Enter At Your Own Risk (Shit Gets Cray Cray).
Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:03 pm
i can still be useful for something
Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:03 pm
Don't give up.
Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:05 pm
i listed to that josh groban song too much
Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:08 pm
Fusil contra fusil, nig.
Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:09 pm
Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:11 pm
I'm staring at the colorful lights on my hotbox and i get relaxed. That is what everybody needs.
Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:25 pm
"hotbox" you say?
most interesting indeed.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:26 am
Dualism In Morality
So, I'm finally playing Socrates Jones and I've noticed something...iffy. I've never addressed this issue before but playing the game is causing it to eat at me: Morality is dualistic - based on "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil". However, not everything determining what is ethical is based on the claim of right or wrong, good or evil.
I believe in situational ethics yet follow a set creed. This creed is based on what my heart has generally "told" me to do in certain situations. However, those points in my creed either tell me to do one thing without claiming anything else to be right/wrong OR tell me to not do something without claiming other options to be right/wrong. My sense of ethics, thus, is based on how I should - or rather, will - act in a situation rather than claims to right and wrong (since those claims can lead to absolutism, even "situational absolutism").
So these are the questions to address:
1) Why does morality generally focus only on "right" and "wrong"?
2) How can morality be altered to not focus on right and wrong or, perhaps, how would morality without focus on right or wrong function?
Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:02 am
It wouldn't function, right and wrong is the entire basis of morality
Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:21 am
I like how most of this thread is just Mir and Guardian posting really short messages.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:40 pm
The morality we have been using is based on right and wrong, yes, but subjective ethics have evolved beyond dualism. Since ethics is meant to be the study of morality, then there MUST be some kind of morality that exists beyond right and wrong.
Perhaps we should consider factors concerning cause and effect without attaching negativity or positivity to consequence.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:33 pm
Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:23 pm
Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:27 pm
Krest wrote:Perhaps we should consider factors concerning cause and effect without attaching negativity or positivity to consequence.
I think he's mentioning this.
How can we consider factors concerning cause and effect without attaching negativity or positivity to their consequences?
That's his question. If you've given this some thought, you may already have an answer.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:32 pm
Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:39 pm
hes asking you, krest, to explain how that is possible
dont answer a question with a question
i swear to fuck i will lock this thread if you are evasive and provoking with people
Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:40 pm
I didn't bring it up, you did.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Birdofterror wrote:I didn't bring it up, you did.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:07 pm
I didn't ask people how. I already do. I just said people should in order to answer the two questions I originally asked. As for "how" it's done, I don't know. It's just natural for me. So you'd have to ask yourself that, since it applies to you - not me.
You asked how. I didn't. The questions I want an answer for were already stated.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:09 pm
If you're still confused, pick certain sentences and use the Pro Philo method for each sentence. I'll then respond.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:10 pm
and people are asking how to do it
you know how explain it
explain your thought process on it
because thats the only part that has anyone interested
people wont be willing to answer your questions if you are incompetent in answering theirs
so be nice and help people understand it or dont mention it
Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:10 pm
and explain that too
Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:12 pm
a simpler way to put what you said was to look at things objectively and not subjectively
youre confusing as hell in this thread
trying way too much to sound smart when all you need to do is post in simple terms to understand
Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:19 pm
So you just wanna ask rhetorical questions all day then? Cool.
I'm not "confused" don't condescend to me. It appears you are in fact confused on how to actually have a conversation. You bring up something, I say "oh how would you do that", you explain. It's not: you bring up something, I say "oh how would you do that" and you say "Oh I know how just think about it". That brings and end to the dialogue. So if you want people to actually engage in what you're talking about it'd be best for you to be explanatory.
Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:22 pm
Krest: when everyone has trouble understanding you, then you're the common factor and the one who needs to improve his communication skills lol.
I didn't ask for forms from you. I asked for you to number off and detail your awareness of the irony you used in this thread.
please do this for me.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.