Suicide

[Genosse Kotze]

I'm sure there must have been a thread on this already, but if it's not on the first page I never bother.

But, yeah, killing yourself, what does everybody think? On the one hand, the existentialist part of me says it's a no-no. "In choosing myself I choose man"-Sartre. His whole argument there, reduced down to an easily digestible quote, is that all of my actions are reflective of my views for all of humanity. If I post on revleft, in my doing it, I think everybody should. If I like beating off, so should all of you (although, I really think that jacking it is pretty much universally liked already. Find me a kid who said "this sucks" half way through--no vacuum cleaners involved, haha--and I'll find you one of Santa's elves that pisses beer and sings show tunes.) Without God or any kind of archetype for human nature for us to conform to, we're left to create one for ourselves, and in so doing, for all of humanity as well. So, if you kill yourself, you think that has universal value, and everybody else should follow suit, which doesn't sit right with me.

But this sort of leads to why I think it's alright too. I don't want to be responsible for all of humanity! I never applied for that job. This ties in with my rejection of the religious view of it as well. They'll argue that God gave you "the gift of life" and to throw that away is a sin. Well, if you've come to the conclusion that life is a lemon, it's not like you can ask God if he kept the receipt so he can return His "gift." Nobody asked us if we wanted to be born or not, and if life turns out to suck we should at least be able to opt out of it altogether.

I know there's more to it than what I've just mentioned, and I even think Sartre gives the topic a treatment in the same work I quoted above (Existentialism and Human Emotions), but I'd like to get your responses.

[anomee]

Your life is your own to do with as you please...

...but I don't recommend suicide...

Like that slightly over-used expression states: "suicide is a permanent solution to what is most probably a temporary problem."

But I also feel that if someone is suffering horribly and wants out, and no kind hand will help him or her out, then that person is free to let him or herself out.

And people are supposed to be people not lemmings, so not matter what one person posts on a public forum, they are not to blame for any subsequent actions by another person.

I have been wondering if the following video is about suicide, and if so, is it suicide over a ridiculously silly reason or a terribly romantic -- though still really foolish -- reason?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y7WDWP8WMs

PS Notice the smiley face formed by the splash foam in the water?

PPS When in doubt go with Sartre:
"In choosing myself I choose man"-Sartre

[Genosse Kotze]

Well, apart from being too sappy a song, I don't think it's necessarily about killing himself either (but if this guy actually does do it, I'm sure his record sales will get a boost). Perhaps the reason why he's taking off his clothes, other than just showing off, is so he won't sink?


PS Notice the smiley face formed by the splash foam in the water?


I didn't see it. But I don’t think it would have changed things. Maybe he jumped in so he could forget about the girl?

But, yeah. If you go on You Tube and type in "suicide" or the German word for the same "Selbstmord" you'll find countless videos about killing yourself, made by a bunch of emo kids, set to tacky music, which are really the most ridiculous things ever! The people who make these videos are just looking to impress others about how sad they can make themselves appear. But fuck this shit!


And people are supposed to be people not lemmings, so not matter what one person posts on a public forum, they are not to blame for any subsequent actions by another person

I think people on revleft are pretty intelligent-- <_< --well, for the most part-- but if not, at least we&#39;re all independent minded and not &#39;sheeple&#39;, so I don&#39;t expect somebody to go killing themselves over this. In any event, good looking out, comrade&#33;

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Suicide is man&#39;s way of saying "You can&#39;t fire me&#33; I quit&#33;" to god/nature.

All humor aside...ehh, do it if you want. If things have gotten that bad for you, it&#39;s your choice.

[RedArmyFaction]

Sucide is the easy way out. Only mentally weak people do this. A strong willed person would just plod along.

[Raúl Duke]

I have a "It&#39;s your life and do what you wish." stance on it.....is there any problems? :huh:

I do not recommend one choice over the other in this issue.

However...this phrase was interesting:
"suicide is a permanent solution to what is most probably a temporary problem."

I think there&#39;s some truth on this. Sometimes people do it over things they might actually get over it if they were still alive.


Sucide is the easy way out. Only mentally weak people do this. A strong willed person would just plod along.

I think some "suicidees" have a hard time putting their intention to action; I think it takes for some alot of mental effort to do it.

However, it makes you wonder, why don&#39;t they put those efforts to "solve the problem."

I think, maybe, some people who consider suicide feel that these problems,etc are beyond their control.

For some reason...I can&#39;t bare myself to agree with Sartre on this... :( :unsure:
He makes it sound like I have some moral responsabilty or something.... <_<

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:15 pm
Sucide is the easy way out. Only mentally weak people do this. A strong willed person would just plod along.
Easy way out of what?

[anomaly]

In the case of Gilles Deleuze, he flung himself out of a high window with some of his last strength while suffering from lung cancer. Is that "morally wrong?" Of course not (as if morals even existed).

To say there is truth is this matter is clearly false. In other words, if one is in a situation that one believes is worse than death, then why not commit suicide?

[Genosse Kotze]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:15 pm
Sucide is the easy way out. Only mentally weak people do this. A strong willed person would just plod along.
It&#39;s interesting that you say that when you use the name "RedArmyFaction". Have you forgotten how Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, and Gudrun Ensslin died? Were they mentally weak and taking the easy way out?

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by keine Kaufhalle mehr&#33;+June 18, 2007 12:21 am--> (keine Kaufhalle mehr&#33; &#064; June 18, 2007 12:21 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 05:15 pm
Sucide is the easy way out. Only mentally weak people do this. A strong willed person would just plod along.
It&#39;s interesting that you say that when you use the name "RedArmyFaction". Have you forgotten how Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, and Gudrun Ensslin died? Were they mentally weak and taking the easy way out?[/b]
Those people may or may not have committed suicide; it is not fact that they killed themselves, just conjecture. But if RAF does believe that they killed themselves, then,yes, he would have to justify why they did it or concede that he thinks they were weak minded.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:15 pm
Sucide is the easy way out. Only mentally weak people do this. A strong willed person would just plod along.
What an absolute load of bollocks. Put a gun to your own head, hold a knife to you wrist or think of the pain of liver failure from an overdose then tell me it&#39;s the easy way out&#33;

Suicide is your own personal choice and it actually takes being pushed to the very edge to have the will to go through with it. To carry it out requires strong will in itself.

I&#39;m not abdicating suicide cause I happen to believe it&#39;s selfish, very selfish but weak willed?................ No&#33;

[Dimentio]

I think that suicide is a perfectly viable solution, even though it is somewhat capitulationist. But if the alternative is a worse kind of capitulation, then suicide is turned from a decisive defeat to a marginal victory since the enemies would never get the pleasure to put one in front of responsibility. During the ancient times, it could even be seen as dishonourable to rather give one self captive than to take suicide (in Rome for example, suicide was a social convention).

[Honggweilo]

I wouldnt call Seppuku "mentaly weak", its actually considered to be a strong willed and honourable death in Japan.

http://members.home.nl/budo/pics/seppuku1.JPG

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:22 pm
I wouldnt call Seppuku "mentaly weak", its actually considered to be a strong willed and honourable death in Japan.

http://members.home.nl/budo/pics/seppuku1.JPG
In some cases it&#39;s in fact the only way to regain lost honour.

[RedArmyFaction]

Originally posted by Genosse [email protected] 18, 2007 12:21 am
It&#39;s interesting that you say that when you use the name "RedArmyFaction". Have you forgotten how Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, and Gudrun Ensslin died? Were they mentally weak and taking the easy way out?
Hello son,

Just because the RAF members killed themselves doesn&#39;t mean i should think suicide was the right thing to do. Yes, they were mentally weak. Isn&#39;t evolution about survival of the fittest/strongest ?
If i have a problem and i think "ok, i&#39;ll kill myself", don&#39;t you think it&#39;s the easy way out ? By killing yourself, the problem is elliminated. It&#39;s not only weak minded but selfish because people who kill themselves don&#39;t think about the effect it has on loved ones.

[smoy]

someone up there said suicide is for only mentally weak ppl and the strong willed will pull through, i dont think thats true, if someone loses everything, or what if say their family is murdered and they have no reason to live. that person is not necessarily weak, theyv just come upon to much pain in their life

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Genosse [email protected] 01, 2007 02:31 am
But, yeah, killing yourself, what does everybody think? On the one hand, the existentialist part of me says it&#39;s a no-no. "In choosing myself I choose man"-Sartre.
I know Sartre said about that, but isn&#39;t that a more Kantian argument, the whole thing about if you act, make sure that you&#39;d want others to do it, with his argument being that you can&#39;t infringe on anybody&#39;s liberty - not even your own.

I personally despise Kant, and suicide is a symbol of a rotting system that allowed a subject to get in that state without offering him/her any help.

If however there really is no way out, then in the greater scheme of things, it won&#39;t particularly affect things, and they must do what they feel best. Nihilism is crap.

