal in order to survive. It would send you mad. Why would you rather steal and not be apart of society, when you can be a part of society and have everything you need?
This is all entirely irrelevant. Of course I would feel all these things but that is completely beside the point. It is about how you would feel. Maybe you wouldn&#39;t feel angry or anything but I&#39;m sure some people would feel anger at the fact that I theoretically was living off their labour without contributing anything to society myself.


My point was that your example has no conclusion. There are many arguments that could be had and many conclusions to be drawn if you look at it in this narrow way. Saying it is "morally" right to kill someone for exploiting someone else can easily be counted with it is immoral to kill someone who exploits someone. Then what do you say?
True if you see exploitation as a good thing. But no-one on here cept in the opposing ideologies bit would think this... would they?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:49 AM
Logic doesn&#39;t only have one conclusion. It depends how you analyse the situation, how you view it, your general outlook on life.
I admit that there are several ways you can draw a logical conclusion but it is not depend on "how you view it, your general outlook on life."

Logical decisions are based on facts not on subjective views. It has nothing to do with your general outlook on life, it has to do with facts.


Your viewing the situation through &#39;I want to save my Mum&#39; glasses, but if you looked at it through &#39;I don&#39;t want to save my Mum&#39;s life&#39; then you get a different outlook.

You do not get a different outlook, you get a different conclusion. Neither of those things are agreeable so it would be difficult to come to a conclusion, unless you hated your mother, in which case it wouldn&#39;t be very difficult at all.


How would logic tell you which was worse out of an instant, painless death to your mum, or the permanent mental anguish experienced by you and your sister following the rape, not to mention any temporary physical injuries.

But my sister should understand why it was done? I did not rape her to be aggressive or mean, and I did not enjoy it. I did it to save our mothers life&#33; That is the reality, and only subjective nonsense gets in the way of that being understood.


Your sister would be lost to you and would hate you forever.

That&#39;s her decision, but at least she has a mother.


Surely you must rely on some sort of moral framework, subconscious or otherwise.

I have no idea what subconscious morality is? Or if it even exists. I don&#39;t have morals, or at least I try not to have, simply because they aren&#39;t real.


I don&#39;t see how you can logically assess that situation.

a) I want my mother to live
b) She can only live if I have sex with my sister
c) I have sex with my sister


But could you not say that your logical way of looking at things is akin to a moral code?

No.


I don&#39;t see quite what the misunderstanding is here and don&#39;t really know how to explain further.

I want to know how you can have subconscious morals?


Morals can be subconscious the same way as anything can. Sometimes I certainly and I&#39;m sure other people do, feel that they shouldn&#39;t do something, instinctively, without analysing it in any depth.

Surely that&#39;s called instinct?


For example, I feel like that always if I&#39;m ever about to punch someone or something without a really good reason, and therefore don&#39;t punch people unless I have a really good reason.

That&#39;s not a subconscious decision. You have consciously decided not to punch someone without good reason.


How can you say that for sure?

Because otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have communism.


Yes these views will be widely held but there is bound to always be a few rotten apples surely?

For a time, i&#39;m sure. But communism cannot be defined on how many "bad apples" we have, but how we, as communists, treat them.


Maybe you wouldn&#39;t feel angry or anything but I&#39;m sure some people would feel anger at the fact that I theoretically was living off their labour without contributing anything to society myself.

I&#39;m sure there would people who would feel angry, directly after a revolution, many things from capitalist society would still exist. But we would have to learn to change our ways. Surely that was the point of the revolution?


True if you see exploitation as a good thing. But no-one on here cept in the opposing ideologies bit would think this... would they?

But this board isn&#39;t the world. My point anyway, was that morality is interchangeable. Meaning that something can either be right or wrong, depending on who you are. If that is the case, it cannot be real, otherwise it would be the same.

Why can a table never be anything other than a surface? Why can a book never be anything other than a collection of pages? Why can food never be anything other than a something which gives you sustenance? Why can Insulin never be anything other than a drug?...Because they are all real.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:49 AM
Logic doesn&#39;t only have one conclusion. It depends how you analyse the situation, how you view it, your general outlook on life.
I admit that there are several ways you can draw a logical conclusion but it is not depend on "how you view it, your general outlook on life."

