Reps old boy,
We're arguing all over and around the shop here, we can give up if you're bored of it - but in case you're not, here are my responses to your last post....!
Rob Wrote:
>The subjectivity is not the problem. The unworkable, over complicated
>rulebook where one central guideline will do is the problem.
Reptar Wrote:
>I am not quite sure who's rulebook you are talking about.. I don;t remember
>there being mention of one in this thread.
Not any one particular set of morals, I use "rulebook" to refer to the
COLLECTION of "moralS", as in today's hard-coded-multiple-rule idea of
morality, rather than (as I propose) a single central guideline.
I will reiterate. Imagine a time before anyone spoke of morals. The instinct
to not cause each other unnecessary pain will have been present since the
"first" human, and many people will have responded to each new situation
with that generalised emotion in place.
Now one day, someone will have noticed that not all people are as
conscientious as they, and become irate, wanting to do something about it.
So, communicated into a human social context, this primal instinct became
morality. In the kind of society where people could pretty much do exactly
as they pleased, and could expect to get away with it, a moral for every
situation, backed up with the threat of damnation or something, was
desirable. These days we have a much tighter knit society, policing, and far
more conscientious people, despite all the horrors on the news. People know
the rules. There does not need to be an additional set of moral rules
attempting to cover every situation (which they certainly do not achieve),
providing the opportunity for brain dead half wits to self-righteously bang
their fist on the table, regurgitating some idiotically overgeneralised and
totally impractical "moral" to people far more conscientious and thoughtful
than themselves. All this provides is opportunity for conflict, as morals
clash (e.g. the "right to free speech"/"don't shit on each other" conflict
in my original example).
In conclusion, new laws, proposals for organisation and codes of conduct
should be based upon the central "no one gets hurt" guideline (or
equivalent), and not upon a vast collection of programmed rules which all
too often have their foundations inside the head of some deranged mediaeval
aristocrat with control of the masses for personal gain on his mind. (e.g.
the anti-love(sex), pro-war inverse morality that lives on today).
Rob Wrote:
>Also, I don't
>care if my thoughts are considered condescending or seen as heresy or
>whatever, this isn't relevant to whether or not the idea is workable.>>
Reptar Wrote:
>Condescension and heresy aren't the same thing at all, why would you group
>them as one?
Read the sentence again. I said "...considered condescending OR seen as
heresy or whatever...". This does not imply that heresy and condescension
are the same.
I included heresy, as I am guessing that the motivation for your objection
to my original post rests with horror at the prospect of change. This I see
as a possibility due to the absence of reason and presence of
attack-language in your original response.
Besides, how is this relevant to the point?
Reptar Wrote:
>It is simplistic to think you have found the one solution, however
>brilliant.
>it is.
Rob Wrote:
>The one solution? Your words, not mine.....and it's not that brilliant
>either. It's blatantly obvious.
Reptar Wrote:
>You said something once which started this whole thing... what was it, all
>the morals we need to know are not to harm anyone? Something along those
>lines.
I said the only thing we need to know is the central guideline, the reason for the existence of morals. Basically, a boiling off of all the shit in morality to leave the gem at the centre.
Rob Wrote:
>But people never bother to think (except
>people such as those on this list)....
Reptar Wrote:
>Again, which people are you talking about? What I mean by condescending is
>exemplified above. It isn't heretical, just disrespectful.
The vast majority. The fully programmed, those that can only think WITH
concepts given them, never ABOUT things. Sod "disrespectful". People on the
whole are so obtuse, yet so self-righteous, zealously spouting their
"opinions", as read in the previous morning's newspaper, I just want to melt
into oblivion sometimes.
See, the problem is that people have an instinct to "have an opinion". It
makes them feel good to do so, so they do it to reap the psychological
benefits, not merely to transmit what they think is a good idea. And can
they be shown to be wrong? Can they buggery. Again, it's all instinct and no
reason...they'll look like bottom monkeys rather than top banana if they get
it completely wrong, so round and round and round they'll argue, tempers
getting more and more heated - not because they fear the loss of a great
idea to ignorance, but because of what they will suffer if they "lose".
Politics. No ordinary person is expected to embrace the concept, rather,
it's deemed the more power a human has, the more childish, self-centred and
irrational he is allowed/expected to act.
Rob Wrote:
>Why do you have morals?
Reptar Wrote:
>Because my parents told me I should, perhaps.... and because I love life.
Hmm.....you should check your ass for joystick ports. They'll be literally steering you next.
Rob Wrote:
>Why does anyone?
Reptar Wrote:
>Some don't. Some do. Some need religion to allow them to. Some think about
it
>too much!
Too much? I have thought about it, period. People in general don't think - they just do, then claim they're all righteous and contemplatative for the social animal rewards (pretentious bullshit goes down well with the ladies etc...) And it's not what I was told humanity was ! It wasn't supposed to be this way!!!....AaAAAAAAaaaaaAAAAGH!
Rob Wrote:
>Deserves? This is sounding like an attachment of arbitrary value to the
>established mode of (non)thought on this subject. What do you think?
Reptar Wrote:
>This is not a scientific debate, 'attachment" is the key word here. We talk
>abotu conquering death and space travel but stil we act like angry morons
>even here on the list! Yet you want to dismiss this stuff as fluff.
>I say deserves and I mean exactly that: We get what we put into it.
You're going to have to rephrase this. You lost me.
Cheers,
Rob.