| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Who is more moral? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=431 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Who is more moral? |
The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm. The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm, understands this and attempts to ammend their actions towards good. The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm and does not investigate the results of their actions but continues to cause harm following the same premise and desire to do good. The person who does not wish to do good and through inaction causes neither harm nor good. |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The first 3 are equally moral. However, #2 is more intelligent. #4 is a reactor. He follows other people's morality. He does neither harm nor good. He is a pawn. Powerful people (or other powerful reactors) force him into action... make him work to pay taxes instead of giving him free food...etc. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Are ethics deontological or teleological? |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Stathol wrote: Are ethics deontological or teleological? That question is answered by the responder. |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Stathol wrote: Are ethics deontological or teleological? Ethics are created from your personal interpretation of the outside universe that you perceive with your 5 senses. You can react and apply other people's form of ethics (stronger intellectual forces will always imprint ethics into you), or you can invent your own. Ethics should help your life the most... however strong intellectual forces will imprint ethics to help their lives more. Every person is a state machine and some run better than others. |
|
| Author: | Khross [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Who is more moral? |
Lex: So ethics are an ontological exercise instead of an epistemological endeavor? |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't know what those words mean... I wish that people using fancy words can just define them. I don't study this stuff academically. edit: Ok you managed to get me to look stuff up.. yes Khross.  However... maybe the two words boil down to the same concept? I don't know a lot about this stuff. |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You need to have field-independent ethics as much as possible. Your ethics need to come from you, after taking in as much data as possible. It's fine if they overlap with other ethics. Your ethics will always be field-dependent on the ethics of the other people (who are fancier, better-trained neurological state machines) and on nature (the most trained state machine of them all who is ALWAYS your master). However, you should still TRY to exert free will and follow what you believe is the right ethical system. Dogs do this to stay with their owner, even though to the owner it is obvious that the dog must stay. Society is a growing state machine that increasingly exerts more powerful ethics onto all people. State machines always interact. A powerful interaction leads one state machine to be dependent on the other. A smooth and powerful interaction is from a charismatic, trained state machine that knows it's right and is better able to exert its perception of reality. It has more interaction experience. What used to be unpredictable is increasingly predictable to the charismatic, trained state machine. It has stronger control over the universe. It knows it's right and does not have inner conflicts. Ethics boil down to power. All state machines are tornadoes in a hurricane, which is trapped inside the state machine of the atmosphere... Maybe I'm just crazy... this is a good distraction from work though... State machines are the macroscopic observers/interactors to what used to be randomness... a.k.a. quantum mechanics... state machines find patterns in the chaos... |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Also my theory is that large black holes of the universe are like the interface between your retina and the neurons there, and small black holes are like the interface between neurons and your skull. Just my theory though. I think the bubble-shaped universe as we know it is a brain. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am the most moral, therefore what I believe is correct and you should all follow suit. |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Hannibal wrote: I am the most moral, therefore what I believe is correct and you should all follow suit. That's a good start. However just realize that other people are entitled to feel the same way, except they are wrong. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Who is more moral? |
Elmarnieh wrote: The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm. The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm, understands this and attempts to ammend their actions towards good. The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm and does not investigate the results of their actions but continues to cause harm following the same premise and desire to do good. The person who does not wish to do good and through inaction causes neither harm nor good. The question is impossible to answer without knowing what the actions in question are. |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Who is more moral? |
Diamondeye wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm. The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm, understands this and attempts to ammend their actions towards good. The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm and does not investigate the results of their actions but continues to cause harm following the same premise and desire to do good. The person who does not wish to do good and through inaction causes neither harm nor good. The question is impossible to answer without knowing what the actions in question are. All actions are figments of your imagination. All actions are macroscopic interpretations of chaos. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Imperi wrote: Hannibal wrote: I am the most moral, therefore what I believe is correct and you should all follow suit. That's a good start. However just realize that other people are entitled to feel the same way, except they are wrong. Just knowing their morality is less then mine should dictate that if they aren't following my course of action, then they are wrong. Now put on your black Nikes and purple sweatsuits while I mix up this kool aid. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Who is more moral? |
Imperi wrote: All actions are figments of your imagination. All actions are macroscopic interpretations of chaos. That's nice, but even if true, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. |
|
| Author: | Imperi [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Who is more moral? |
Diamondeye wrote: Imperi wrote: All actions are figments of your imagination. All actions are macroscopic interpretations of chaos. That's nice, but even if true, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The morality in question depends on the moral observer. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 4:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Who is more moral? |
Imperi wrote: Diamondeye wrote: Imperi wrote: All actions are figments of your imagination. All actions are macroscopic interpretations of chaos. That's nice, but even if true, completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The morality in question depends on the moral observer. Are you just having a non sequiter kind of day or something? |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Who is more moral? |
Quote: The person who wishes to do good but whose actions cause harm, understands this and attempts to ammend their actions towards good. This one. I believe in the doctorine of repentance, when one does wrong they have the opportunity and responsibility to repent and move forward from that point. The person who tries to do good and fails to follow through: either flat out (#1) or through ignorance (#3) isn't realizing that their actions have conquenses. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 10:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I believe the most moral people there are follow two rules: 1. Be Excellent to Each Other 2. Party on Dudes! |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Imperi wrote: Hannibal wrote: I am the most moral, therefore what I believe is correct and you should all follow suit. That's a good start. However just realize that other people are entitled to feel the same way, except they are wrong. Neat. Tell me, how does it feel to be wrong? |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What about a person that does good, knowing that it might cause some harm, but that the overall good will outweigh the harm done? |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: What about a person that does good, knowing that it might cause some harm, but that the overall good will outweigh the harm done? That wasn't one of the options listed. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Monte wrote: What about a person that does good, knowing that it might cause some harm, but that the overall good will outweigh the harm done? That wasn't one of the options listed. It's nice to see such a firm grasp of the obvious. |
|
| Author: | Loki [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is the intent of person four to do harm? |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: What about a person that does good, knowing that it might cause some harm, but that the overall good will outweigh the harm done? Utilitarianism...Eugenics...John Holdren |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|