Logical decisions are based on facts not on subjective views. It has nothing to do with your general outlook on life, it has to do with facts.


Your viewing the situation through &#39;I want to save my Mum&#39; glasses, but if you looked at it through &#39;I don&#39;t want to save my Mum&#39;s life&#39; then you get a different outlook.

You do not get a different outlook, you get a different conclusion. Neither of those things are agreeable so it would be difficult to come to a conclusion, unless you hated your mother, in which case it wouldn&#39;t be very difficult at all.


How would logic tell you which was worse out of an instant, painless death to your mum, or the permanent mental anguish experienced by you and your sister following the rape, not to mention any temporary physical injuries.

But my sister should understand why it was done? I did not rape her to be aggressive or mean, and I did not enjoy it. I did it to save our mothers life&#33; That is the reality, and only subjective nonsense gets in the way of that being understood.


Your sister would be lost to you and would hate you forever.

That&#39;s her decision, but at least she has a mother.


Surely you must rely on some sort of moral framework, subconscious or otherwise.

I have no idea what subconscious morality is? Or if it even exists. I don&#39;t have morals, or at least I try not to have, simply because they aren&#39;t real.


I don&#39;t see how you can logically assess that situation.

a) I want my mother to live
b) She can only live if I have sex with my sister
c) I have sex with my sister


But could you not say that your logical way of looking at things is akin to a moral code?

No.


I don&#39;t see quite what the misunderstanding is here and don&#39;t really know how to explain further.

I want to know how you can have subconscious morals?


Morals can be subconscious the same way as anything can. Sometimes I certainly and I&#39;m sure other people do, feel that they shouldn&#39;t do something, instinctively, without analysing it in any depth.

Surely that&#39;s called instinct?


For example, I feel like that always if I&#39;m ever about to punch someone or something without a really good reason, and therefore don&#39;t punch people unless I have a really good reason.

That&#39;s not a subconscious decision. You have consciously decided not to punch someone without good reason.


How can you say that for sure?

Because otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have communism.


Yes these views will be widely held but there is bound to always be a few rotten apples surely?

For a time, i&#39;m sure. But communism cannot be defined on how many "bad apples" we have, but how we, as communists, treat them.


Maybe you wouldn&#39;t feel angry or anything but I&#39;m sure some people would feel anger at the fact that I theoretically was living off their labour without contributing anything to society myself.

I&#39;m sure there would people who would feel angry, directly after a revolution, many things from capitalist society would still exist. But we would have to learn to change our ways. Surely that was the point of the revolution?


True if you see exploitation as a good thing. But no-one on here cept in the opposing ideologies bit would think this... would they?

But this board isn&#39;t the world. My point anyway, was that morality is interchangeable. Meaning that something can either be right or wrong, depending on who you are. If that is the case, it cannot be real, otherwise it would be the same.

Why can a table never be anything other than a surface? Why can a book never be anything other than a collection of pages? Why can food never be anything other than a something which gives you sustenance? Why can Insulin never be anything other than a drug?...Because they are all real.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:49 AM
Logic doesn&#39;t only have one conclusion. It depends how you analyse the situation, how you view it, your general outlook on life.
I admit that there are several ways you can draw a logical conclusion but it is not depend on "how you view it, your general outlook on life."

Logical decisions are based on facts not on subjective views. It has nothing to do with your general outlook on life, it has to do with facts.


Your viewing the situation through &#39;I want to save my Mum&#39; glasses, but if you looked at it through &#39;I don&#39;t want to save my Mum&#39;s life&#39; then you get a different outlook.

You do not get a different outlook, you get a different conclusion. Neither of those things are agreeable so it would be difficult to come to a conclusion, unless you hated your mother, in which case it wouldn&#39;t be very difficult at all.


How would logic tell you which was worse out of an instant, painless death to your mum, or the permanent mental anguish experienced by you and your sister following the rape, not to mention any temporary physical injuries.

