Advertisement

by Episarta » Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:40 pm

by Coccygia » Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:39 pm

by Truvada » Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:09 pm

by Chinese Regions » Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:30 pm

by Furious Grandmothers » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:05 am
Coccygia wrote:Since everything is just subjective can I kill you and take your money? Actually I'll settle for just the money.

by Furious Grandmothers » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:06 am
Chinese Regions wrote:The point of life is life itself; to prevent extinction, the simplest way to prevent the death of a species is to prevent the deaths of that species' individual members. Our DNA says it is bad to kill fellow human beings.

by Furious Grandmothers » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:07 am
Truvada wrote:Something is good, or ethical if it is pro-survival.
Something is bad, or unethical if it harms or lessens your survival.
People, actions, or things which factually mean you harm are bad.
Seems to me this has a lot to do with right/wrong dichotomy too.
If something causes you harm, how would it be good?
Cigarettes may feel good at one time, but the pain of throat or lung cancer later on is the indicator that smoking was a bad choice.
But smokers could probably recall painful symptoms of their bodies reacting against smoking when they first started, symptoms which probably outweigh the nicotine buzz.
Jumping off a building so that the real Tom Cruise doesn't have to! I mean, how unethical is that! 
by Andaluciae » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:10 am
FreeAgency wrote:Shellfish eating used to be restricted to dens of sin such as Red Lobster and Long John Silvers, but now days I cannot even take my children to a public restaurant anymore (even the supposedly "family friendly ones") without risking their having to watch some deranged individual flaunting his sin...

by Sovereign Spirits » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:13 am
The Parkus Empire wrote:My conscience is my sole authority in regards to ethics.
Andaluciae wrote:He is wrong for killing, because I fucking say so.
Sometimes you gotta be the bottom turtle all on your own.

by Coccygia » Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:09 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:My conscience is my sole authority in regards to ethics.


by The Parkus Empire » Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:28 pm

by Coccygia » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:42 pm

by The Parkus Empire » Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:14 pm
Coccygia wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:I said that there's a distinction between being amoral and sadistic, as you you conflated the two. I am neither, nor was I the subject of the Harry Lime comparison.
OK, you're not Harry Lime...but I conflated the two? Well, if you're the victim it doesn't matter much if the guy is enjoying your horrible death or not.

by Volnotova » Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:22 pm
Land of Germany wrote:Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.
Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?

by Genivaria » Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:28 pm

by Nacional-Socialist Russia » Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:34 pm

by Burning Passion » Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:03 pm
Land of Germany wrote:Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.
Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?
If you answer "he is wrong for killing," why?
If you answer "he is not wrong/right for killing," why?
How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?
(Answer from a 'big-picture' perspective, if that makes sense.)

by Cameroi » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:01 pm

by Nacional-Socialist Russia » Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:22 pm
Cameroi wrote:"who" is a british fantasy about time travel. ain't got squat to do with good and bad.
that which benefits is good, that which harms is bad, and there ain't no who what's got twiddly to do with it.
by Meridiani Planum » Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:45 am
Land of Germany wrote:How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?

by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:33 am


by Pope Joan » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:15 am

by Coccygia » Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:30 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Coccygia wrote:OK, you're not Harry Lime...but I conflated the two? Well, if you're the victim it doesn't matter much if the guy is enjoying your horrible death or not.
Yeah, see, you're just saying that they're the same thing because both are bad. If you die on the operating table, under sedation, or if you die by getting sniped through the head, it makes little difference to the victim, too.

by The Parkus Empire » Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:47 pm
Coccygia wrote:If somebody is amoral a la Harry Lime they would see nothing wrong with torturing someone to death just for laughs. Not Mr. Lime's thing, I admit, but consider the Marquis de Sade, for example. Amoral with a taste for inflicting pain (mostly in his fiction, admittedly.) Or mobsters like Whitey Bulger. The two things overlap and are both reprehensible.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Arklatravar-Istertia, Greater Marine, Hirota
Advertisement