TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already. Thanks!
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 »

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 I'm pretty sure I never argued that there was no such thing as morality. If I did, what I meant was that there was no such thing as an objective system of morality.

Your position is only tenable if you are arguing that there is no such thing as morality. That's the point I was trying to make. Hedging your argument with a term like objective (system of), which essentially states that all morality is subjective, actually weakens your position. Arguing that morality is little more than individualized personal beliefs concerning actions that are right and wrong has more to do with the measurement of someone's moral compass.

An individual and even a culture may have subjective systems of belief about morality which differ vastly, opposing the views of others, as to how people should be treated but the fundamentals of morality are still the same.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 I wasn't really trying to comment on why mass-murderers commit their crimes, just using it as an example of how if they didn't think that what they were doing was morally reprehensible, they obviously have a different set of morals than you or I.

You were using it, however, to inform your argument and the way it was used is incorrect. They very clearly understand what they're doing is wrong. They have merely formed justifications for doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Also, when something is as pre-meditated as the Columbine shootings, I really doubt that the reason that they turned their guns on themselves was that they were so shocked by remorse. When you put someone on their knees and execute them, it's really hard for me to believe that you're going to feel bad for doing it.

That's because you don't have an understanding for the psychology that's going on behind it. They've been stewing for days, weeks, months, or years about the wrongs they've perceived, rightly or wrongly, that have been done to them. They have engaged in elaborate fantasies and planning around the event. By the time they arrive on the scene, they're jacked on adrenaline and when they begin shooting, all of that rage, which formerly divorced them from any empathy, what-so-ever, begins to recede.

What used to be an empowering fantasy is now a grotesque reality. There really is blood on the wall. People are crying, hiding, screaming, dying, or dead. The exhilarating power the perpetrator felt at the beginning of the event is terminated. There is no more cause to fight for and the ugly truth is that the shooter knows whatever wrongs he suffered, he hasn't suffered nearly as much as what he's (and it's 99.9% male) enacted.

In your example, you noted that one of them shot someone who was kneeling. What you left out was that there was another who he let live. That's symbolic of a power/control dynamic the perpetrator was trying to achieve. It's part of his living out the fantasy. He gets to play god instead of being a powerless victim, in deciding over who lives and who dies.

The more arbitrary, the more power the perpetrator feels, but having lived out that moment comes the realization that it was fleeting and that in the end, such empowerment is also patently false if not contrived at the barrel of a gun. True omnipotence lasts forever, but what the killer realizes is his true impotence.

The anger has been discharged and with that discharge there is a distinct emptiness, for the perpetrator is far from being made whole - the true amend he'd like for his trouble at the hands of others. He hasn't even come close to addressing his actual grievances and has actually just increased the suffering of others. Where his perception of self may have been heroically enduring and powerful at the beginning of his escapade, he is now, freed from his blinding anger, an impotent hypocrite who, in his last moments, couldn't be bothered to extend others the compassion he expected from them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overd

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker An individual and even a culture may have subjective systems of belief about morality which differ vastly, opposing the views of others, as to how people should be treated but the fundamentals of morality are still the same.

I think that you're thinking more of a moral code than actual morality. Morality is merely a sense of values that differentiates between good (right) and bad (wrong). So yes, individuals and cultures can have different moral codes, but can also have completely different fundamentals of morality.

In its descriptive sense, morality basically is a set of values that fall within the norms of a given individual or society. That, in its own nature, makes it subjective. If morality is a set of values, clearly it is subjective. I'm not sure I really understand how you're arguing otherwise, because for morality to be objective, it would have to consist of the same values for all people.

quote:

[b]Originally posted by EddieZilker[/b/]That's because you don't have an understanding for the psychology that's going on behind it. They've been stewing for days, weeks, months, or years about the wrongs they've perceived, rightly or wrongly, that have been done to them. They have engaged in elaborate fantasies and planning around the event. By the time they arrive on the scene, they're jacked on adrenaline and when they begin shooting, all of that rage, which formerly divorced them from any empathy, what-so-ever, begins to recede. What used to be an empowering fantasy is now a grotesque reality. There really is blood on the wall. People are crying, hiding, screaming, dying, or dead. The exhilarating power the perpetrator felt at the beginning of the event is terminated. There is no more cause to fight for and the ugly truth is that the shooter knows whatever wrongs he suffered, he hasn't suffered nearly as much as what he's (and it's 99.9% male) enacted. In your example, you noted that one of them shot someone who was kneeling. What you left out was that there was another who he let live. That's symbolic of a power/control dynamic the perpetrator was trying to achieve. It's part of his living out the fantasy. He gets to play god instead of being a powerless victim, in deciding over who lives and who dies. The more arbitrary, the more power the perpetrator feels, but having lived out that moment comes the realization that it was fleeting and that in the end, such empowerment is also patently false if not contrived at the barrel of a gun. True omnipotence lasts forever, but what the killer realizes is his true impotence. The anger has been discharged and with that discharge there is a distinct emptiness, for the perpetrator is far from being made whole - the true amend he'd like for his trouble at the hands of others. He hasn't even come close to addressing his actual grievances and has actually just increased the suffering of others. Where his perception of self may have been heroically enduring and powerful at the beginning of his escapade, he is now, freed from his blinding anger, an impotent hypocrite who, in his last moments, couldn't be bothered to extend others the compassion he expected from them.

I'm not so sure that these studies are of that much value, if there even are extensive studies on such behavior. Any studies would necessitate a perpetrator who did not, in fact, end their own life after the deed had been done. The fact that they were unable to kill themselves, for whatever reason, seems to me to suggest that these people may be different from the ones who actually do kill themselves after they've finished.

Granted, I'm sure it is very often the case that these people do suddenly get hit with the wave of shock or disgust at what they had actually done, but with no way of studying what was going on in the head of someone who actually did take their own life at the end of their spree, the only thing that can really be surmised is what they might have thought which caused them to kill themselves. I'm not really interested in arguing about mass-murderers though, as that was not my initial intention when joining this thread, so if you want to continue on that topic, please do so with someone else.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or o

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 I'm not so sure that these studies are of that much value, if there even are extensive studies on such behavior. Any studies would necessitate a perpetrator who did not, in fact, end their own life after the deed had been done. The fact that they were unable to kill themselves, for whatever reason, seems to me to suggest that these people may be different from the ones who actually do kill themselves after they've finished. Granted, I'm sure it is very often the case that these people do suddenly get hit with the wave of shock or disgust at what they had actually done, but with no way of studying what was going on in the head of someone who actually did take their own life at the end of their spree, the only thing that can really be surmised is what they might have thought which caused them to kill themselves. I'm not really interested in arguing about mass-murderers though, as that was not my initial intention when joining this thread, so if you want to continue on that topic, please do so with someone else.

You're questioning the validity of interviews that were performed by both the FBI and the Secret Service, among multiple others who have strong credentials in forensic psychology, and that, while yielded from a small population of surviving perpetrators, had multiple correlations with those who were either killed or committed suicide. Additionally, much of the information known about the psychology of these people has been gleaned from journals and suicide notes many of them authored prior to the commission of their crime. While everyone is different, it's not as though the fundamental thinking is so obscure as to defy this conjectured validity scale you're invoking to suit your argument.

Why do I have the feeling that every thread I start either becomes a philosophical discussion or a repository of pictures with big breasted models?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker You're questioning the validity of interviews that were performed by both the FBI and the Secret Service, among multiple others who have strong credentials in forensic psychology, and that, while yielded from a small population of surviving perpetrators, had multiple correlations with those who were either killed or committed suicide. Additionally, much of the information known about the psychology of these people has been gleaned from journals and suicide notes many of them authored prior to the commission of their crime. While everyone is different, it's not as though the fundamental thinking is so obscure as to defy this conjectured validity scale you're invoking to suit your argument.

I never questioned the validity of studies done on mass-murderers who were caught. It's interesting how you always twist people's arguments to make you come out "right." All I said was that interviewing mass-murderers who were caught or couldn't bring themselves to take their own life, from a psychological standpoint, is much different than people who actually did kill themselves. Additionally, journals and suicide notes do little to study what actually went on in the person's mind after they actually killed all those people.

Unless they wrote "I'm going to kill all these people, and then I'm pretty sure I'm going to feel really bad about it and have to kill myself" those suicide notes or journals don't really provide much proof in either direction as to what a mass-murderer's mind-state is after committing such a crime.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign dr

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 I never questioned the validity of studies done on mass-murderers who were caught. It's interesting how you always twist people's arguments to make you come out "right."

The fact is that I can scarcely portray your arguments as incorrect until I've considered what's valid about them, in the first place. It's a relatively simple methodology which treats all submitted arguments as valid until or unless there is evidence which contravenes such validity. While I don't know as much as I'd like to about the topic I am speaking to, I do know more than most.