[Genosse Kotze]

Originally posted by RedArmyFaction+June 24, 2007 02:46 pm--> (RedArmyFaction &#064; June 24, 2007 02:46 pm)
Genosse [email protected] 18, 2007 12:21 am
It&#39;s interesting that you say that when you use the name "RedArmyFaction". Have you forgotten how Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, and Gudrun Ensslin died? Were they mentally weak and taking the easy way out?
Hello son,

Just because the RAF members killed themselves doesn&#39;t mean i should think suicide was the right thing to do. Yes, they were mentally weak. Isn&#39;t evolution about survival of the fittest/strongest ?
If i have a problem and i think "ok, i&#39;ll kill myself", don&#39;t you think it&#39;s the easy way out ? By killing yourself, the problem is elliminated. It&#39;s not only weak minded but selfish because people who kill themselves don&#39;t think about the effect it has on loved ones. [/b]

You&#39;re correct to point out the effect that suicide has on ones family members (provided (s)he has them). I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s not sad when people kill themselves; what they&#39;re saying in effect is "I&#39;d rather be dead than live in a world with you people," which is of course going to bum the rest of us out. However sad it may be, and although it may be a huge affront to the rest of society, we have no right to coerce suicidal people into living a life they don&#39;t want anymore [here is where our Anarchist comrades would decry that as authoritarian]. Sending people who are having these thoughts into mental institutions is repugnant&#33; For a thought crime you&#39;re going to imprison them; and the only difference between a mental institution and prison is in the former you have doctors for guards and medications for bars. Also, in these places, the faculty can do basically whatever they like to you if they feel you&#39;re unresponsive or in some way acting belligerent. Electroshock treatment is the most ironically barbaric thing in the world. For a person who admits to having suicidal thoughts, the cure is to give them brain damage&#33; When we learned it was a bad idea to stick our fingers in the electrical socket when we were two, why would it be a good idea to stick our heads in one when we&#39;re feeling down???

As for your "easy way out" argument, I find two problems with it. Firstly I don&#39;t think killing yourself is any easy task at all, and secondly why does it bother you so much that people are taking a short cut out of their problems? All our lives we have an aversion to death, so before one can kill themselves, there&#39;s a huge psychological barrier to be overcome.


Isn&#39;t evolution about survival of the fittest/strongest ?
Well, I don&#39;t see what you&#39;re problem with suicide is then. If these people are weak, as you seem to think, then suicide is the "agent of evolution" weeding out weakness, no?. But I&#39;ve got a question for you. What&#39;s a Social Darwinist like yourself doing on revleft?&#33;? If workers are exploited and blacks are oppressed and can&#39;t make it in the world it&#39;s only because they&#39;re too weak in comparison to the big strong white capitalist. Wouldn&#39;t you agree? I thought we—on the Left-- were supposed to be fighting for a world in which all people, as equals, can live decently, whether they’re “weak” or not. But obviously you see it different.

Hello son,
Don&#39;t &#39;son&#39; me you arrogant, supremacist fuck&#33;

[The New Left]

A human being has the right to do what he or she wants to do with themselves, as long they cause no harm to another person mentally or physically. Thats just my 2 cents.

Now I&#39;m not saying that suicide should be ignored like its nothing. Suicide should not even be considered an alternative, it should be taught that there are people who understand and are willing to help. Suicide is a terrible option, but you cant deny its presence in society.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by RedArmyFaction+June 24, 2007 02:46 pm--> (RedArmyFaction @ June 24, 2007 02:46 pm)
Genosse [email protected] 18, 2007 12:21 am
It&#39;s interesting that you say that when you use the name "RedArmyFaction". Have you forgotten how Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhof, and Gudrun Ensslin died? Were they mentally weak and taking the easy way out?
Hello son,

Just because the RAF members killed themselves doesn&#39;t mean i should think suicide was the right thing to do. Yes, they were mentally weak. Isn&#39;t evolution about survival of the fittest/strongest ?
If i have a problem and i think "ok, i&#39;ll kill myself", don&#39;t you think it&#39;s the easy way out ? By killing yourself, the problem is elliminated. It&#39;s not only weak minded but selfish because people who kill themselves don&#39;t think about the effect it has on loved ones. [/b]
Baader and Mmeinhof killed themselves because they (correctly) believed they were in Jail for life. The only way left in which they could contribute to the cause was to kill themselves. How is that weak minded ?

The problem with this thread is the question. You cant have a sensible opinion on &#39;suicide&#39; you can only have an opinion on an option of suicide. The category is a technical generalisation.

Having an opinion on suicide is like having an opinion on medicine or travel. You cant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, how sure are we they killed themselves, and were not executed??

[BlessedBesse]

There are cases where suicide is warranted

There are cases where suicide is stupid

There are cases where it&#39;s honorable

There are cases where it&#39;s cowardly

therefore it&#39;s a waste of breath to discuss whether suicide in general is good or bad or whatever

[Genosse Kotze]

Originally posted by Romantic Revolutionary+June 24, 2007 08:11 pm--> (Romantic Revolutionary @ June 24, 2007 08:11 pm)
Genosse [email protected] 01, 2007 02:31 am
But, yeah, killing yourself, what does everybody think? On the one hand, the existentialist part of me says it&#39;s a no-no. "In choosing myself I choose man"-Sartre.
I know Sartre said about that, but isn&#39;t that a more Kantian argument, the whole thing about if you act, make sure that you&#39;d want others to do it, with his argument being that you can&#39;t infringe on anybody&#39;s liberty - not even your own.

I personally despise Kant, and suicide is a symbol of a rotting system that allowed a subject to get in that state without offering him/her any help.

If however there really is no way out, then in the greater scheme of things, it won&#39;t particularly affect things, and they must do what they feel best. Nihilism is crap. [/b]
Well, yeah. Kant&#39;s whole idea about "duty" is that it is universal. A categorical imperative is a call for action that commands categorically (i.e. universally). But just because there&#39;s a bit of universalizing going on here with Sartre doesn&#39;t make it Kantian.

Kant pushes for the universalization of ones actions as a way to check if it is in fact in conformity with duty (although Kant makes a big distinction between "in conformity with duty" vs. "coming from duty"). For Sartre there is no duty that exists somewhere in outer space as is the case with Kant. Since there is no objective set of laws for Sartre, the universalization of ones actions is in fact quite subjective, because each one of us can come up with different things to do which we implicitly think should be universal, but none of us will ever hit upon any sort of objective moral standard because they don&#39;t exist.

However, I think Sartre&#39;s idea here does eventually have to fall back upon there being objective laws ala Kant. If you find some sort of act isn&#39;t universalizable, why is that? If there is no set standard for human nature, we&#39;re totally free and basically anything goes without there being any sort of right or wrong to things. But if you find something is "wrong" than there&#39;s a presumption that it&#39;s going against some sort of objective law. Maybe this isn&#39;t the case--my knowledge of Sartre is quite limited to that one book--but if somebody a bit more versed in such things can shed some insight here, that would be super (cuz I really dig Sartre and don&#39;t want him to be wrong&#33;)

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 25, 2007 03:09 pm
Gil, how sure are we they killed themselves, and were not executed??
Not 100% sure. But in my opinion, they killed themselves and tried to make it look like they were killed.

I dont say that as an accusation or attempt to denigrate their reputation. If I am correct it would have been an action entirely consistent with their politics. They believed the workers could be roused by example and they believed example could be reinforced by stimulating the repressive actions of the State.

The State had little reason to kill them Comrades, including unrepetant senior colleagues remained safely in German Jails for years (and as far as I know some key figures still remain there) .

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, thanks for that Gil -- I suppose we will never really know.

[apathy maybe]

I think everyone should kill themselves. If only to know what it feels like.

[apathy maybe]

I also think that people who have a moral objection to suicide can go and get fucked. That also goes for people who crap on about "strong/weak will" or "mental fitness" or other rubbish. Basically, if someone wants to kill themselves, it is none of your fucking business. The same if someone wants to eat a cookie filled with THC.

What someone does with their own body is their own choice, and you and everyone else has no fucking say in the matter what so ever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

So, if I decide to kill myself by jumping from a great height, and I kill you as a result, then that is Ok is it?

[apathy maybe]

What sort of answer are you looking for here?

If you kill yourself, and inadvertently kill someone else, then I fail to see how it is not "OK" (do you want a moral judgement here?).

If you kill someone else, and then kill yourself, the act of killing yourself is still "OK".

If you kill yourself in such a manner as to, deliberately, kill someone else, then your killing yourself is still "OK" (your method may or may not be, see the next section).

Whether or not killing another person is "OK" is debatable, and beyond the bounds of this debate (which is about killing yourself).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 26, 2007 12:45 pm
I think everyone should kill themselves. If only to know what it feels like.
After you...

But seriously, do you believe in afterlife, then?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:30 am
(as if morals even existed).
And you think morals don&#39;t exist?

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 26, 2007 05:14 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ June 26, 2007 05:14 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:30 am
(as if morals even existed).
And you think morals don&#39;t exist?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Morals don&#39;t exist...

[BlessedBesse]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:20 pm
I don&#39;t think morals exist...
fixed that for ya

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 26, 2007 06:10 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ June 26, 2007 06:10 pm)
apathy [email protected] 26, 2007 12:45 pm
I think everyone should kill themselves. If only to know what it feels like.
After you...

But seriously, do you believe in afterlife, then?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Hell no. I am perfectly happy to tell others to kill themselves, but I&#39;ve got better things to do with my time. And no, I don&#39;t believe in any sort of "afterlife". That post was a joke.


I also agree that objectively there is no such thing as morals or ethics. We create our own ethics, and by my ethics, telling someone that it is immoral to kill themselves is immoral.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by BlessedBesse+June 26, 2007 06:26 pm--> (BlessedBesse @ June 26, 2007 06:26 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:20 pm
I don&#39;t think morals exist...
fixed that for ya [/b]
What the fuck are you smoking boy? Do you have evidence to suggest that morals exist outside of human society? If not, then TAT&#39;s statement stands.

