I disagree. I can quite easily retain my individuality whether I choose to defect from society or not; after-all, no human is the same as any other. Society is just a collection of individuals - agreeing with their collection of peoples does not make them any less of an individual. The individual is a prerequisite of society, remember, so to express this point that people can defect from society is needless as it's a necessary truth.
Only if people can maintain their individuality, if they lose it in the process of working with society, then the quality changes. Agreeing isn't the same as conforming. I speak of the danger of mindless conformity.
Adding to what I just said, there isn't actually such thing as "societal moral and stipulation" as such a thing is just an agreement between individuals. As the individual is a prerequisite to society, the individual morals are a prerequisite to this phantom "societal moral and stipulation". Thus it's impossible to claim that society's morals or worth more than the individual's.
You may interpret it in that sense, however, in the end there's no doubt that the current nomocracy nurtures a kind of morality, it just so happen that most people are happy with said morality. If you place complete emphasis on the individual, then you would perfectly understand how important it is to consider everyone intrinsically equal. To brand other people of being unequal while stressing the importance of individuality seems like quite blatant a conceited pursuit (which is pretty much every pursuit, but perhaps more blatant and demanding than others).
And this is the problem that I've been pointing out since the start of this thread. Why brand other people to be "wrong" when they are merely introducing a perspective?
Individual morality is what creates such hierarchy. Again, I'll reiterate, it's individual morals that define the multitude (whether such a multitude can be proven to exist or not) so to bring morality to hierarchy makes perfect sense.
There are two layers of morality, I believe. First is the individual morality, then there is a collective morality usually understood to be culture. If individual morality is what creates a hierarchy, no one would desire their moral alignment to be placed below another's. I believe the reason why said hierarchy exists is to exercise the necessary violence for a society to function. If there is no norm nor standard, it would be quite different from what the modern society appears to be.
Actually, yes it does. As societal morals are merely an agreement between individual morals, your moral compass is as valued in society as anyone else's. If you disagree with it, speak it as a voice among society. As society is a collection of individuals, as is a bridge a collection of metal beams and cables - were a metal beam to bend, or a cable to snap, the bridge would be substantially weaker and fall apart. Your individuality matters. If you think that a man beating a woman is wrong you have every right to say so.
Agreed.
To say that domestic violence shares equivalence with charity suggests something rather scary, philosophically. It has been argued, and still is, that morals don't exist - they're a phantom of our emotions. However, in this discussion it's necessary that we assume morals exist as it is the entire foundation of that so-called "societal moral and stipulation" you were talking about. Also, the last part of that suggests that your arguments are rooted in nothing other than the will to be different - have you heard of the man who built his house on sand?
It is scary to you, as you expressed. In this discussion, I've made my stance very clear from the beginning, that morality exists, but it isn't intrinsic. I have not heard the man who built his house on sand. My arguments are rooted from the concept of aesthetic education and reconciliation as illustrated by Schiller, Whitman, and Ranciere. Being different is a given, everyone is diverse when examined.
Precisely. You claim that actions are actions and that to exercise domestic violence is no better/worse than charity, yet you have the morality to warn this man/woman that their actions may land them in a bad place (so to potentially save that man/woman from harm?). If you were serious about your claim that there is just "actions" you'd have no reason to tell the man/woman anything; it'd be no more/less wrong of you to handcuff the abusive man/woman and execute them than to warn them of the potential danger their actions may land them in. Thus, from that, I can deduce that even though you claim to have no moral affinity, you still act in a way to to help someone (which is a primal feature of morality).
This is a matter of interpretation. It's identical to the argument for and against the existence of altruism. Some argue that people do indeed help others not for conceited reasons, some argue that the gratification from helping people is what people are after when they help people, therefore they are also selfish. You can probably infer that I am in support of the latter argument, and I am.
This, if anything reinforces my point. An act is an act until someone gives it form and interpret it, you interpret it to be my instinctual moral obligation, but for me it's nothing more than a personal bias that has no moral attachment. In the sense that I enjoy reinforcing and fiddle with given regulations and nomocracy, also that as a personal bias, I want the said "wife beater" to stop. This goes back to the human nature of obtaining pleasure and avoiding pain, I merely do what is pleasurable. If we say that doing what one feels pleasurable is a morality, then I suppose people can make it a morality. I don't necessary subscribe to its categorization and feel that it misrepresents my being, thus it really circles around the argument whether perception dictates truth. To me, it dictates personal truth, and my belief is that I do not operate on a "moral" system.