I'll submit that even though I have a better command of the English language than 65% of people who have completed graduate school with a Masters Degree (results from an actual IQ test I took when I was 24 - and I'm 41 now), you'll not find me disputing Lira's understanding of linguistics with the tactics you're ascribing to me. I'm not picking your arguments apart simply because I want to, but because I know your arguments are incorrect based upon a lot of personal research I've conducted, myself, having to do with forensic psychology.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 All I said was that interviewing mass-murderers who were caught or couldn't bring themselves to take their own life, from a psychological standpoint, is much different than people who actually did kill themselves. Additionally, journals and suicide notes do little to study what actually went on in the person's mind after they actually killed all those people. Unless they wrote "I'm going to kill all these people, and then I'm pretty sure I'm going to feel really bad about it and have to kill myself" those suicide notes or journals don't really provide much proof in either direction as to what a mass-murderer's mind-state is after committing such a crime.

At best, your argument, here, is Reductio Ad Absurdium. Clearly, none of the people who commit these crimes anticipate the consequences for having done so. They're so caught up in the short-term fantasy rehearsal for their revenge, they've scarcely thought forward to the future where such a revenge may be cherished. While most, if not all, anticipate dying as a result of being shot and/or committing suicide they demonstrate little understanding that suicide/suicide-by-cop negates enjoyment of the anticipated reward, rendering such an action moot, in the first place. Suicidal ideation is simply a tool in the arsenal of justifications which allow for their action - a final ironic act of self-preservation if not salt on the wound for survivors who'd enact their own retribution, given the chance.

But that doesn't even have anything to do with the correlations I'm talking about. I'm speaking to the entire constellation of pathology with which such similarity may be demonstrated.

http://wwwedgeeffect.blogspot.com/2...ass-murder.html

quote:

Pseudo-commando mass murders have been described as often possessing the following characteristics (Mullen, 2004): � Bullied or isolated as a child � Loners who are socially excluded and despair over feeling excluded � Suspicious, resentful, grudge holders � Obsessional or rigid traits � Narcissistic, grandiose traits � Externalizers � unable to take responsibility for their distress and place responsibility on others � Weapons collector, preoccupied with weapons � Strong feelings of persecution or mistreatment � World seen as rejecting, uncaring � Resentful with rumination on past humiliations � �collectors of injustice� (Dietz) � Fantasize about violent revenge � No significant criminal or violence history � No significant mental health history or serious mental illness � No significant substance abuse

If one who commits suicide writes about himself in ways which indicate narcissistic and/or grandiose traits, such as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, writing samples obtained from survivors which correlate can be used to establish the validity of similarity in thinking with surviving mass murderers.

Now, just so you don't come down hard on me saying that I'm trying to twist your words around, after you click that link and scroll down to find this - I found something in your favor:

quote:

Mass Homicide & Suicide: Deadliness & Outcome (Lester, �05) This study examined a nonrandom sample of 98 Lone �rampage� killers. Lester defined "deadliness" by number of victims. In terms of deadliness, here's how the perpetrators fell out: Most deadly: Killed by police 2nd most deadly: Committed suicide 3rd most deadly: Captured by police Lester also found that perpetrators often showed an interest in guns, had past violence, and demonstrated paranoia or paranoid traits. Interestingly, disgruntled employees were more likely to commit suicide.

I'm not even arguing about mass-murderers, as I've already stated. I used it to answer a question/comment posted by Lira, I didn't try to start a conversation about mass-murderers or how they feel about committing suicide after their crimes.

I know throwing out logical fallacies in your arguments makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but I really don't care if you need to be right. I'm not arguing about mass-murderers.

The reason Lira's arguments are compelling, and yours are not, is that often you don't provide any evidence to back up your points. Yes, you have a very strong command of the English language, your arguments are always well formulated, and you use thesaurus words, but that doesn't mean you're always right.

You keep going on and on about your personal research you've conducted, but who are you? Yeah, I may be wrong, but I'm not just going to believe whatever you say just because you say it well.

You quoted a list of behaviors/trends that were possessed by mass-murderers, and that's great, but can you provide me with some studies on the thoughts of mass-murderers right before the moment that they ended their life? Perhaps, the difference between the ones who kill themselves and the ones who don't are, wait for it, they're different.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018

Hint: Re-read the post and pay attention to the portion at the bottom which kind of proves the point you were trying to make...