Objectively the universe doesn&#39;t give a shit (even if it could, which it can&#39;t).

[Genosse Kotze]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+June 26, 2007 04:28 pm--> (apathy maybe @ June 26, 2007 04:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:26 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:20 pm
I don&#39;t think morals exist...
fixed that for ya
What the fuck are you smoking boy? Do you have evidence to suggest that morals exist outside of human society? If not, then TAT&#39;s statement stands.

Objectively the universe doesn&#39;t give a shit (even if it could, which it can&#39;t). [/b]
I tend to agree, but if there are no morals existing in outer space or where ever, than why do people find things repugnant if these things aren&#39;t flying in the face of some sort of objective, universal standard? I agree with you about "creating our own ethics" ala Sartre, but do you know how to get past the difficulty with that, which I pointed out in my last post?

hmmm...This whole thread seems to be heading off topic. But who cares&#33; I&#39;m glad I got people posting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AA:


If you kill yourself, and inadvertently kill someone else, then I fail to see how it is not "OK" (do you want a moral judgement here?)

From your answer it is still not clear whether you think that there are circumstances in which you would say that harm done to others would be a reason to criticise a suicide.

For example, is it better to kill oneself without harm to others, or by harming others? Which is preferable?

Now you also say that this is about killing oneself, but none of us are social atoms, with no social links of any sort; but the way you are posing this suggests that you consider it irrelevant to the moral status of an act what effects it has on anyone else.

Is that your position?

If it is then that would make almost anything one does defensible no matter whom it harms, or how many it harms.

That cannot be your view, can it?

[BlessedBesse]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+June 26, 2007 04:28 pm--> (apathy maybe @ June 26, 2007 04:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:26 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:20 pm
I don&#39;t think morals exist...
fixed that for ya
What the fuck are you smoking boy? Do you have evidence to suggest that morals exist outside of human society? If not, then TAT&#39;s statement stands.

Objectively the universe doesn&#39;t give a shit (even if it could, which it can&#39;t). [/b]
Do you have some magical power which lets you understand exactly how the universe works and be 100% right? If so, let me smoke some of it.

Back in the day they thought that all matter was made of fire, earth, air, and water. It was an objective fact. If you think you "understand the universe" in a more accurate way, wait 200 years and everyone will think your "objective view of the universe" is quite primitive.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:29 pm
There are cases where suicide is warranted

There are cases where suicide is stupid

There are cases where it&#39;s honorable

There are cases where it&#39;s cowardly

therefore it&#39;s a waste of breath to discuss whether suicide in general is good or bad or whatever
Besides, as Nietzche says, the thought of suicide gets one through many a bad night.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


Morals don&#39;t exist...

What exactly are you ruling out?

What would it be for morals to exist, so that we have some idea what you are denying?

In your view, are morals like, say, unicorns which do not happen to exist, but could exist?

Or are they like UFOs which some believe to exist, but you maybe do not -- it&#39;s all a matter of evidence?

Or are they like the dodo that once existed, but no longer does?

Or are they like WMD in Iraq/fairy tales, they were made up and/or invented?

Or are they like round squares that could not exist?

Or are they like mathematical objects that do not exist (in material reality, and possibly anywhere else for that matter) but are nonetheless very useful?

Or, are they like the content of religious beliefs (that do not exist) but are pernicious nonetheless, too?

Or are they like the content of novels? Or dreams?

In each of these cases (and there are others I left out) a different kind of existence is to be admitted/denied.

So, which category (or is there another you had in mind) covers the sort of denial you wished to make?

Once we know that, then the next question will be, how do you know this?

What puts you in such a favoured position to declare for all of time and space that this entity (if it is one) does not exist. Are you a sort of superscientist? Or have you travelled through all of space and time, and done the necessary field work to justify this hyperbold statement?

Or is this report of yours premature, and the evidence is still being sifted?

Failing that, how do you know that morals fall into your favoured category of non-existents, and not some other?

That is, if you think morals are like round squares and cannot exist (for logical reasons) what logical reasons could possibly debar morals from existing? And how did you manage to figure this out, when most of the rest of us failed to do so?

Now, you need to think very carefully about your answer to each/any/all of these, since they are surrounded on every side by rather dangerous logical minefields.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Under the context of present society, generally suicide is harmful to others because it wipes out potential taxpayers, and such a taxpayer eliminated themselves earlier than planned. Society is told to be upset because they robbed them of money for wars. But against that logic, often like the argument of the rich when it comes to taxes, the dead taxpayer will no longer use services.

If everyone jumped off a bride, there would be no need for healthcare, education or sanitation, or even for the maintance of the bride they jump off of.

But on the other hand, because it isn&#39;t society that raises children, but judges them according to its standards; if a mother or father were to committ suicide-- what is to become of their children?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Genosse Kotze+--> (Genosse Kotze)I tend to agree, but if there are no morals existing in outer space or where ever, than why do people find things repugnant if these things aren&#39;t flying in the face of some sort of objective, universal standard? I agree with you about "creating our own ethics" ala Sartre, but do you know how to get past the difficulty with that, which I pointed out in my last post?[/b]People are part of a material universe, they are made up of atoms (and further down various sub-atomic particles, perhaps at the lowest level "strings"), just like everything else. People (and other animals) have somehow managed to be "life", with all that entails. One thing it tends to do is create "mind", and people then think that they are special.

Anyway, the point is, that from a materialist perspective (and this is the only correct perspective), it doesn&#39;t matter shit what people think, there isn&#39;t an objective universal standard. Because for there to exist such a thing, there would need to be some sort of supreme being. Which is logically not possible. For there to exist an objective universal moral truth, there needs to be a thinking universal being, which there isn&#39;t. Humans can&#39;t create such a universal truth, because we are not universal. We are subjective beings, and we interpret the world subjectively.


Originally posted by Rosa L+--> (Rosa L)From your answer it is still not clear whether you think that there are circumstances in which you would say that harm done to others would be a reason to criticise a suicide.[/b]Let me try and be clearer then. There is never a reason to condemn a person killing themselves, just as there is never a reason to condemn a person using some drug. The method might be open to criticism, but the act of killing ones self is not.


For example, is it better to kill oneself without harm to others, or by harming others? Which is preferable?For the person killing themselves, it doesn&#39;t matter I guess. Assuming that the persons being killed were "innocent", then from societies perspective it is better for the person to kill themselves without harm to others. If the others were scum, then... (A "good" way to die might be to blow oneself up in the midst of a KKK or fascist meeting. Depending on where you come from and the conditions of your life, you might consider killing as many soldiers (or even civilians) of an oppressing nation as possible.)


Now you also say that this is about killing oneself, but none of us are social atoms, with no social links of any sort; but the way you are posing this suggests that you consider it irrelevant to the moral status of an act what effects it has on anyone else.

Is that your position?Yes.


If it is then that would make almost anything one does defensible no matter whom it harms, or how many it harms.

That cannot be your view, can it? No it isn&#39;t. Take a different case which is seeing a bit of discussion recently. Abortion. According to the prevailing view, the women&#39;s right to autonomy is paramount. According to (for example) TragicClown, it doesn&#39;t matter if the baby/fetous is about to be born or not, or any other consideration. The women&#39;s right to her own body is the first consideration.

Yet, it may well be that society is in a declining situation, that the population is aging and the economy is declining. To bad, the women&#39;s right to her own body comes first (this is my position by the way as well).

In cases where the action of the individual is only indirectly affecting society or others (by for example, removing a productive member from the work force), then the individual&#39;s rights are first and foremost. The individual is not an isolated atom (perhaps argon), but is rather mostly connected to others (like carbon). But regardless, the individuals rights to autonomy are first and foremost.

I used the example of drug taking earlier (deliberately positioning it in such as way as there would not be any side affects on others (such as smoke)). If an individual wants to snort coke, smoke joints or cut themselves, because it does not harm others, then they have no say in it.

In cases where an action is harmful or potentially harmful to others (speeding down a busy street, or setting off fireworks in a dry forest), then yes society can intervene to prevent that. But where it isn&#39;t... (speeding down an empty highway or setting off fireworks in a desert), then fuck society if it tries to prevent that.

(I was misquoted and misrepresented because of a similar thing in a thread in the CC, to quote myself, "There would be no greater power then the individual. You can not force me to do something I do not wish to do, that would be un-anarchistic. The collective cannot force me to work, nor can I force it to feed me. Society has no power over me, except in the sense of individuals not associating with me, or not trading with me. Workers councils, fuck &#39;em too.". This was specifically talking about what individualist anarchist believed, I happen to agree with it. (I was misquoted as saying "fuck the workers" or similar, I believe it was violencia.Proletariat who asked, &#39;what next, fuck the workers too?&#39; or something. Which if anyone had bothered to read the fucking thread would realize was not my position... Yes I&#39;m still bitter about the fucktards and rejects. Anyway...)

So, anyway. Where an action does not harm another, then individuals are free to do what they want with their own bodies. Similarly, where two individuals (or more) voluntarily (and at all times free to cease) start doing something to the other, then society has no right to intervene. It is only where harm to others happens (and where that harm is not desired) that society can intervene against an individual. At least from my position.


[email protected]
Do you have some magical power which lets you understand exactly how the universe works and be 100% right? If so, let me smoke some of it.