But my sister should understand why it was done? I did not rape her to be aggressive or mean, and I did not enjoy it. I did it to save our mothers life&#33; That is the reality, and only subjective nonsense gets in the way of that being understood.


Your sister would be lost to you and would hate you forever.

That&#39;s her decision, but at least she has a mother.


Surely you must rely on some sort of moral framework, subconscious or otherwise.

I have no idea what subconscious morality is? Or if it even exists. I don&#39;t have morals, or at least I try not to have, simply because they aren&#39;t real.


I don&#39;t see how you can logically assess that situation.

a) I want my mother to live
b) She can only live if I have sex with my sister
c) I have sex with my sister


But could you not say that your logical way of looking at things is akin to a moral code?

No.


I don&#39;t see quite what the misunderstanding is here and don&#39;t really know how to explain further.

I want to know how you can have subconscious morals?


Morals can be subconscious the same way as anything can. Sometimes I certainly and I&#39;m sure other people do, feel that they shouldn&#39;t do something, instinctively, without analysing it in any depth.

Surely that&#39;s called instinct?


For example, I feel like that always if I&#39;m ever about to punch someone or something without a really good reason, and therefore don&#39;t punch people unless I have a really good reason.

That&#39;s not a subconscious decision. You have consciously decided not to punch someone without good reason.


How can you say that for sure?

Because otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have communism.


Yes these views will be widely held but there is bound to always be a few rotten apples surely?

For a time, i&#39;m sure. But communism cannot be defined on how many "bad apples" we have, but how we, as communists, treat them.


Maybe you wouldn&#39;t feel angry or anything but I&#39;m sure some people would feel anger at the fact that I theoretically was living off their labour without contributing anything to society myself.

I&#39;m sure there would people who would feel angry, directly after a revolution, many things from capitalist society would still exist. But we would have to learn to change our ways. Surely that was the point of the revolution?


True if you see exploitation as a good thing. But no-one on here cept in the opposing ideologies bit would think this... would they?

But this board isn&#39;t the world. My point anyway, was that morality is interchangeable. Meaning that something can either be right or wrong, depending on who you are. If that is the case, it cannot be real, otherwise it would be the same.

Why can a table never be anything other than a surface? Why can a book never be anything other than a collection of pages? Why can food never be anything other than a something which gives you sustenance? Why can Insulin never be anything other than a drug?...Because they are all real.

[commiecrusader]

I admit that there are several ways you can draw a logical conclusion but it is not depend on "how you view it, your general outlook on life."
Yup I see what I was saying is actually wrong now lol. It depends on what your motives are, what you want to happen ideally.


You do not get a different outlook, you get a different conclusion. Neither of those things are agreeable so it would be difficult to come to a conclusion, unless you hated your mother, in which case it wouldn&#39;t be very difficult at all.
Whoops lol conclusion is what I meant to say.


No
Now you are just disagreeing for the sake of it. I&#39;m no longer suggesting that logic is your moral code. I&#39;m suggesting that the way you use logic is the way a lot of people would use a moral code, ie, to decide what to do in a given situation.


Surely that&#39;s called instinct?
And what tells you what to do instinctively? Could it be some subconscious process we are unaware of? And could this not be guided by some sort of moral framework we are unaware of? This is obviously impossible to prove as is everything to do with the subconscious, but is theoretically possible and I would argue plausible.


That&#39;s not a subconscious decision. You have consciously decided not to punch someone without good reason.
In theory yes, but it doesn&#39;t work like that. I often feel like punching people if I&#39;m arguing with them, and very often nearly do it but I stop myself, not by thinking &#39;nah its not worth it&#39; or anything, some subconscious decision has been taken that it&#39;s not the right thing to do at that time. This might just be me though I dunno lol. But anyway, I think this is some sort of moral decision by brain has taken without consulting my conscious thought first.


Because otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have communism.
Yes you would. Just because there is a few people who disagree with the system doesn&#39;t make it non-communist. Same as people not fitting in with capitalism doesn&#39;t stop this society being capitalist.


For a time, i&#39;m sure. But communism cannot be defined on how many "bad apples" we have, but how we, as communists, treat them.
This statement proves the above.


