so, there is nothing wrong with a strict moral code if he enforced by the majority? deal! case closed!
Results 21 to 40 of 49
a community is just a group of individuals. Sure its harder to fuck them up. But since (lets assume) they own their community, then I guess the only action to take would be to leave. But the fact that its a majority doesnt change anything except their power (they are more).
Last edited by Havet; 6th August 2009 at 14:46.
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
so, there is nothing wrong with a strict moral code if he enforced by the majority? deal! case closed!
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Morality is nothing more than opinion. Applying a strict moral code to one's self is perfectly fine by me. Presenting a moral code as if it is transcendent is what I dislike so much.
There is something wrong with any strict moral code enforced by anyone. One must look is where they are enforcing it (if you are at the person's/community's property) or outside of it (including your own property).
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
No. You can't just say something and say, deal! case closed.
why? a majority of person decide to run its community its own way, if the majority consider running naked is wrong, well, sound good to me.
if for some reason year later people change their mind, fine, the moral code will change
it is really that simple.
case closed.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Agree with you. Morality can be imposed on a community if the majority support it as that would be democratic.
2+2=4
Sometimes people simply make incorrect decisions. It's not moral to impose restrictions on the ability of black children to live, thus implementing a policy of killing all black babies.
It doesn't matter if people vote for it. If they did, they would be mistaken. As human beings are now, that is an illogical decision. If human beings were somehow designed to biologically require or benefit from sacrificing black babies, it "might" be a different story.
Given that we have no biological imperative or rational excuse for implementing such a policy, it is fairly ridiculous to say democracy can justify, in my opinion.
While morality may be be consistent through time, actions can be right or wrong within a given context. There needs to be a methodology for determining when people are simply being "stupid." Technically, science is as much a form of mutual agreement as anything else. There is nothing that necessarily makes something "scientific fact." It is simply agreed upon. Yet we'd consider it quite ridiculous to allow people to use religious medical treatments instead of scientific ones.
What is objective about moral actions are the "results" that they create. Given the necessary knowledge that unnecessary suffering should be avoided, there are plenty of contextual based moral facts that should be enforced.
We determine what is moral in given context based on observation alongside scientific method. It isn't some magically religious idea. It's quite evident that "based on how 99.9% of humans are, certain actions are simply illogical - i.e immoral."
I was'nt refering to this situation specifically, in general, you can't just say "case closed" its, A: extremely arrogant, B: close minded, and C: kind of dumb.
If the majority of people decide to infringe on other peoples rights, I don't agree that they should be able to do that, morality is an individual thing.
democracy is only a tool to get things done, its not the end, its the means.
the problem with your logics is that its requiere a certain leadership and a certain authority to impose what moral and what not based on a scientific calculation, and in order to be able to maintain a leadership and to keep things the way you want you need to have a certain monopoly of violence to enforce your rules and regulations, and at the end, you will have a state.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
didnbt wanted to be arrogant, its a habit i took while working. i have to solve a lot of problematic shitstorm at work and to me case closed mean that the main issue is solved, in that case the wrong/good of a morality code.
i will do my best not mentionning it while we exchange on a subject, now knowing that it make you pissed.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
I am committed, perhaps quite wrongly, to an "ideal reason." Therefore, if conditions were proper, people would simply debate and agree, as they do in science. The reason ethics are so disputed is because they lack the neutrality of science and are, frankly, politically motivated. Power corrupts people and makes their "rationality" conform to a norm that suites their needs.
i can understand you, i mean, yea science is great and all, but you just can force people to believe in logics thinking unless you beat them up with batons.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
materialism over moralism
We know that science -- even a science of matter -- is not *one* single description of reality. Descriptive scientific parameters will vary based on the *scale* of what we're looking at, from gravitational effects (macro) to quantum dynamics (micro).
Likewise, scientific descriptions of *social* reality -- and the value judgments and decisions and actions that stem from them -- will vary depending on the situation, including all of the politically motivated cross-currents that are always present.