Back in the day they thought that all matter was made of fire, earth, air, and water. It was an objective fact. If you think you "understand the universe" in a more accurate way, wait 200 years and everyone will think your "objective view of the universe" is quite primitive.I some how doubt that my view of the universe as uncaring (as incapable of caring even) is going to be "proved" wrong in the future. I don&#39;t know how the universe works 100%, I just know that it is a material universe. To talk about the ancient idea of "fire, earth, air, and water" and equating the "disproof" of this idea with "disproving" the materialness of the universe... If you want to discuss gods and spirits, we have a forum. It is called the Religion forum, it happens to be a subforum of Opposing Ideologies (though to call religion an ideology is promoting it higher then where it should be...).


EL KABLAMO
Under the context of present society, generally suicide is harmful to others because it wipes out potential taxpayers, and such a taxpayer eliminated themselves earlier than planned. Society is told to be upset because they robbed them of money for wars. But against that logic, often like the argument of the rich when it comes to taxes, the dead taxpayer will no longer use services.

If everyone jumped off a bride, there would be no need for healthcare, education or sanitation, or even for the maintance of the bride they jump off of.

But on the other hand, because it isn&#39;t society that raises children, but judges them according to its standards; if a mother or father were to committ suicide-- what is to become of their children?So, do tell. Would you also oppose abortion then? It is similarly "generally harmful to others", because it wipes out potential taxpayers and so on. Such indirect harm is irrelevant.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 08:40 pm
TAT:


Morals don&#39;t exist...

What exactly are you ruling out?

What would it be for morals to exist, so that we have some idea what you are denying?
Even though this is not addressed to me, because I agree, I think I&#39;ll have a shot too (in fact, first it appears).

So, the first question,

In your view, are morals like, say, unicorns which do not happen to exist, but could exist?Unicorns do not happen to exist as far as we are aware. Morals, however, (outside of consciousness) cannot exist.


Or are they like UFOs which some believe to exist, but you maybe do not -- it&#39;s all a matter of evidence?UFOs exist, whether they are aliens is the "debate". (Being pedantic, unidentified flying objects exist, sometimes they are identified...)


Or are they like the dodo that once existed, but no longer does?Don&#39;t be silly. ;)


Or are they like WMD in Iraq/fairy tales, they were made up and/or invented?Yes, they are made up and/or invented. As such, they don&#39;t exist outside of people&#39;s minds (and extensions, such as books, and similar recordings of people&#39;s thoughts).


Or are they like round squares that could not exist?They cannot exist objectively.


Or are they like mathematical objects that do not exist (in material reality, and possibly anywhere else for that matter) but are nonetheless very useful?They are useful, but they are not like mathematical objects (which are objective, a circle is still a circle (and the ratio of a circle&#39;s circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry is always pi) no matter where you are).


Or, are they like the content of religious beliefs (that do not exist) but are pernicious nonetheless, too?(Had to look pernicious up...) They are not necessarily harmful.


Or are they like the content of novels? Or dreams?In that they are thought up by people...


In each of these cases (and there are others I left out) a different kind of existence is to be admitted/denied.

So, which category (or is there another you had in mind) covers the sort of denial you wished to make?For me at least, I&#39;m talking about objectively in a material universe. Subjectively, and open to interpretation by individuals, ethics and morals do exist. Which I hope I&#39;ve made clear in my responses above.


Once we know that, then the next question will be, how do you know this?If you accept the basic principle of materialism, it follows logically. (And materialism is the only logical base for any philosophical view of the world.)


What puts you in such a favoured position to declare for all of time and space that this entity (if it is one) does not exist. Are you a sort of superscientist? Or have you travelled through all of space and time, and done the necessary field work to justify this hyperbold statement? Yes.


Or is this report of yours premature, and the evidence is still being sifted?No.


Failing that, how do you know that morals fall into your favoured category of non-existents, and not some other?

That is, if you think morals are like round squares and cannot exist (for logical reasons) what logical reasons could possibly debar morals from existing? And how did you manage to figure this out, when most of the rest of us failed to do so?Well, I&#39;m not clear that I&#39;m correct on all aspects of my answers. But I&#39;m sure that anyone who starts with a materialist view of the world and examines the question of morals and ethics would come to a similar position as mine.


Now, you need to think very carefully about your answer to each/any/all of these, since they are surrounded on every side by rather dangerous logical minefields.Meh, I have a mine detector.

And to put in a final footnote/postscript.
I&#39;m not saying that morals/ethics are bad or even undesirable (if nothing else, such a position would be purely subjective, as such criteria do not exist objectively either...). I am saying that to claim that your morals/ethics are the only true and correct ones is dangerous and undesirable. But this is from my position only. And because my way of seeing the world is unique (just like everybody else&#39;s ...), it could be wrong from your perspective. But that&#39;s fine, because you would be wrong :P.

Is all that clear?

Edit: Fixed quotes and minor other things.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 11:30 am

Or are they like WMD in Iraq/fairy tales, they were made up and/or invented?Yes, they are made up and/or invented. As such, they don&#39;t exist outside of people&#39;s minds (and extensions, such as books, and similar recordings of people&#39;s thoughts).
But you see, there is a huge difference between morals and Iraqi WMDs: if IWMDs existed, they would be material objects, with a size, a weight, and spacial coordinates. The fact that they don&#39;t exist makes Bush&#39;s administration&#39;s claim that they existed a lie, or at least a mistake.

But nobody thinks that morals are material objects. If they exist, they exist in a different sence than chocolate bars or handgrenades exist. If morals exist, they are a set of rules, or perhaps a number of different sets of rules, which bind the behaviour of people. As long as any number of people abide by such set(s) of rules, they exist, and so morals do exist. It&#39;s a different issue if we like its existence, or if we think they should exist. But if you are not reducing materialism to some vulgar "thingalism", then you should recognise the existence of such phenomena.

Now tell me, the workers in the company you work for go to strike; the boss calls you and offers you a promotion if you scab the strike. What makes you refuse his proposal?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 11:30 am
They are useful, but they are not like mathematical objects (which are objective, a circle is still a circle (and the ratio of a circle&#39;s circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry is always pi) no matter where you are).
Nope. A circle cannot exist "objectively", a circle is not an object, and no object can be a circle.

So, in TAT&#39;s reasoning, "circles don&#39;t exist"...

Luís Henrique

[Genosse Kotze]

No it isn&#39;t. Take a different case which is seeing a bit of discussion recently. Abortion. According to the prevailing view, the women&#39;s right to autonomy is paramount. According to (for example) TragicClown, it doesn&#39;t matter if the baby/fetous is about to be born or not, or any other consideration. The women&#39;s right to her own body is the first consideration.

Yet, it may well be that society is in a declining situation, that the population is aging and the economy is declining. To bad, the women&#39;s right to her own body comes first (this is my position by the way as well).

So, you think universal moral standards are nonsense and silly, but what then is a "right," which you seem to uphold as paramount? Are rights merely things which exist on paper, written hundreds of years ago by bourgeois, slave owners or the French “revolutionaries”? Certainly, a "right" goes well beyond ink on a page sitting behind a glass case in a museum somewhere, no? If these "rights" don&#39;t exist universally and arise from individuals, which you said were subjective beings, than are these "rights" applicable to one and all? If so, how is a "right" not universal then? If it&#39;s not, how do you justify the hypocrisy in that? (ex: "I have a right to an abortion but tough shit for the rest of you&#33;")

I really do want to be on the same page as you here. You&#39;re 100% right to point out that one of the implications of there being objective moral standards is that it there is some sort of God (it in no way proves God&#39;s existence, but rather assumes God&#39;s existence). This doesn&#39;t work for me either. I&#39;m just unconvinced by what you&#39;ve been arguing so far (I want to be convinced though). Even if Sartre&#39;s ideas on morality do fall short of breaking away with notions of universal standards, he&#39;s right that there are serious obstacles to be overcome in removing these standards. "Existentialism is nothing more than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position." (Existentialism and Human Emotions, pg. 51)

[apathy maybe]

These rights are subjective. To further my point, rather the repeat what others have said, I&#39;ll direct you to Invader Zim&#39;s and Publius&#39;s comments on the topic in this thread http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67381 (and reading the entire thread would be good for those in this discussion as well, as it relates also to personal autonomy).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 27, 2007 01:59 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ June 27, 2007 01:59 pm)
apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 11:30 am
They are useful, but they are not like mathematical objects (which are objective, a circle is still a circle (and the ratio of a circle&#39;s circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry is always pi) no matter where you are).
Nope. A circle cannot exist "objectively", a circle is not an object, and no object can be a circle.

So, in TAT&#39;s reasoning, "circles don&#39;t exist"...

Luís Henrique [/b]
So consciousness determined matter?

Of course a circle exists objectively, that&#39;s why we had the concept of circles in the first place. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. We have a circle because we conceptualised an object that was round...

Morality is an anti-materialist approach to understanding human interaction. Human beings use morality as a way of understanding life, not using life as an way to understanding consciousness.

Morality is a negation of consciousness.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by BlessedBesse+June 26, 2007 05:26 pm--> (BlessedBesse @ June 26, 2007 05:26 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 26, 2007 04:20 pm
I don&#39;t think morals exist...
fixed that for ya [/b]
It&#39;s not conjecture. It&#39;s fact. Unless you have some irrefutable evidence that proves to me that morality exists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 07:40 pm
TAT:


Morals don&#39;t exist...

What exactly are you ruling out?
Governance and action based on subjectivity.