My point anyway, was that morality is interchangeable. Meaning that something can either be right or wrong, depending on who you are. If that is the case, it cannot be real, otherwise it would be the same.
Just because something is interchangeable doesn&#39;t stop it being real. Why does something have to be universally the same to be real? Furthermore the idea of Communism doesn&#39;t mean the same thing to everyone, and yet you said before that it was real.

[commiecrusader]

I admit that there are several ways you can draw a logical conclusion but it is not depend on "how you view it, your general outlook on life."
Yup I see what I was saying is actually wrong now lol. It depends on what your motives are, what you want to happen ideally.


You do not get a different outlook, you get a different conclusion. Neither of those things are agreeable so it would be difficult to come to a conclusion, unless you hated your mother, in which case it wouldn&#39;t be very difficult at all.
Whoops lol conclusion is what I meant to say.


No
Now you are just disagreeing for the sake of it. I&#39;m no longer suggesting that logic is your moral code. I&#39;m suggesting that the way you use logic is the way a lot of people would use a moral code, ie, to decide what to do in a given situation.


Surely that&#39;s called instinct?
And what tells you what to do instinctively? Could it be some subconscious process we are unaware of? And could this not be guided by some sort of moral framework we are unaware of? This is obviously impossible to prove as is everything to do with the subconscious, but is theoretically possible and I would argue plausible.


That&#39;s not a subconscious decision. You have consciously decided not to punch someone without good reason.
In theory yes, but it doesn&#39;t work like that. I often feel like punching people if I&#39;m arguing with them, and very often nearly do it but I stop myself, not by thinking &#39;nah its not worth it&#39; or anything, some subconscious decision has been taken that it&#39;s not the right thing to do at that time. This might just be me though I dunno lol. But anyway, I think this is some sort of moral decision by brain has taken without consulting my conscious thought first.


Because otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have communism.
Yes you would. Just because there is a few people who disagree with the system doesn&#39;t make it non-communist. Same as people not fitting in with capitalism doesn&#39;t stop this society being capitalist.


For a time, i&#39;m sure. But communism cannot be defined on how many "bad apples" we have, but how we, as communists, treat them.
This statement proves the above.


My point anyway, was that morality is interchangeable. Meaning that something can either be right or wrong, depending on who you are. If that is the case, it cannot be real, otherwise it would be the same.
Just because something is interchangeable doesn&#39;t stop it being real. Why does something have to be universally the same to be real? Furthermore the idea of Communism doesn&#39;t mean the same thing to everyone, and yet you said before that it was real.

[commiecrusader]

I admit that there are several ways you can draw a logical conclusion but it is not depend on "how you view it, your general outlook on life."
Yup I see what I was saying is actually wrong now lol. It depends on what your motives are, what you want to happen ideally.


You do not get a different outlook, you get a different conclusion. Neither of those things are agreeable so it would be difficult to come to a conclusion, unless you hated your mother, in which case it wouldn&#39;t be very difficult at all.
Whoops lol conclusion is what I meant to say.


No
Now you are just disagreeing for the sake of it. I&#39;m no longer suggesting that logic is your moral code. I&#39;m suggesting that the way you use logic is the way a lot of people would use a moral code, ie, to decide what to do in a given situation.


Surely that&#39;s called instinct?
And what tells you what to do instinctively? Could it be some subconscious process we are unaware of? And could this not be guided by some sort of moral framework we are unaware of? This is obviously impossible to prove as is everything to do with the subconscious, but is theoretically possible and I would argue plausible.


That&#39;s not a subconscious decision. You have consciously decided not to punch someone without good reason.
In theory yes, but it doesn&#39;t work like that. I often feel like punching people if I&#39;m arguing with them, and very often nearly do it but I stop myself, not by thinking &#39;nah its not worth it&#39; or anything, some subconscious decision has been taken that it&#39;s not the right thing to do at that time. This might just be me though I dunno lol. But anyway, I think this is some sort of moral decision by brain has taken without consulting my conscious thought first.