Kind of...

I think you're not understanding me. I'm not mad, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that sometimes your arguments are too long-winded for your own good, and that just because you say someone is using a logical fallacy, doesn't mean they are.

I know you impress lots of people on this forum with your language, but once that's stripped away, there's not always much left.

I quite enjoy a lot of your posts, including some of the information in this one, it's just the way you argue sometimes is a bit tiresome. When you argue so condescendingly, saying things like, "I think what you were 'trying' to argue is," it just comes off like you're trying to win an intelligence contest (which is funny since you actually bragged about an IQ test you took 17 years ago), than an actual constructive argument.

I apologize if my posts seemed angry towards you or hostile in any way, I'm really not trying to argue anything about mass-murderers other than there's no way to study the minds of mass-murderers the moment before they kill themselves if they're already dead

Basically, when I read your posts, I think of this guy

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Basically, when I read your posts, I think of this guy

I need a haircut and minus some years and a little gray, that's kind of what I look like, beard and all, but with glasses.


It's not condescension and I'm not bragging but I was using that (the IQ test bit) as an anecdote to prove I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I probably could have done better than that (the anecdote and the IQ test ) and I completely understand why such conclusions are drawn but if I was truly being condescending, I would use much simpler terms, followed with citation to prove my point. The "Grandiloquent Allocutor" user-title is actually me self-deprecating in this regard and you're in good company (Mr. JBJ among others) who've noted my overtly elaborate use of language. It's definitely not because you (or anyone else, for that matter) are some intellectual slouch who is easy to knock off his feet, that we're having this conversation; that would then provide me with some sadistic gratification for having done so. I don't write this way to impress anyone - some of the shit I send off in Private Message is just as ridiculously wordy.

While I have genuinely tried to simplify my use of language, more-so lately, and now usually try to be more succinct, I sometimes feel compelled to give the full extent of my thinking so as not to be misunderstood. In short, I'm not trying to be condescending...




It's just a speech impediment.

You're spending too much time around that dickhead M4B, that's why

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose already.

Sorry, Russell, had to be away for a while. I hope you can be arsed to keep debating this issue

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 My opinion is irrelevant. Since morality is subjective, I think that what makes a thing right is whatever a person deems right. Getting into words like "right" and "wrong" I think necessitates a subjective answer when talking about morals.

I don't see how that can be a problem because of the following:

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Not necessarily. I'm saying your system of morality is just that, yours. I'm saying there is no system of morality for "us."

All right, I can give you that, but it isn't a problem because subjective systems can be shared and agreed upon.

There's nothing objective whatsoever about language: It's a intersubjective system of signs not unlike morality, because it needs at least two people in order to work (if you lived alone, morality and language would be pointless). Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the world says the word "bird" stands for Sushipunk's flying friends. As a matter of fact, where I live the word is "pássaro", and it sounds nothing like "bird". So, does it mean that, if we both meet, we can't pick a common word? And, if we've got different systems of morality, can't we pick a common system and follow that one?

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 I don't think so. Just because there's no universal standard for morality, doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist.

And that's my point.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Why do you reckon it's immoral then? Psychopathy kind of affects your examples in this case, so I'd have to say it's a possibility that the Columbine shooters either A) had no morality or B) weren't capable of grasping it at the time. I guess in my opinion, and in using your example; for myself, no, I wouldn't go on a killing spree like that myself, but if someone were to ask me if it was objectively morally wrong to do so, my answer would be "no." However misguided the reasoning is for doing whatever "wrong" act, there is a possibility that to that individual, the act they're performing is wholly "right."

It's immoral to me because I reckon that sort of behaviour is undesirable - and I'm not alone in this, surprisingly enough. Those around me probably share the same opinion (unless everybody thinks it's cool to kill people and no one told me) and, more tellingly, I'm willing to bet people where you live probably frown upon this sort of behaviour. It does seem to be a universal and this is good news if you want to refrain from adopting a nihilist stance in morality: if there are (even if just near-)universals we can agree upon, then there's some material we can work on. For example:



These guys found desirable traits admired in most cultures they investigated. Sure, it'd be too naïve to say these are the "moral universals" we're looking for but it's a hint that due to our common genetic make-up and similar environments, it's unlikely that two peoples (or two persons for that matter) will come to have opposite moralities - unless one of the persons really deviates from the norm.