What would it be for morals to exist, so that we have some idea what you are denying?

Inherent; godly; tangible...


In your view, are morals like, say, unicorns which do not happen to exist, but could exist?

No, they are a way, much like religion, to subjugate human beings to a code of practice determined through a system of authority either by states, governments, individuals or beliefs.

Human interaction should be governed on logic, objectivity and necessity.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Genosse [email protected] 27, 2007 05:03 pm
So, you think universal moral standards are nonsense and silly
Yes.

To have a moral standard is to limit ones ability to exist. Take pacifism for example. A universal moral standard but in actual fact it is debilitating and reactionary.

Yes, violence is unpleasent, but take a moral standard against it is ridiculous. What happens when you need to use violence?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
So, do tell. Would you also oppose abortion then? It is similarly "generally harmful to others", because it wipes out potential taxpayers and so on. Such indirect harm is irrelevant.

You didn&#39;t get the irony of my post. Ofcourse I don&#39;t oppose abortion.
I&#39;m making fun of how cold society is to suicide victums, this mentallity of " You selfish bastard taking away our tax dollars, (that we don&#39;t want to give up anyways)".

[apathy maybe]

Ah, I wasn&#39;t sure what your point was (I didn&#39;t think you opposed suicide). My point stands regardless of your original intent (which is, "fuck society").

No worries.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apathy Maybe:


Unicorns do not happen to exist as far as we are aware. Morals, however, (outside of consciousness) cannot exist.

Ah, you made the wrong choice, you should have gone for round squares.

Now, I did warn you (or rather TAT) to think carefully before diving in, and it now looks like you just dived in.

Unfortunately for you, morals do in fact exist, in that there are moral codes people rightly or wrongly adhere to.

So, not a good start.

Now you might want to argue that these codes are all subjective, but even subjective things exist. For example, if I subjectively want an ice cream, then no one suposes my want does not exist. And, annoyingly for you, in view of the fact that I am a material being, the processes underlying my want exist objectively too.

You might now want to retreat to a fall-back position and argue that moral codes are subjective and do not exist.

Well, the first question that you&#39;d have to face then would be how do you know?

That is why I posed this very question to TAT. [On your attempted answer to that, see below.]

So, let us pose it to you: are you a superscientist that somehow feels confident to declare, well before you have examined all the evidence, or even very much, that moral codes are subjective and do not exist?

The next question would then be where did you get your superscience degree from? Or are you a self-appointed expert?

Now, even if we were to be given an adequate and/or believable answer to those questions, there are far worse hurdles for you to cross.

One of these is that moral codes manifestly do exist, and they exist objectively (written in books, etc.), and people follow them, well or badly, and they do so objectively.

In that case, you will need to re-sit your superecience finals; you clearly obtained your degree fraudulently.... :)


As such, they don&#39;t exist outside of people&#39;s minds (and extensions, such as books, and similar recordings of people&#39;s thoughts

And you know this because you are minor deity of some sort?

But, once more, what are you ruling out?

Now, I posed all those questions to TAT to get him to focus on that &#036;64,000 question; what would it be like for morals to exist &#39;outside the mind&#39; so that we know what you are ruling out. Unless you can say, your denial is empty.

You can see this form each of the existential questions I posed. They would handled in different ways; it would be possible to say in most cases what it would be like for the said objects to exist, or not to exist.

In your haste to dive in, you missed that fundamental point -- we still do not know what it would be like for morals to exist &#39;outside the mind&#39; so that we know what you are ruling out. And if we do not know that we do not know what you are ruling in. And neither do you.


If you accept the basic principle of materialism, it follows logically.

I think not.

Brave words indeed: let&#39;s see you validly derive a negative existential proposition from such a premise (one you kept to yourself, incidentally).

Now, you can&#39;t expect me to take you seriously when you just answer "Yes" to this question of mine:


What puts you in such a favoured position to declare for all of time and space that this entity (if it is one) does not exist. Are you a sort of superscientist? Or have you travelled through all of space and time, and done the necessary field work to justify this hyperbold statement?

And then you say:


I&#39;m not saying that morals/ethics are bad or even undesirable (if nothing else, such a position would be purely subjective, as such criteria do not exist objectively either...). I am saying that to claim that your morals/ethics are the only true and correct ones is dangerous and undesirable. But this is from my position only. And because my way of seeing the world is unique (just like everybody else&#39;s ...), it could be wrong from your perspective. But that&#39;s fine, because you would be wrong

You pose a false dichotomy here. There are far more options available to us than these two.

That of course means that your objections are based on lack of thought.

I&#39;d answer the points you made in your other post but your supercilious answers to my questions to TAT tells me you are not really serious about this, and that I&#39;d be wasting my time bothering with you any more.

In fact, had I read that earlier "Yes" of yours at the beginning, and not near the end of my reply, the previous paragraph is all you would have got from me in response.

[Palmares]

I agree that morals dont exist. It implies a system of ideas ourside the self, an external that has the individual judged to, compared to, etc.

We create our own life, ideas, existence itself, through our experiences, but our we then solidify and consolidate our beliefs has no baring on some objective other - i dnot believe in god, or any equivalents.

On suicide, I think something people should think about is the difference in suicide rates, even mental illness, between the first world and the third world.

Of course I think its ones of perogative if someone wishes to end ones own existence [suicide bombing etc complicates this], but I certainly think there is definately a scale of which suicides having a stronger reason for being undertaken, and then those with weaker reasons.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT (in response to my question: what exactly are you ruling out?):


Governance and action based on subjectivity.

Like Apathy Maybe, you missed the point.

Let&#39;s walk you through it again.

You originally denied morals exist:


Morals don&#39;t exist...

Now, my question was based on that, not the irrelevant (and incomprehensible) stuff you just posted.

Let me pose it again more clearly:

What would it be like for morals to exist so that we know what you are ruling out?

Unless you can say, not even you understand your own words.

That was the point of all those existential questions: in all but one case, it is possible to say what it would be like for the things mentioned to exist or not to exist.

Now, I put it to you that you cannot say what it would be like for morals to exist so we know what you are ruling out.

In that case, your objection to morals existing must be logical, but not scientific/empirical (nothing wrong with that).

But, what is this mysterious logical point that debars morals from existing?

I doubt you can say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Cthenthar


I agree that morals dont exist. It implies a system of ideas ourside the self, an external that has the individual judged to, compared to, etc.

In that case you have derived their non-existence from a surreptitious definition.

But why should we accept that definition?

Would you for example accept a cappy definition of human nature as "ultimately selfish"?

I think not.

And, why is it impossible for morals to exist &#39;objectivley&#39;? Or, rather, for there to be objective mortal standards (of the sort one finds in Aristotle, for example).

You all keep denying this, but a denial is not a proof.

[Don&#39;t get me wrong -- I am not defending any particular view, I just do not like dogmatism in ethics -- which is all that seems to be motivating many of the comrades posting here.]

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 06:23 pm
Like Apathy Maybe, you missed the point.

Let&#39;s walk you through it again.
I have absolutely no interest in talking to you if you continue to be so patronising.


What would it be like for morals to exist so that we know what you are ruling out?

You have difficulty distinguishing what is tangible and what is intangible. You perhaps may find it irrelevant or altogether pointless to make such a distinction, but that of course is entirely your prerogative.

I accept that human beings codify their behaviour based on preconceptions or pre-notions of right and wrong but, just like god, they are not real. There is no actual definition of right and wrong and therefore there is no real moral. Only conjecture: Everything is right and everything is wrong and thus nothing is right and nothing is wrong. There is only opinion and opinion is not the basis in which humanity should govern itself.

The enforcement and following of morals is based solely on discretion of wether to accept illogical and superficial dicktats. They have no consequence on our existence as humans and can be discarded as easily as they are accepted. Why put faith in subjectivity that is at best inconsistent and at worse totally irrational?

The argument here is whether or not it is "right" or "wrong" to accept something that has no tangible existence. You can choose to follow an intangible belief just as Christians follow theirs, but I&#39;d rather do away with this notion of "right" and "wrong" and deal with existence itself i.e. th logical, the objective and the necessary.

[Genosse Kotze]

Only conjecture: Everything is right and everything is wrong and thus nothing is right and [/i]nothing[/i] is wrong. There is only opinion and opinion is not the basis in which humanity should govern itself.

Well, if this is the case, why do you oppose capitalism? So, half the people in the world are starving while the bosses gorge themselves and indulge in absolutely repugnant, hedonistic luxury, but there&#39;s nothing wrong with this? Well, calling this wrong is opinion—to each, his own? Sorry, but I beg to differ.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Genosse [email protected] 27, 2007 08:08 pm

Only conjecture: Everything is right and everything is wrong and thus nothing is right and [/i]nothing[/i] is wrong. There is only opinion and opinion is not the basis in which humanity should govern itself.

Well, if this is the case, why do you oppose capitalism?
Because it&#39;s irrational, unnecessarily inhumane and restricts mine and others ability their lives how we want to.


So, half the people in the world are starving while the bosses gorge themselves and indulge in absolutely repugnant, hedonistic luxury, but there&#39;s nothing wrong with this?

Are you asking is it immoral?

Capitalists do what you say but I don&#39;t have anything against people indulging themselves in hedonistic luxury; it certainly makes no rational sense that people should starve to death. There is an abundent amount of food; we simply need to reorganise society.


Well, calling this wrong is opinion—to each, his own? Sorry, but I beg to differ.