Because otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have communism.
Yes you would. Just because there is a few people who disagree with the system doesn&#39;t make it non-communist. Same as people not fitting in with capitalism doesn&#39;t stop this society being capitalist.


For a time, i&#39;m sure. But communism cannot be defined on how many "bad apples" we have, but how we, as communists, treat them.
This statement proves the above.


My point anyway, was that morality is interchangeable. Meaning that something can either be right or wrong, depending on who you are. If that is the case, it cannot be real, otherwise it would be the same.
Just because something is interchangeable doesn&#39;t stop it being real. Why does something have to be universally the same to be real? Furthermore the idea of Communism doesn&#39;t mean the same thing to everyone, and yet you said before that it was real.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:22 PM
Now you are just disagreeing for the sake of it.
<_< You asked a question and I answered it.


I&#39;m suggesting that the way you use logic is the way a lot of people would use a moral code, ie, to decide what to do in a given situation.

Not really very relevant to this discussion.


And what tells you what to do instinctively?

We&#39;re animals, we evolved to survive. My instincts make me act instinctively.


subconscious process we are unaware of?

If we we&#39;re unaware of it we wouldn&#39;t be able to say that it was instinct.


And could this not be guided by some sort of moral framework we are unaware of?

I don&#39;t think so no.


Yes you would. Just because there is a few people who disagree with the system doesn&#39;t make it non-communist.

But it had nothing to do with people in had something to do with their attitudes. I said, in reference to a communist society that "attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas." You then said "How can you say that for sure?" My reply was that if people do not have such attitudes we have not achieved communism. It has nothing to do with people disagreeing with the "system."


This statement proves the above.

How?


Just because something is interchangeable doesn&#39;t stop it being real...Why does something have to be universally the same to be real?

You missed the essential part of my argument about this. If something is interchangeable it is not fact. A pen is a pen because it writes. It cannot be anything other than what it is because it is pen. Something which can interchange in such a way cannot be fact otherwise it would have only one side to it. Right is not fact because what one person says is right another could say is wrong. If right existed there would be a universal right. There isn&#39;t. Right cannot be proven to exist. Hence it isn&#39;t real.


Furthermore the idea of Communism doesn&#39;t mean the same thing to everyone, and yet you said before that it was real.

Communism is a progressive ideology based on class antagonisms which calls for a stateless, classless society, to be created through working class struggle according to the maxim "from each according to ability to each according to need." It isn&#39;t open for interpretation. If you deny any of those tenets then you are not a communust. Period.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:22 PM
Now you are just disagreeing for the sake of it.
<_< You asked a question and I answered it.


I&#39;m suggesting that the way you use logic is the way a lot of people would use a moral code, ie, to decide what to do in a given situation.

Not really very relevant to this discussion.


And what tells you what to do instinctively?

We&#39;re animals, we evolved to survive. My instincts make me act instinctively.


subconscious process we are unaware of?

If we we&#39;re unaware of it we wouldn&#39;t be able to say that it was instinct.


And could this not be guided by some sort of moral framework we are unaware of?

I don&#39;t think so no.


Yes you would. Just because there is a few people who disagree with the system doesn&#39;t make it non-communist.

But it had nothing to do with people in had something to do with their attitudes. I said, in reference to a communist society that "attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas." You then said "How can you say that for sure?" My reply was that if people do not have such attitudes we have not achieved communism. It has nothing to do with people disagreeing with the "system."


This statement proves the above.

How?


Just because something is interchangeable doesn&#39;t stop it being real...Why does something have to be universally the same to be real?

You missed the essential part of my argument about this. If something is interchangeable it is not fact. A pen is a pen because it writes. It cannot be anything other than what it is because it is pen. Something which can interchange in such a way cannot be fact otherwise it would have only one side to it. Right is not fact because what one person says is right another could say is wrong. If right existed there would be a universal right. There isn&#39;t. Right cannot be proven to exist. Hence it isn&#39;t real.


Furthermore the idea of Communism doesn&#39;t mean the same thing to everyone, and yet you said before that it was real.