And that brings us back to Columbine. They didn't open fire because they felt like it. Both kids had been bullied for months, and one became depressive and the other became a psychopath [source in a popular news site] - and that's hardly surprising. So they had a system of morality not much different from ours probably, and they sought to right a wrong. The difference between us and the trouble high school shooters is that we don't go to such extremes in order to make ourselves heard. The "immorality" here came not from a difference of kind (it is moral to correct a wrong) but from a difference of degree (it's not moral to correct a wrong in such a way that the author of the immoral behaviour you seek to rectify won't have a chance to do it right). Though, of course, our tolerance regarding the immorality of this violent correction differs from time to time and from place to place: If you're a high school student, you can't kill bullets, but if you're the US government, you can kill criminals. And, if you're the Brazilian government, you can't.

In any case, it's not a disagreement we can't work on. So, just like English became a lingua franca, there's no reason to believe a subjective system of morality can't be adopted by all peoples when dealing with one another even if we behave differently among ourselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin Government can't stifle a market this huge and doing so would be the reason why there is so much violence. Don't blame the market itself. Cigarette and alcohol companies aren't knocking each other off because one of their sales associates treaded on the other's territory. Prohibition is the obvious problem, not the fact that people want to smoke weed.

I'm not "blaming" the market insofar as the market works in accordance with the law. If this isn't the case, users ought to do what they can to repel the law and then play by the rules.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose alre

quote:

Originally posted by Lira So, just like English became a lingua franca, there's no reason to believe a subjective system of morality can't be adopted by all peoples when dealing with one another even if we behave differently among ourselves.

Apart from the basic social contract, Religion has been the most effective tool at uniting people under any single, moral system. Needless to say, things have gone swimmingly!

People who do drugs are not guilty any more than the poor farmers enslaved into collecting coca beans. Sure, your sense of sympathy may waver between the two, but to blame an entire party because of the result is to undermine the individual choices - the very morality you might suppose to be subjective - of every hired gun, every thug, every kidnapper who commits things you -individually - morally object to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Apart from the basic social contract, Religion has been the most effective tool at uniting people under any single, moral system. Needless to say, things have gone swimmingly!

That's why, regarding languages, I said English was an example, not Esperanto

Yes, it was very astute wording for a very flawed ideal.

To expect any morality out of people, or a person, is an awfully tall demand of mutual trust inclusive of nothing more enforceable than social consequence. Sure, there is always physical internment for 'crimes' which might be considered too heinous to tolerate in any 'moral' society - or even execution or torture as consequence - but these are necessities for tribal cohesion on most any scale, are they inherent tenets to morality as we might know it? To kill murderers?

To suppose morality as subjective in the first place - which it is, be the supposition 'right', 'wrong' or indifferent - we must recognize that immorality is an absolute comparative to the subjective notion of consequential experience via negativa. Now what is your subjective definition of immorality? Since the term morality is going to vary in interpretation, are there things people can agree upon that are absolutely devoid of any alignment, any consequence, any semblance of cohesion? Or in the flux of our considerations, have we left the window wide open to the germ of ambivalence?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yes, it was very astute wording for a very flawed ideal. To expect any morality out of people, or a person, is an awfully tall demand of mutual trust inclusive of nothing more enforceable than social consequence. Sure, there is always physical internment for 'crimes' which might be considered too heinous to tolerate in any 'moral' society - or even execution or torture as consequence - but these are necessities for tribal cohesion on most any scale, are they inherent tenets to morality as we might know it? To kill murderers?

Not really.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On To suppose morality as subjective in the first place - which it is, be the supposition 'right', 'wrong' or indifferent - we must recognize that immorality is an absolute comparative to the subjective notion of consequential experience via negativa. Now what is your subjective definition of immorality?

Morality defines what's moral, immorality defines what's left (i.e. immoral).

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Since the term morality is going to vary in interpretation, are there things people can agree upon that are absolutely devoid of any alignment, any consequence, any semblance of cohesion?

No.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Or in the flux of our considerations, have we left the window wide open to the germ of ambivalence?

Pretty much, yes.

I'm arguing for something a lot simpler and more modest than what you probably have in mind.

Ah yes, it's so very simple. Kill yourself if you contribute to criminal trafficking in any way. Perhaps you should simply kill yourself so you don't have to witness all the horrors of the world?

Wait, what?!

AMBIVALENT. GERMS.