If you are driven by emotion and morality then that is your choice, but I am not interested in your morality or your emotions.

The fight against capitalism shouldn&#39;t be a moral one or an emotional one, it should be a rational one. It is in humanities best interest to create communism; that is not opinion, that&#39;s objective fact.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I apologise for what you took to be patronising, but your failure to grasp this point rather asked for it; this merely confirms it:


You have difficulty distinguishing what is tangible and what is intangible. You perhaps may find it irrelevant or altogether pointless to make such a distinction, but that of course is entirely your prerogative.

This is not about tangibility, but about how you are to give content to your denial.

Unless we/you know what it is you are denying (whether tangible or not), we/you can give no sense to that denial.

What precisely are you ruling out?

The rest of what you say does not, it seems to me, address this central point.

[You are not alone in this; 2400 year&#39;s worth of philosophers have missed it too, and not just in ethics; they confuse a logical point with an empirical one -- as I think you have done. Your claim masquerades as an empirical thesis about reality, but it has all the hallmarks of a logical claim -- my examples were aimed at bringing this out.]

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 08:24 pm
What precisely are you ruling out?
It seems your question is attempting to point out the argument that morality does exist because people use them to govern their lives. I do not deny that people use them to govern their lives, but I do not accept that because of this morality therefore exists.

[black magick hustla]

Morality does exist, in the same way race exists. They are not tangible, material things, but social constructs. However, they do affect our existence, in the same way god does, for it exists in the minds of other individuals we interact with.

I am all for the destruction of universal morality. Until people realize that morality has its source in humanity, rather than it being external to ourselves, is humanity going to be free. After we realize that, we are going to be able to destroy and build at our whim our own moral valiues.

[bezdomni]

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus deals with the philosophical question of suicide.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:10 pm
The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus deals with the philosophical question of suicide.
As does many of his literary works. Indeed, for Camus, sucide is the formost philosophical question.

[capitalistwhore]

The only reason we are discussing meaningless suicide at all is due to our lack of community. Durkheim&#39;s social cohesion came to mind instantly when I read this post. Try as you might to rationalize or moralize anything through philosophy and the like. The fact remains that you are living in complete isolation.

Instead of suicide, maybe instead you should start a commune.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


It seems your question is attempting to point out the argument that morality does exist because people use them to govern their lives. I do not deny that people use them to govern their lives, but I do not accept that because of this morality therefore exists.

No, if you read the last paragraph to my reply to Apathy Maybe you will see that I deny this:


Don&#39;t get me wrong -- I am not defending any particular view, I just do not like dogmatism in ethics -- which is all that seems to be motivating many of the comrades posting here.

I am making no claims about morality, merely trying to expose the fallacies in this line of argument.

So, we are still waiting to see what it is that you are ruling out.

What would the world look like if &#39;morality existed&#39;?

Once more, without an answer to this we would not know what it is you are ruling out, and therefore in, and neither would you.

Your denial, therefore, still lacks content.

As I said, I think you are confusing a logical point with an existential one.

But, the existential line of attack is closed off to you unless you can say what the world would look like with an &#39;existent morality&#39;.

The logical route is also closed to you unless you can show that &#39;existent morality&#39; is contradictory in some way (like round square is).

That was the point of my examples -- to tease this age-old problem out.

Traditional philosophy is based on failing to note this distinction, which is why I claim it is a load of rubbish.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


Morality does exist, in the same way race exists. They are not tangible, material things, but social constructs. However, they do affect our existence, in the same way god does, for it exists in the minds of other individuals we interact with.

This is the obverse of TAT&#39;s view, and thus subject to the same strictures.

Except, you have the added difficulty of saying in what way a &#39;social construct&#39; exists.

I presume you think &#39;God&#39; is a social construct; but would you say &#39;he/she/it&#39; therefore exists?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CapitalistWhore, thanks for that and welcome to the board&#33;&#33; :)


Instead of suicide, maybe instead you should start a commune.

Now that may or may not be a solution, but it does not help us decide the answer to this question now -- nor for those who think your advice wrong in some way.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I suppose that it isn&#39;t my place to instruct someone on what they can and can&#39;t do with their lives, much as I&#39;d like to.

I cannot think of a situation where suicide is really a reasonable course of action, save a few really dire scenarios, such as being tortured permanently, with little chance of escape.

I could quite happily live just for the sense-world. Just sitting still and listening to every intricate little sound, considering it, relishing it... Or gazing at any random object, taking into account it&#39;s shadows and subtleties, imperfections, colour, size, and so on.

If you&#39;re in a position where you are totally unable to do anything like that, and you face permanently unbearable quality of life, then I might sympathise. If that is not the case, then you are quite pointlessly causing emotional agony to your friends and family, even those who just know you.

-Alex

P.S. Perhaps TAT and AM are suggesting that morals, whilst existing in some sense, are too subjective to be cast on other people, i.e. We have no right to morally judge someone who commits suicide, since our morals don&#39;t necessarily apply to them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28, 2007 10:37 am
What would the world look like if &#39;morality existed&#39;?
Stop asking me this question&#33; I know where it&#39;s leading and it&#39;s irrelevant. I&#39;ve never denied that people have morals. Thinking something doesn&#39;t make it real though, does it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


Stop asking me this question&#33; I know where it&#39;s leading and it&#39;s irrelevant.

OK, but until it is answered, your claim lacks content.


I&#39;ve never denied that people have morals.

It&#39;s not about what people do or do not have, but about the content of your claim.


Thinking something doesn&#39;t make it real though, does it?

If I think capitalism is crap, then I really think it, so that makes my thought a real thought, as opposed to an artifical one.

The use of &#39;real&#39; here rather spoils your point, I think.

What you should argue is that a true existential proposition cannot be derived from just any proposition whatsoever.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27, 2007 04:41 pm
So consciousness determined matter?
No, but it is not the existence of "material circles" that determines the existence of the idea of circle. It is the existence of material neurones.

Besides, your argument is not whether human interactions determine morals or morals determine human actions; it is about whether morals exist or not. If you tell us that morals are determined by material human interactions, we won&#39;t have much to argue. But what you are saying is that "morals don&#39;t exist". Materialists don&#39;t deny the existence of ideas, they just understand that ideas have a material cause.


Of course a circle exists objectively, that&#39;s why we had the concept of circles in the first place.

Can you point me to an object that is a circle, then?


Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. We have a circle because we conceptualised an object that was round...

But a "round object" is not a circle.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 11:19 am
I&#39;ve never denied that people have morals.
If morals don&#39;t exist... how can people have them?


Thinking something doesn&#39;t make it real though, does it?

It makes it a "real" thought. If I think God exists, that doesn&#39;t make God real - but it makes the belief in God real. In other words, God doesn&#39;t exist, but religions do.

If I think it is wrong to scab a strike, though, there is no onthological belief implied in this thought. It doesn&#39;t say that anything exists, it just says that a given act is "morally wrong". And the belief that scabbing strikes is morally wrong (thankfully) exists.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+June 28, 2007 01:48 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ June 28, 2007 01:48 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 11:19 am
I&#39;ve never denied that people have morals.
If morals don&#39;t exist... how can people have them? [/b]
The same way people have faith in god.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+June 28, 2007 01:22 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ June 28, 2007 01:22 pm)
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 01:48 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 11:19 am
I&#39;ve never denied that people have morals.
If morals don&#39;t exist... how can people have them?
The same way people have faith in god. [/b]
Ah, no&#33; People have faith in god, but they have no gods at all (except in a metaphoric context). But people have morals, not faith in morals. In fact, morals are just a faith in themselves. They are beliefs, if people believe, they exist.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 01:48 pm
And the belief that scabbing strikes is morally wrong (thankfully) exists.
Yet many people believe it isn&#39;t morally wrong, so on what basis should we accept you&#39;re morality and not theirs?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

So TAT, you don&#39;t think that scabbing strikes is wrong?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:34 pm
So TAT, you don&#39;t think that scabbing strikes is wrong?
No I don&#39;t think it&#39;s "wrong" but I don&#39;t think its "right" either.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+June 28, 2007 01:26 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; June 28, 2007 01:26 pm)
Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 01:48 pm
And the belief that scabbing strikes is morally wrong (thankfully) exists.
Yet many people believe it isn&#39;t morally wrong, so on what basis should we accept you&#39;re morality and not theirs? [/b]
In the basis of class interest, perhaps?

You see, morals have a material base. Matter determines conscience.

But morals exist, conscience exists, ideas exist.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 03:24 pm
morals exist, conscience exists, ideas exist.
I guess your definition of what it means to exist and what my defintion of what it means to exist are different. You see, I can only accept things that are objectively fact to be what exists.

Morals are not objective fact, they are subjective opinion. They are no more real than god.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+June 28, 2007 02:31 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ June 28, 2007 02:31 pm)
Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 03:24 pm
morals exist, conscience exists, ideas exist.
I guess your definition of what it means to exist and what my defintion of what it means to exist are different. You see, I can only accept things that are objectively fact to be what exists.

Morals are not objective fact, they are subjective opinion. They are no more real than god. [/b]
First, your dichotomy between objective and subjective is false. A lot of things are not either objective or subjective, they are intersubjective. Second, your notion of fact is flawed; fact includes past facts, which have no longer objective existence (the Roman Empire is fact, but it does not exist). Third, if your concept of real excludes subjective phenomena, then it should be valid to say that any those things that constitute your personality don&#39;t exist, for they are "merely" subjective.