Communism is a progressive ideology based on class antagonisms which calls for a stateless, classless society, to be created through working class struggle according to the maxim "from each according to ability to each according to need." It isn&#39;t open for interpretation. If you deny any of those tenets then you are not a communust. Period.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:22 PM
Now you are just disagreeing for the sake of it.
<_< You asked a question and I answered it.


I&#39;m suggesting that the way you use logic is the way a lot of people would use a moral code, ie, to decide what to do in a given situation.

Not really very relevant to this discussion.


And what tells you what to do instinctively?

We&#39;re animals, we evolved to survive. My instincts make me act instinctively.


subconscious process we are unaware of?

If we we&#39;re unaware of it we wouldn&#39;t be able to say that it was instinct.


And could this not be guided by some sort of moral framework we are unaware of?

I don&#39;t think so no.


Yes you would. Just because there is a few people who disagree with the system doesn&#39;t make it non-communist.

But it had nothing to do with people in had something to do with their attitudes. I said, in reference to a communist society that "attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas." You then said "How can you say that for sure?" My reply was that if people do not have such attitudes we have not achieved communism. It has nothing to do with people disagreeing with the "system."


This statement proves the above.

How?


Just because something is interchangeable doesn&#39;t stop it being real...Why does something have to be universally the same to be real?

You missed the essential part of my argument about this. If something is interchangeable it is not fact. A pen is a pen because it writes. It cannot be anything other than what it is because it is pen. Something which can interchange in such a way cannot be fact otherwise it would have only one side to it. Right is not fact because what one person says is right another could say is wrong. If right existed there would be a universal right. There isn&#39;t. Right cannot be proven to exist. Hence it isn&#39;t real.


Furthermore the idea of Communism doesn&#39;t mean the same thing to everyone, and yet you said before that it was real.

Communism is a progressive ideology based on class antagonisms which calls for a stateless, classless society, to be created through working class struggle according to the maxim "from each according to ability to each according to need." It isn&#39;t open for interpretation. If you deny any of those tenets then you are not a communust. Period.

[apathy maybe]

Guess I&#39;m not a communist...

But on topic, I think that morals don&#39;t exist outside the believer.

I base (or at least try to) my life on two principles. 1) Don&#39;t hurt others (unless they want you to). 2) No hierarchy, no control, no power. Anything else can generally be extrapolated from this. So I don&#39;t get jealous, I don&#39;t condemn "immoral" acts such as drug use or sexual acts.

(Shit I don&#39;t know what to say beyond that. I&#39;ll try and think of some more.)

[T_SP]

The one thing I got stumped on about morality was that if you take a moral code from anyone other than God then you must be taking it from man and man CANNOT make a moral code for he is NOT without sin&#33;

[commiecrusader]

Not really very relevant to this discussion.
Not from an argumentative sense no, I am just trying to illustrate to you how people use a moral code. Not that you asked me too I just for some reason said what I said lol.


My instincts make me act instinctively. So your instincts have pre-decided what you should do in every situation that could possibly occur? I don&#39;t think so. At some stage when making an instinctive decision thought is occurring, and the fact that you claim your instincts make you act instinctively demonstrates this clearly - you are unaware of the though processes occurring, just of an instinctive decision popping into your conscious thoughts.


If we we&#39;re unaware of it we wouldn&#39;t be able to say that it was instinct.
Why not? You are unaware of the mental processes occurring when you do something instinctively, therefore these processes are subconscious. The decisions of what to do might be conscious, but how we arrive at these conclusions, whilst they can be deduced looking back, are subconscious whilst they are occurring.


If we we&#39;re unaware of it we wouldn&#39;t be able to say that it was instinct.
That&#39;s ridiculous. We are unaware of why lots of things happen, but we give names to what we think are the causes. If we didn&#39;t do this then nothing would have a name. God&#39;s were invented to explain why things happened, and whilst I don&#39;t believe in God&#39;s, this shows how people name causes for things they don&#39;t understand.


I don&#39;t think so no.
But you don&#39;t know so. Neither do I. It&#39;s just a suggestion. But you will need to come up with a more persuasive argument than &#39;I don&#39;t think so&#39; to persuade me for sure than its not.