Don't do it, Hal!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Drug Users | MESSAGE: Please boycott foreign drugs or overdose alre

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I don't see how that can be a problem because of the following: All right, I can give you that, but it isn't a problem because subjective systems can be shared and agreed upon. There's nothing objective whatsoever about language: It's a intersubjective system of signs not unlike morality, because it needs at least two people in order to work (if you lived alone, morality and language would be pointless). Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the world says the word "bird" stands for Sushipunk's flying friends. As a matter of fact, where I live the word is "pássaro", and it sounds nothing like "bird". So, does it mean that, if we both meet, we can't pick a common word? And, if we've got different systems of morality, can't we pick a common system and follow that one? And that's my point. It's immoral to me because I reckon that sort of behaviour is undesirable - and I'm not alone in this, surprisingly enough. Those around me probably share the same opinion (unless everybody thinks it's cool to kill people and no one told me) and, more tellingly, I'm willing to bet people where you live probably frown upon this sort of behaviour. It does seem to be a universal and this is good news if you want to refrain from adopting a nihilist stance in morality: if there are (even if just near-)universals we can agree upon, then there's some material we can work on. For example: These guys found desirable traits admired in most cultures they investigated. Sure, it'd be too naïve to say these are the "moral universals" we're looking for but it's a hint that due to our common genetic make-up and similar environments, it's unlikely that two peoples (or two persons for that matter) will come to have opposite moralities - unless one of the persons really deviates from the norm. And that brings us back to Columbine. They didn't open fire because they felt like it. Both kids had been bullied for months, and one became depressive and the other became a psychopath [source in a popular news site] - and that's hardly surprising. So they had a system of morality not much different from ours probably, and they sought to right a wrong. The difference between us and the trouble high school shooters is that we don't go to such extremes in order to make ourselves heard. The "immorality" here came not from a difference of kind (it is moral to correct a wrong) but from a difference of degree (it's not moral to correct a wrong in such a way that the author of the immoral behaviour you seek to rectify won't have a chance to do it right). Though, of course, our tolerance regarding the immorality of this violent correction differs from time to time and from place to place: If you're a high school student, you can't kill bullets, but if you're the US government, you can kill criminals. And, if you're the Brazilian government, you can't. In any case, it's not a disagreement we can't work on. So, just like English became a lingua franca, there's no reason to believe a subjective system of morality can't be adopted by all peoples when dealing with one another even if we behave differently among ourselves.

I see what you're saying. However, I don't think using language being used to support your stance here works all that well. Language obviously varies a great deal from country to country and even region to region, much like morality. Yes, groups of people could come together to decide on a moral code that they'd all like to live by.

That, in the history of humans, tended to be how societies developed. The problem, is that there will always be outliers, and there will always be dissenters from those common social mores. For there to be a truly objective system of morality (and by that I mean more than a code of conduct) it would have to be accepted universally.

If you and I sat down to make a list of all that we thought were moral and immoral, it could go on forever and never come to match.

I do understand what you mean about certain groups of people coming together and adopting one system of morality, but that only makes it objective for that group. Even then, as Hal said, this involves a certain degree of trust that they really do believe in that system of morality, and aren't merely saying that they do .

As to the Columbine shooters, you're saying what parts of what they did were moral, and what parts were immoral, but this is all based on your views on morality. I haven't done a lot of research into Columbine specifically (frankly the whole subject makes me kind of sick, which is why I've been trying to shy away from it), but it is possible that both shooters held drastically different views of morality than you or I. So, to them, what they were doing could have been completely morally acceptable.

This might be easier if we broke the topic down a little more than from "objective" and "subjective" to something else, because at least to me, saying morality can be "objective" would mean to suggest that all people in all places at all times would have to all believe in the same system. Even in cultures where there is close to an objective view of morality, there will always be people who don't adopt the same system of beliefs, or even come close to it.

what's your IQ eddie????

wanna start a high IQ club?

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII what's your IQ eddie???? wanna start a high IQ club?

I have no idea what it is right now and I've killed quite a few brain-cells since then but the psychologist administering the exam said I managed, with a cold and a hang-over, to score a "High Superior Intellect" (Superior Intellect is 120-129 - around 6 percent of the population). He also administered the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) which prophetically revealed that I was well-adjusted but may experience problems with substance abuse and drinking, in the future.






I was so relieved there was nothing seriously mental about me that I went out and got lit, that night.

Whoa, this thread EXPLODED!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.