Perhaps the *only* behavior among individuals that we can say is consistently rational is our actions taken on behalf of our biological upkeep, including the pleasure principle.
Looking at social reality at any increment above the individual, though, shows us that the issues involved in running a modern society are very complex due to the class divide. The prevailing system of stewardship -- private property relations -- means that there is endless fuss and bother, not to mention genocide, involved in the embodying and representing of inanimate substances like property and wealth.
We can term this "realm" of shifting private interests as a 'subjective social reality' layer, just below and intermingling with a more generalized 'objective social reality' layer that contains those elements which are more static and unchanging in our society. I created a diagram that illustrates this emergent hierarchy:
Worldview Diagram
http://tinyurl.com/acacs4
danyboy25 is speaking to the *subjective social reality* of a particular (local) community environment. On a small scale such as this one that he is coming from, a group of people *can* change the immediate social conditions fairly readily, through immediate circles of discussion, decision-making, and implementation.
But *larger* social conditions will remain, no matter what the community does, like commodity (money) relations and bourgeois legal jurisprudence.
It is on these broader, generalized scales that it makes more sense to talk about people's actions in the *overall*, *common* context of *materialism*, rather than in moralism, since the forces of money and law affect us all in very well-known, consistent ways, no matter what local community we may happen to take membership in.
Moralism without materialism leads to an overly *subjective* (parochial) worldview -- materialism *circumscribes* moralism because society has been gradually moving towards larger scales of collectivization of society's surplus material. Moving *against* this current of generalized collectivism -- as through wanton self-aggrandizement and/or moralism -- not only makes one stand out but also induces friction in society and in the individual who's moving backward, against the grain.
Chris
--
--
___
RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162
Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com
MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu
CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u
-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --
the size of a community is determined by the community itself, if 2 small communities want to get their shit together and adopt the same code beccause they get along verry well with each other it will ultimatly create a domino effect that will create larger groups of like minded communities that could have a lot of similarities, including trades. people with diverging views will also get together and form their own larges communities. clash might happen between 2 communities but the community must agree about for exemple. opressing the other communities for their own good to get rid of a dictator for exemple.
then again those two communities could live without having any conflict at all and still share their ressources for the sake of their own survival and well being.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
Rights? What rights? Where do they come from? If there's no god, rights must be democratically decided and bestowed.
So the majority wins either way.
That would be tyranny of the majority, then.
There is nothing wrong with moral codes.
( Just as there is nothing "wrong" with anything.)
Moral codes however are non-sensical and operate on a appeal to emotions rather than hardcore facts.
Life is a game, Life is a joke. I'm a peddler of doubt.
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual a crime." -Max Stirner
Everybody is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy negates morals and ethics.
I vote that we should all support amorality comrades. I vote that we have a world without laws, rules, morals, and ethics.
Who's with me?
Life is a game, Life is a joke. I'm a peddler of doubt.
"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual a crime." -Max Stirner
At *best* this could be the forming of a mutual-aid relationship among two communities in a struggle against capitalism and oppression, as the Black Panthers (and others) have done.
But at the *worst* it's tribal warfare all over again -- skirmishes and bloodletting for nothing more than geographical territory. The major imperialist powers did it in the 20th century and they were called world wars -- it sucks at *any* scale, no matter what it's called....
It's for this reason that it's *preferable* to concentrate on materialist / materialistic concerns, because *that*'s what's usually at the center of interpersonal conflicts anyway.... When the lake is big enough no one gets in each other's way....
Moralism is really a type of bourgeois decadence that is an indulgence in social control and petty rule-making based on the ownership of property -- it's an extension of the Golden Rule: 'Those with the gold make the rules.'
That's why it's better to concentrate on the greatest technologies at humanity's disposal -- factories, or the means of mass production -- since those are the source of society's material goods and services. As soon as we *constrict* ourselves to "community", "neighborhood", "city", "county", "state", "province", "country", or even continent, we're effectively defining our *own* limitations on the basis of arbitrary geographical boundaries. Really our interests are with the *working class*, *internationally* -- anything less is just self-limiting.