You are confusing two different things: 1. matter determines ideas (ideas have no autonomous existence, they cannot subsist without a material basis); and 2. ideas don&#39;t exist.

You end up with an idealistic position. You deny that ideas exist because they are not material; and then you have to reintroduce them, because empyrical evidence tells you otherwise. But you have committed yourself to the idea that ideas are immaterial, so you end up with the idealist motto:

What is mind? no matter;
what is matter? never mind.

This is not a materialist position; a materialist position recognises the existence of ideas and other immaterial phenomena, but acknowledge that they can be reduced, ultima ratio, to a material basis.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 03:51 pm
A lot of things are not either objective or subjective, they are intersubjective.
I don&#39;t see what relevance this point has?


Second, your notion of fact is flawed; fact includes past facts, which have no longer objective existence (the Roman Empire is fact, but it does not exist).

Have you ever been to a Museum?


Third, if your concept of real excludes subjective phenomena, then it should be valid to say that any those things that constitute your personality don&#39;t exist, for they are "merely" subjective.

That&#39;s true. Alot of people think I&#39;m an arrogant twat. Others think I&#39;m an endearing teddybear. The power of subjectivity...


You deny that ideas exist because they are not material; and then you have to reintroduce them, because empyrical evidence tells you otherwise.

No. Empirical evidence tells me that people form concepts in their mind. Whether it is from a material basis is irrelevant. They still do not exist. They are still not real.


This is not a materialist position; a materialist position recognises the existence of ideas and other immaterial phenomena, but acknowledge that they can be reduced, ultima ratio, to a material basis.

Something without tangible form cannot exist.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 03:38 pm
No. Empirical evidence tells me that people form concepts in their mind. Whether it is from a material basis is irrelevant. They still do not exist. They are still not real.
So, class struggle doesn&#39;t exist?


Something without tangible form cannot exist.

Vacuum does not exist?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, you are better off with the centre of mass of the Galaxy as an example -- it is intangible, invisible, non-material but it exercises a profound influence on everything in the Galaxy.

Then try shadows, holes, surfaces and rainbows....

There are loads more examples of intangibles that decidedly exist.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 02:07 am
There are loads more examples of intangibles that decidedly exist.
Certainly. This kind of vulgar materialism can only lead to the reintroduction of some version of dualist idealism.

But perhaps you could help TAT with the idea of circle? He seems to believe that material circles, made of atoms and molecules, do indeed exist.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, well, I&#39;d have to be with him on that one, but you can&#39;t mean what you say, surely?

I think you mean that he thinks that mathematical circles exist in the way you indicate.

Is that so?

In that case, I&#39;d treat that question as I did the &#39;do moral exist?&#39; question, and ask "What would the world look like if such things did exist, so that we know what you are ruling out."

But TAT has asked me not to pose that question, so I won&#39;t.

[But it still stands in intangible space, mocking anyone who thinks easy answers are to be had.]

[apathy maybe]

I haven&#39;t been commenting because I failed to see how it would help. But I&#39;m going to jump in again anyway...

I distinguish between subjective and objective reality, and between "real" and "unreal" reality.

Thus we have four &#39;classes&#39; of existence (or non-existence perhaps).

Material reality is objectively real, it exists independently of anything we do or say.

We can&#39;t access it however, because we can only access subjective reality. Which is our own interpretation of the objective reality. (And thus less &#39;real&#39; then the objective reality which we can&#39;t access.)

Then there are things that don&#39;t "exist", circles and other mathematical objects, while not being "real", are still objective.

Morals are in the final and fourth category, they are not "real", and they are subjective.


So the question (which is a pointless hypothetical mental wank), "What would the world look like if such [subjective non-real] things did exist, so that we know what you are ruling out." is unanswerable. Using my framing anyway.
But, I&#39;ll have a go using a different framing.

Assuming that such things did exist, then obviously other things would have changed as well (as you can&#39;t just tweak things and expect everything else to remain unchanged). So anyway, if such things existed, then obviously the "laws of nature" (and no Rosa, I&#39;m not interested in a debate on that one, I tried to explain what I meant, and I&#39;m not at all sure that you understood what I was trying to say, I&#39;ll have another go when we have that beer...) would also cease to exist in any meaningful sense (as other non-real things would also exist). So, if morals can exist, then so can gods and fairies and similar. If you want to know what such a world would look like, I suggest, perhaps, Greek mythology, or Norse mythology, or the Dreamtime tales from Aboriginal mythology.

Anyway, this isn&#39;t clear, I know it isn&#39;t and as such, it is probably not worth your time trying to debate me. I&#39;m not interested in a debate in this place, because I know my thoughts on this matter are unclear and confused. (And I have trouble writing them down...)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

AM:

About your framing of existence.

Does subjectivity really make something "less real"? Are there, then, degrees of reality? I had always assumed something was either real or not real, rather than a sliding scale.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

When you see a ghost, is that ghost real?

When you trip on acid, are the things you see real?

What you are seeing is subjective. Anyway, I have to run... I might answer more later.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well the ghost is certainly real in the neurological sense. You have seen something, so what you have seen is real, even if it&#39;s a trick of the light.

Same with hallucinations. I suppose there are different types of reality, but I don&#39;t quite see how subjectivity makes it "less real". I&#39;d just say different.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And what would an imitation idea of a ghost look like so we can tell a real idea of a ghost from it?

If you cannot say, what work is the word &#39;real&#39; doing here?

[As John Austin pointed out 50 years ago, much fun and mischief can be had misusing this word.]

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 29, 2007 03:28 pm
When you see a ghost, is that ghost real?
If you see a ghost, the ghost does not exist. your vision (hallucination, delusion...) exists.


When you trip on acid, are the things you see real?

As far as I know, under acid you don&#39;t see things that don&#39;t exist, but you see existing things in a distorted way.


What you are seeing is subjective.

Your sight is subjective. But, except in case of hallucinations, what you see is objective.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Your sight is subjective. But, except in case of hallucinations, what you see is objective.

And how can you tell the difference?

[redflag32]

Suicide is mainly down to a chemical imbalance in the brain. Therefore you cant exactly blame these people who take this option. A person very close to me did it and i would not consider him selfish,he obviously had a chemical imbalance in the brain and suffered from severe depression,also it turned out he had been physically and sexually abused as a boy and this must have compounded his mental anguish even more.

The argument about it being selfish can also be applied to those who fly fighter jets or join the army also,the likelyhood of death is high and these people have families aswell.Why are those who die in battle considered heroes and martyrs but those who take a very bave decision and decide to end their own suffering and that of there family and end there terribble life considered cowards? Remember that those suffering from depression cause an awfull lot of trouble in their familes also through drink and drug abuse etc.. and maybe they were being thoughtfull in ending all this?

Just a thought.

[The Feral Underclass]

After discussion about this with an AF member who is also a philosophy student I have conceded that morals do exist but maintain they are not true/truths. They are neither right nor wrong or wrong or right and therefore can not objectively be true. They do however exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT, I&#39;d hate to be the one to deflate your new found certainty, but the question I am not allowed to pose to you any more applies equally to the admission that morals &#39;exist&#39; as it does to its denial -- so, in the interests of not upsetting your equanimity, I&#39;ll stifle any temptation I have to ask that pesky question once more....

[apathy maybe]

Rosa, at the risk of sounding ignorant, what is the point of your question? It isn&#39;t like asking, "what if aliens existed and contact humans" or similar is it? In fact, as far as I can see, it doesn&#39;t really have a real answer.

Care to explain (for my benefit at least), what the question is meant to show?

Is this like the case of determinism/non-determinism, you reject both?

I&#39;m seriously interested in your answer, though I&#39;m not sure I&#39;ll be any less frustrated when I get it...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My question is to get one or more of you to think about the language you are using to frame this &#39;problem&#39;.

If this is an empirical issue, then it can only be settled by evidence. But, unless you know what the alternatives are (what conditions would make an answer true or perhaps false) then you will not know what evidence to look for.

But neither of you can say what the alternatives are; what the world would look like if there were &#39;morals&#39; that exist objectively, or what it is you are ruling out so that you could say it was false to assert that they did.

Hence my question.

On the other hand, if it is not an empirical &#39;problem&#39;, then what sort of problem is it?

I doubt you can say.

Now these issues were passed over by philosophers for 2400 years, and it is very easy to fall in to the same trap.

I think you two have so fallen....

It has similarities with the determinism question (in fact all traditional philosophical theories make the same sorts of mistakes, ones that are easy to miss -- i.e., confusing empirical issues with non-empirical, or being unclear about the difference).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 11:04 pm
My question is to get one or more of you to think about the language you are using to frame this &#39;problem&#39;.

If this is an empirical issue, then it can only be settled by evidence. But, unless you know what the alternatives are (what conditions would make an answer true or perhaps false) then you will not know what evidence to look for.

But neither of you can say what the alternatives are; what the world would look like if there were &#39;morals&#39; that exist objectively, or what it is you are ruling out so that you could say it was false to assert that they did.

Hence my question.

On the other hand, if it is not an empirical &#39;problem&#39;, then what sort of problem is it?

I doubt you can say.

Now these issues were passed over by philosophers for 2400 years, and it is very easy to fall in to the same trap.

I think you two have so fallen....

It has similarities with the determinism question (in fact all traditional philosophical theories make the same sorts of mistakes, ones that are easy to miss -- i.e., confusing empirical issues with non-empirical, or being unclear about the difference).
Well, since TAT won&#39;t answer your question, let me have a try.