But it had nothing to do with people in had something to do with their attitudes. I said, in reference to a communist society that "attitudes and consciousness towards existence would not be individualistic and vengful, they would be based on collective and progressive ideas." You then said "How can you say that for sure?" My reply was that if people do not have such attitudes we have not achieved communism. It has nothing to do with people disagreeing with the "system."
I know this is what you said. But not everyone will think exactly the same way or feel exactly the same feelings in a communist society. People won&#39;t become mental copies of you. People will still have their own feelings, and they will differ from yours in some cases. Anyway this part of the debate has now become completely irrelevant to the actual debate of morals lol.


How?
You said &#39;Communism cannot be defined on how many bad apples we have, but how we, as communists treat them.&#39;. And I then said that just because there are people that disagree with the system doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s not communist. Which is essentially what you said. I admit it doesn&#39;t prove it, but it shows some degree of agreement which you seem reluctant to admit to me in any way whatever I say lol. Anyway if people have different ideas, they won&#39;t treat people in the same way as you in the same way they don&#39;t have the same ideas as you.


You missed the essential part of my argument about this. If something is interchangeable it is not fact. A pen is a pen because it writes. It cannot be anything other than what it is because it is pen. Something which can interchange in such a way cannot be fact otherwise it would have only one side to it. Right is not fact because what one person says is right another could say is wrong. If right existed there would be a universal right. There isn&#39;t. Right cannot be proven to exist. Hence it isn&#39;t real.
A pen&#39;s use can be interchangeable. You can use it to write, draw, pick your nose or kill someone. It is still a pen. A pencil also writes but it&#39;s not a pen is it? Also, I never claimed morals were a fact, they are ideas held by an individual, a group or a society.


Communism is a progressive ideology based on class antagonisms which calls for a stateless, classless society, to be created through working class struggle according to the maxim "from each according to ability to each according to need." It isn&#39;t open for interpretation. If you deny any of those tenets then you are not a communust. Period.
I agree entirely with that maxim as will many people. But that doesnt mean that people won&#39;t disagree with other parts of the idea. Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism are all forms (albeit hideously disfigured) of communism.


base (or at least try to) my life on two principles. 1) Don&#39;t hurt others (unless they want you to). 2) No hierarchy, no control, no power.
Look TAT, I&#39;m not the only craaaaaazy person with morals.


I don&#39;t condemn "immoral" acts such as drug use or sexual acts.
That&#39;s because you don&#39;t see them as immoral I assume, in the same way that I don&#39;t. I never claimed that everyone had the same morals, in fact I said on several occasions that anyone can have whatever idea they want as a moral.


The one thing I got stumped on about morality was that if you take a moral code from anyone other than God then you must be taking it from man and man CANNOT make a moral code for he is NOT without sin&#33;
I didn&#39;t know only a God can make morals? God didn&#39;t make my morals. Some of them may collude with the ten commandments but many don&#39;t and many are different.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What is most bothersome about this issue (no offense intended) is that it is even an issue.

Much like TAT says that material truths exist, (I am indeed typing on my computer) it is also fair to say that certain moral truths exist.

The only objection against it of course is philosophical nonsense; such absurd excuses as "social constructs" find their out of their intended place in society and dominate social thinking.

We as a modern society that has evolved beyond such primative and ridiculous notions as "human sacrifice", know that murdering someone on a whim is immoral. We know that raping individuals is immoral. We know that molesting and abusing children is immoral.

Philosophy is quite simply an opportunity for individuals to talk for an extensive perios of time without actually saying anything at all.

If we have to replace the word "immoral" with another word that does not invite philosophical absurdity then so be it; it will still not change the fact that as we progress as a species, we will discover that certain actions are unboubtably wrong to perform.

It&#39;s called growing up.


At some stage when making an instinctive decision thought is occurring,

No.

Instictual behaviour occurs with the absence of all rational thought.

[commiecrusader]

No.