If there is nothing more than "actions" why do you care about providing equality for all? And if you are in-fact serious about providing equality for all why are you so eagerly defending people who have clearly acted in a very unfair way, in Elite: Dangerous?
Actions are carried out after desires, desire is rationalized by Bentham's felicific calculus. What is "unfair" is nothing more than a mere perception, and that includes my perspective, as well. Therefore I would like to uphold that equivalence since it it pleasurable.
Morality is very relevant. As I said earlier, it is individual morality that shapes the very "societal morals" that you were addressing earlier. I disagree with the notion that to be moral = to be violent. You'll often find that the most moral of us are pushing for a less violent world. So, to claim that pushing morals = promoting violence is laughable.
I believe you understood my statement with your personal bias, which happens to anyone and everyone. But allow me to clarify. When we give form to matters, we are exerting force and dominating things. This is a concept spoken by Emerson, Nietzsche, Weber and Foucault. When we perceive something, and the notion emerge in our consciousness, we have already exercised violence by giving said matters form through our lens, or biases. It already distort its original self.
By existing, one is forcing others to acknowledge one's presence because one takes and occupy form, existence is a violence to a degree, as well. Some of this violence is inevitable, but I see moralizing as an unnecessary expansion of violence.
Thus promoting any morality is an exercise of violence. Of course, my view on morality shares the same violence, but in an incorporating sense. As Whitman puts it "I am large, I contain multitude."
It isn't up to you, nor me, to decide whether morals are an absolute necessary existence. It is impossible to prove whether morals are a creation of the mind or whether they're a universal set of laws that govern us all. So, unless you're prepared to defend your views that morals aren't absolute against legendary philosophers such as Emanuel Kant, I'd be prepared to dismiss your view as it's nothing more than an opinion - a baseless one at that.
Do you know of the liar's paradox and its association with Kant's categorical imperative?
I think it's perfectly fine to have someone you idolize and favor, but when you establish them as the absolute authority, I believe that is quite narrow-minded.
There are many arguments against and criticizing Kant, just as there are criticisms and objection toward anyone. I have a philosophy minor, and a theory-focused political science major, I am very well-versed in terms of philosophy. I am prepared to argue against any views, but that doesn't mean I'll reject them or view them as inferior, and most certain, I will not dismiss them as baseless opinions.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." --Aristotle. The Constructive Empiricism in philosophy of science also support this idea, I personally believe it is a great way to interact with the world and the people that live in it.
Everything is a matter of opinion, since they are all based on assumptions and perception, merely layered on top of one another to the point where people don't seem to be able to distinguish them, or are willing to identify them anymore. There are many famous philosophers arguing against fundamentalism, such as Cartwright and Feminine Empiricism.
You are absolutely entitled to dismiss and classify things to be baseless, as anyone else is capable of doing the same. However, being able to tolerate the view of what is foreign and different and reconciliate on said diversity seem to be difficult for most.
No one is able to prove anything absolutely, which is the beauty in this world, yet people proceed to forcefully impose their values upon others without much consideration instead of admiring the diversity, I find it quite unfortunate.[/QUOTE]
The long string of contradictions in your response is perhaps thickest here. You claim that actions are actions and hold no moral value, yet you appear to be condemning war. Why? Because your morals tell you that war is bad. But I thought actions are actions? So, even though you suggest that morality inherited from society is dangerous, you use your morality (which I can only assume you inherited from society) to condemn war. It begs the question: are you yourself even sure of what your views are?
I am using the example to appeal to you, since you seem to be rooted in a certain morality. What is confusing here is that an act can be categorized as anything, let it be moral, amoral, immoral, or anything. However, when reduced, it is a mere act.
Law created by society is a necessary evil, people can claim that it has moral values, others can deny it. Morality when weaponized, is worse than law in my opinion.
As I've said, it's not up to you nor I to decide what exactly morals are. Philosophers far smarter than you and I have debated that for centuries, so let's not even try and go there.
Intelligence is quite subjective, as well. If philosophers can debate it, why can't everyone else debate it, as well? Since everyone is merely expressing their opinion, what is the harm in doing so? It seems as if you are quite evasive on the subject, is it possible that you do not have a system of your own or a system you subscribe to?
When I said that morality is what sets us apart from animals, I was not voicing my own opinion. I was simply saying that that is what some thing, since humans clearly have a far wider range of emotive expressions and morals than animals - some animals (dolphins, for example) do express some extent of morality and a sense of right and wrong. Why? Who knows. Let's leave it to the marine biologists.