If morals didn&#39;t exist, then people&#39;s behaviour would be random; they would not act according to a predictable code of conduct, guided by a given hierarchy of values.

It is not even that they would act consistently in a selfish way (selfishness is just a moral code that happens to be not mainstream).

But people are not like that; they act according to certain internal rules (which are different from individual to individual) that we call morals. That&#39;s why scabs don&#39;t normally become activists, and activists don&#39;t normally become scabs. The behaviour of both is predictable, and it is predictable because each group has its own morals.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 01, 2007 12:00 pm
LH:


Your sight is subjective. But, except in case of hallucinations, what you see is objective.

And how can you tell the difference?
What I see (hear, smell, or otherwise feel) when I am asleep (or what I would feel under the influence of alcohol or other psychoactive drugs, if I indulged in using them) is subjective, or at least so much subjectively distorted that cannot be taken into account as a perception of "reality".

What I feel when I am awake and sober is a subjective appreciation of an objective reality. How do I know? Because of intersubjectivity. Other subjects report aproximatedly the same perceptions as I do, and so it is reasonable (unless we are going to take a solipsist stance) to believe it is somehow related to an objective world, external to each and all subjects.

There are people who cannot tell the difference; we call them mentally ill.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


If morals didn&#39;t exist, then people&#39;s behaviour would be random; they would not act according to a predictable code of conduct, guided by a given hierarchy of values.

But, what wouild it be for &#39;morals&#39; to exist, whether or not anyone adhered to them?

However, you are failing to address the &#39;ontological problem&#39;, all the while diverting attention onto irrelevant, and alleged behavioural consequences. [You have no way of knowing that this is how people would behave.]

Indeed, &#39;morals could exist&#39; &#39;objectively&#39; (whatever that means) and yet everyone could ignore them (and the resulting situation could be no different from the one you describe).


What I feel when I am awake and sober is a subjective appreciation of an objective reality. How do I know? Because of intersubjectivity. Other subjects report aproximatedly the same perceptions as I do, and so it is reasonable (unless we are going to take a solipsist stance) to believe it is somehow related to an objective world, external to each and all subjects.

I have already asked this: based on this scenario, how can you tell the difference between the &#39;subjective&#39; and the &#39;objective&#39; if all we (I assume you include us in this too) have to go in is our own &#39;subjective appreciation&#39; of things?

You appeal to &#39;intersubjectivity&#39; here; but you only have a &#39;subjective&#39; appreciation of it. How are you going to turn this into &#39;objectivity&#39;?

You then refer us to the alleged perceptions of others, but all you/we have are your/our own perceptions of what they allegedly report -- and I guess there are more human beings who have not yet reported to you than there are that have. So, how do you know they might not start disagreeing with you, and report entirely different things?

[Good luck with that one&#33; It still remains one of the unsolved problems of philosophy (not that philosophy has anything other than unsolved problems, and this after only 2400 years of going nowhere slowly) -- and it will remain unsolved while you stay stuck in traditional territory, asking all the traditional questions.]

And, in fact, my original question had nothing to do with these vague terms of art, &#39;subjective&#39; and &#39;objective&#39; (ones I do not think are at all helpful). It was directed at something I still think you are confusing with an empirical issue, when it cannot be.


There are people who cannot tell the difference; we call them mentally ill.

Unless you can say what the difference is, you are little better off than they are, I am sorry to say.

[The Feral Underclass]

Her question is not what would the world be like if they didn&#39;t exist; her question is, if morals do not exist what would the world be like if they did?...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 02, 2007 09:34 pm
TAT, I&#39;d hate to be the one to deflate your new found certainty, but the question I am not allowed to pose to you any more applies equally to the admission that morals &#39;exist&#39; as it does to its denial -- so, in the interests of not upsetting your equanimity, I&#39;ll stifle any temptation I have to ask that pesky question once more....
You&#39;re infuriating&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT:


You&#39;re infuriating&#33;

It&#39;s very good of you to say so....


Her question is not what would the world be like if they didn&#39;t exist; her question is, if morals do not exist what would the world be like if they did?...

In fact this is the same question: unless you can say either way, anything you do say will lack content, for not even you will have a cluse as to what yo are asserting (or denying).

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+June 28, 2007 02:05 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; June 28, 2007 02:05 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 02:34 pm
So TAT, you don&#39;t think that scabbing strikes is wrong?
No I don&#39;t think it&#39;s "wrong" but I don&#39;t think its "right" either. [/b]
So you mean your neutral on the issue?

Anyway, since this is getting way off topic, I will just post my opinion on suicide.

I think suicide just out of desperation or as a way to escape a temporary problem is wrong but I think committing suicide when your about to face a dishonorable death or when you know you are going to die either way is ok. For example, I would never consider suicide if my girlfriend dumped me or if I am just feeling low but I would defnitely consider suicide if I had a deadly disease and knew I would be dead in a few days.

[RevMARKSman]

So you mean your neutral on the issue?
Oh, he&#39;s not neutral, in fact I daresay he would probably fight vocal scabs.

He just doesn&#39;t apply an arbitrary, unsupported moral value to it. It&#39;s in his own self-interest to strike and not support scabs.

If you think scabbing strikes or committing suicide over "small things" (?) is "wrong," then define "wrong." Define "should" (not used as an estimation e.g. "that should be about right" but as a moral judgment "You shouldn&#39;t do that, that&#39;s stealing"). Define "good."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

REV:


It&#39;s in his own self-interest to strike and not support scabs.

This looks like an an &#39;arbitrary, unsupported moral value&#39; to me.

But, not all moral statements are either arbitrary or unsupportable (given a few commonly accepted premisses, that is).

Aristotle&#39;s work on ethics is an excellent example of this.

[That does not mean I agree with him; but it his work is always a useful foil for such wild claims.]

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 03, 2007 09:15 pm
REV:


It&#39;s in his own self-interest to strike and not support scabs.

This looks like an an &#39;arbitrary, unsupported moral value&#39; to me.

But, not all moral statements are either arbitrary or unsupportable (given a few commonly accepted premisses, that is).

Aristotle&#39;s work on ethics is an excellent example of this.

[That does not mean I agree with him; but it his work is always a useful foil for such wild claims.]
How is it a moral value to state what is in one&#39;s own material interest e.g. what will give you the most happiness for a given situation?
And what "commonly accepted premises" might you be talkinga bout?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rev:


How is it a moral value to state what is in one&#39;s own material interest e.g. what will give you the most happiness for a given situation?

Well, of coursem that depends onh what you think constitutes a &#39;moral value&#39;.

If you do not think there are any, you will take the line I think you are taking, or the line you are pointing out that TAT is taking.

But, then=, if there are no moral values, I rewturn to my annoying question: what are you ruling out? We&#39;d need to know so that we could agree with you (or otherwise), and so that even you would be able to comprehend the options.


And what "commonly accepted premises" might you be talking about?

You are going to be very disappointed with my answer&#33;

[They are so banal because they are widely accepted.]

Things like: most people have preferences.

Most people chose between options.

Most people prefer what seems best to them, or to those they love.

Most people live in some form of community.

Most people have parents.

Most people dislike pain.

[I could go on, but you&#39;d fall asleep if I did. :P ]

I only need a &#39;most&#39; here for it to be a commonly (as opposed to a universally) accepted premiss.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Alcaeos+July 04, 2007 01:57 am--> (Alcaeos @ July 04, 2007 01:57 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28, 2007 02:05 pm

[email protected] 28, 2007 02:34 pm
So TAT, you don&#39;t think that scabbing strikes is wrong?
No I don&#39;t think it&#39;s "wrong" but I don&#39;t think its "right" either.
So you mean your neutral on the issue? [/b]
No, I don&#39;t mean that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2007 03:15 am

It&#39;s in his own self-interest to strike and not support scabs.

This looks like an an &#39;arbitrary, unsupported moral value&#39; to me.
Anything can be a moral value. It&#39;s quite simple to apply that word and it&#39;s g enerally accepted defintion to any choose you make. That&#39;s because morality is not objective fact but subjective opinion.

Decisions should not be made based on subjective opinion but on rational analysis and necessity. Remember ing that politically my overal objective is the creation of a communist society?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT, if you keep saying stuff like this:


That&#39;s because morality is not objective fact but subjective opinion.

Then I must keep posing that annoying question: what exactly are you ruling out by saying that "morality is not objective fact"?

What would the world look like if this were false, so that we can understand in virtue of what it is true?

And, calling something a &#39;subjective&#39; opinion is no real help: &#39;subjective&#39; opinion about what? Problems immediately reappear as soon as you try to say what the intentional object is here (see below).

Unless we understand one another (when we use words connected with morality) then not even you would know what this subjective opinion was about.

If morality is subjective (whatever that means) then we need to know about what it is subjective -- so we can agree with you.

The problem is, in order to tell us, you would now have to refer to something not &#39;subjective&#39; for us to grasp your point, for otherwise we might all be talking about something completely different.

And worse, you too might be talking about something completely different from moment to moment. Subjectivity posed like this needs objectivity to rescue it from a bottomless pit of scepticism.

Sweeping statements about this or that being subjective are all susceptible to this fatal objection.

[This is, of course, why I do not like this word (just as I do not like &#39;objective&#39;) when used in philosophical contexts -- both are hoplessly vague, and their use thoroughly confused.]