Instictual behaviour occurs with the absence of all rational thought.
Wrong. Instinctive behaviour occurs with the absence of all conscious thought. Clearly it is mostly rational otherwise if we ever did something instinctive, no-one would understand why we did whatever we did instinctively.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 07:27 AM
Wrong. Instinctive behaviour occurs with the absence of all conscious thought. .
Rational thought is conscious thought.


Clearly it is mostly rational otherwise if we ever did something instinctive, no-one would understand why we did whatever we did instinctively

This does not make sense.

[commiecrusader]

Rational thought is conscious thought.
Noooo, rational thought is thinking with some kind of logic in place, as opposed to irrational thought which would just be random decision making.


This does not make sense.
What I mean is:
Instinctive decisions usually do seem to have been come to in a subconscious rational way, since if we came to them in an irrational way, it would be impossible to understand why we came to such a conclusion. For instance, if someone is about to hit you, you instinctively either try to hit them, block, or dodge. These are rational decisions, since they try to avoid harm to you, we can see why someone would do that. An irrational decision in that situation would be to, say, pick your nose, or try to count how many hairs were on the other person&#39;s head. It is impossible to fathom why someone would do either of these things in that situation.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

There seems to be a heck of a lot of un-dialectical thinking in this thread (my apologies to any gems above). All this discussion of abstract categories such as &#39;Morality&#39;, or &#39;Good&#39; or &#39;Evil&#39; is truly meaningless and typically [pre-]bourgeois (as is so much anarchist non-Bookchin thinking).

Such idealist categories do serve as "moments" in development of more concrete concepts in hegelian/marxist dialectics -- i.e. &#39;Real World&#39; thinking. To begin discussion of world problems with timeless, dimensionless a-historical, empty categories like &#39;Morality&#39; is to already be off on the wrong foot. Or &#39;batting 500&#39;.
Take yer metaphor.
Please.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Noooo, rational thought is thinking with some kind of logic in place, as opposed to irrational thought which would just be random decision making.


You&#39;re confused. My response, when understood, advised you that rational thought is conscious thought.

It&#39;s not refutable.



What I mean is:
Instinctive decisions usually do seem to have been come to in a subconscious rational way, since if we came to them in an irrational way, it would be impossible to understand why we came to such a conclusion.

Once again, this does not make any sense.




For instance, if someone is about to hit you, you instinctively either try to hit them, block, or dodge. These are rational decisions,

No they are not rational decisions, they are instinctive bahaviours. As I already explained to you instincive behaviours occur without rational thought.

[commiecrusader]

You&#39;re confused. My response, when understood, advised you that rational thought is conscious thought.

It&#39;s not refutable.
Why exactly does rational thought have to be conscious? The subconscious doesn&#39;t work in a completely random way or everyone would be preeeetty fucked up.


Once again, this does not make any sense.
Now I see that you only don&#39;t understand it because you refuse to believe that subconscious thought can be rational :rolleyes:


No they are not rational decisions, they are instinctive bahaviours. As I already explained to you instincive behaviours occur without rational thought.
No you didn&#39;t. You made an assertion that instinctive behaviours occur without rational thought. You provided no evidence to support this idea. I have provided a certain ammount of theoretical evidence to support the idea that instinctive behaviours occur with rational, subconscious thought. However you seem to believe that this is an impossibilty, but provide no evidence to support your claim. This seems to be a feature of your arguments on this thread...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Why exactly does rational thought have to be conscious? The subconscious doesn&#39;t work in a completely random way or everyone would be preeeetty fucked up.


You are confused as to what "rational thought" means.


Now I see that you only don&#39;t understand it because you refuse to believe that subconscious thought can be rational



There is nothing to believe.


No you didn&#39;t. You made an assertion that instinctive behaviours occur without rational thought. You provided no evidence to support this idea. I have provided a certain ammount of theoretical evidence to support the idea that instinctive behaviours occur with rational, subconscious thought. However you seem to believe that this is an impossibilty, but provide no evidence to support your claim. This seems to be a feature of your arguments on this thread...

I was not aware that you needed to provide "evidence" to support a fact that has been known for centuries.

It appears only you have been left behind. Oh well, no use beating a dead horse; some people just refuse to learn.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Where did this "dialog" fall apart..?