I think you did not fully understand the point I was stressing. We are using human-made categories and forms to judge non-humans. Or even more intrinsic, we are using the standard created by one to judge another, is there really accuracy in that?
You may claim that humans have a wider range of emotive expressions and morals, that is your opinion, and I respect it. However, leaving things to the "experts" do not exactly make this debate productive. Similarly, in debate competition, one does not approach the debate without any ideas or information prepared.
Yes, you're correct. It is up to me. Thank you for helping me disregard the common griefer defense of "FDev say it's okay". Just because they say it is okay doesn't mean it is.
You are free to believe that, but labeling players as "griefers" does not help the situation in my opinion. There are acts disadvantageous to you, and there are acts advantageous to you, it just happens to be the former and you're trying to pursue your interest by prohibiting the "griefers'" interest. There's nothing more than a conflict of interest here.
Just to point out, almost the entirety of the British Justice System is based off of the moral "laws" put forwards by the Bible. If they are allowed to judge others based on morals, why can't I? Is the British Justice System exercising violence on people? That poor who was convicted for life - I really feel he has been violated by the British Justice System.
If you insist that your morality is the basis for your judgement and it is necessary, you are free to do so. However, it does not seem very productive to me, which is why I suggest otherwise. I don't see harm in expressing opinions.
Your argument here can be reduced to absurdity fairly easily. Humans use morals to judge other people on a daily, hourly, perhaps second-ly basis. That drunk you looked at on the train and thought "what a disgrace" or "poor man, I should help him" - morals.
One has to "judge" in order to perceive, indeed. However, this judgement does not have to assign hierarchy, you freely choose to assign hierarchy from what I understand. And I believe it is not necessary.
Are you seriously suggesting that using morals to protect people from murderers and rapists is akin to exercising violence?
In a philosophical sense, I can. Murderers and rapists are people who utilize instruments happiness that are usually prohibited by society, most knowingly commit "crime" because of the pleasure they obtain from it trumps the punishment, which again can be reasoned from Bentham's felicific calculus. As Utilitarianism clearly delineated, punishment is "evil" in itself. In the sense that in order to secure a society we find comfortable living in, we are sacrificing other people's comfort and happiness.
Of course, this concept can be hard to understand due to the incessant coercion forced onto people connecting these kind of individuals to diabolic descriptions. However, when considered intrinsically, they are people, as well, merely fancying different instruments to the same intrinsic happiness that everyone chases after. Are they dangerous to people that need to be sacrificed in order to complete their instruments? Of course, which is why as a gregarious race, we outlawed these instruments. There is no need to assign moral to these actions. They are prohibited acts not because they are somehow intrinsically wrong, but rather it will create maximum prosperity (or utility) for people other than themselves.
If anything I would like to thank them for sacrificing themselves so we can live relatively safer.
I disagree. Demeaning other people for having a different morality is certainly necessary. After-all, you said yourself that we as a race are pushing for an equal world - unless we judge people harshly based on universal moral standers, how can we possibly achieve this? Similarly in Elite: Dangerous, if we wish to achieve a cohesive community, we must judge each other on our own moral code - those who do not assist in creating a fair community will be judged by everyone who disagrees with their actions
And what happens exactly when one launches a moral crusade on another? Is this sort of cultural conflict really necessary? Is your very existence threatened by the diversity of morality? If it is, go ahead, you are your own individual and is capable of exercising discretion.
"Compromise" is the last word I'd use to describe alleged griefers' response to allegations that they're griefing. Some have even stated that they are griefers, yet made no effort to compromise or understand other people's points of view.
That's when you coerce them into compromising, I have no interest in bemusing people like Saint Augustine in his early chapters of writing, which he does clarify later on.
It is an ideal, you're right. The only people impeding on it are those who cause the problem in the first place - griefers.
And the "griefers" can say the exact same thing back to you, what then?
Oh right, war, and it's a great thing indeed. Hold tyranny, exterminate the undesired, , people cry for freedom, evolution comes around the corner, democracy is established, elites emerge, democratic despotism follows, aristocracy turns into oligarchy, oligarchy centralizes into tyranny, exterminate the undesired...
How long before humanity come to admire this wonderful cycle?
P.S.
I suggest you use less derogatory terms against your conversing partner and have a little bit more faith in said partner's knowledge in the relevant field of the discussion.
- - - Updated - - -
Or we assume that the Saudis that exhibit domestically violent behavior lack morals in that regard.
And what if said population returns that argument back at you?
What if they claim you lack morals?
What then?
Exterminate them to prove your supremacy?