Anger, Revenge, Hatred

[amphidextros]

What can justly categorize these three things, are they within the human mind for a rightous course of action, or are they in constant conflict with morality?  

[27x]

No offence, but that question is just begging for me to awnser evil, and it is not moral. Almost baited, if you will.

However, I have different awnsers.

I believe these can be catagorized in natural human reaction.

In awnser to the second question, I would say nothing is unjustified, or justified, and that everything is as it should be.  

[amphidextros]

I_27_04

No offence, but that question is just begging for me to awnser evil, and it is not moral. Almost baited, if you will.

However, I have different awnsers.

I believe these can be catagorized in natural human reaction.

In awnser to the second question, I would say nothing is unjustified, or justified, and that everything is as it should be.

Withought the first, a maniacle killer still kills, the same way an enraged police officer thrives to take that delinquent down, the first persons actions are evil. The second is not. Just as the police officer hates to do traffic work, the Killer loves the attention attracted by his actions, Although the killer has met his end and is satisfied with his action, would the police officer wish he could get out of his position and be doing something that will not waste his time and help him win that promotion?

As natural human reaction may they be, How is it that not all our reactions, to certain situations, are considerd normal?  

[27x]

There is a difference between natural and normal.

In the sence of the word I am using, all human actions are natural.

Normality is different. I use the word normal, as a synonym to typical. Most humans are aligned to good. That is normal. Now, it is also natural for humans to be evil, but not normal. See what I mean?  

[Zarfione]

Anger,Hatred,Revenge,these are common actions by humans,it makes you get even but are these good?No.Because they are acts of malevolence.Surely prevent these acts are hard,however,humans have the free will and do this we can.  

[27x]

Well obviously all three of these things can come from greed and spite, but what if somone is just looking out for number one?

If somone is raped, they are probably going to feel hatred and anger towards their rapist. Does that mean they are evil? Well one might say, "They are only evil if they take vengence on their rapist."

Well, how is reporting to the police any less vengefull than a knife in the spine?

The difference is the civility of the thing.

Then, the rapist is in court. He says he's not a bad person, just misunderstood.

How can a rapist think he is vituous? How can a rape victim civilly take vengence and be considered lawfull?

This is because we all look out for our best interests; the more severe our actions are, the closer they are to evil.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

amphidextros

What can justly categorize these three things, are they within the human mind for a rightous course of action, or are they in constant conflict with morality?

Well, what is morality?  

[27x]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

amphidextros

What can justly categorize these three things, are they within the human mind for a rightous course of action, or are they in constant conflict with morality?

Well, what is morality?

I believe he is using it in this sence.
Morality: A general mix of the most common believes between people that try to define what is good and what is evil.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

amphidextros

What can justly categorize these three things, are they within the human mind for a rightous course of action, or are they in constant conflict with morality?

Well, what is morality?

I believe he is using it in this sence.
Morality: A general mix of the most common believes between people that try to define what is good and what is evil.

What are the most common morals the people as a whole share?  

[27x]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

amphidextros

What can justly categorize these three things, are they within the human mind for a rightous course of action, or are they in constant conflict with morality?

Well, what is morality?

I believe he is using it in this sence.
Morality: A general mix of the most common believes between people that try to define what is good and what is evil.

What are the most common morals the people as a whole share?

The instinctive ones. They arn't always correct, but most people follow them.

For example, most people instinctively believe morally that killing is wrong.

Is that correct in all situations?

Maybe not, if you're a solder, or you're trying to save your life from somone who is killing you.

I see what you're saying; not all people have the same morals.

My rebuttle is, I'm not talking about something that you can count, so it's useless to try to tell me that I'm wrong to say that most people share a few general morals in common.

It's a simple truth; otherwise our history would be very different.

That being said, you're not arguing with me, you're taking my advice on how he was using the word moral, and then awnsering his question if you aggree with my statement.

If you don't believe that my definition of morality is true then:
1. To know that mine is false, you must have some idea of what is true. Therefore you already know what morality means, and you shouldn't be asking.
2. There are many different meanings to the word morality. Just because you define it differently doesn't mean that it's the correct awnser to the question, "Well what do you mean by morality?" because he could have meant something entirely different than what you think it means, and still be correct.

If you truely meant something different than what I thought HE meant(not what it's basic meaning is), then we won't really know unless he tells us, so by all means take your own definition. Just know that:
1.Your definition could be just as different from his as mine was.
2.Remember that you shouldn't try to argue with every person who replies to their post. They might be giving a sugguestion(like I did), agreeing with you, or using your point to make their own point that doesn't contradict your own. It seems that you're just trying to pick a fight, instead of figuring out the awnser to the topic.
3.You can't count people's statements as incorrect becuase they weren't precisely specific. If I said, "Good is seen as more virtuous than evil to mos tpeople," then I wouldn't be wrong just because I don't have any facts to support that, or know the names of the people who believe that. It's just common knowledge. It may be vague, but it gets the general idea across.

Sory to be so prudent, but I really do mean it.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

amphidextros

What can justly categorize these three things, are they within the human mind for a rightous course of action, or are they in constant conflict with morality?

Well, what is morality?

I believe he is using it in this sence.
Morality: A general mix of the most common believes between people that try to define what is good and what is evil.

What are the most common morals the people as a whole share?

The instinctive ones. They arn't always correct, but most people follow them.

For example, most people instinctively believe morally that killing is wrong.

Is that correct in all situations?

Maybe not, if you're a solder, or you're trying to save your life from somone who is killing you.

I see what you're saying; not all people have the same morals.

My rebuttle is, I'm not talking about something that you can count, so it's useless to try to tell me that I'm wrong to say that most people share a few general morals in common.

It's a simple truth; otherwise our history would be very different.

That being said, you're not arguing with me, you're taking my advice on how he was using the word moral, and then awnsering his question if you aggree with my statement.

If you don't believe that my definition of morality is true then:
1. To know that mine is false, you must have some idea of what is true. Therefore you already know what morality means, and you shouldn't be asking.
2. There are many different meanings to the word morality. Just because you define it differently doesn't mean that it's the correct awnser to the question, "Well what do you mean by morality?" because he could have meant something entirely different than what you think it means, and still be correct.

If you truely meant something different than what I thought HE meant(not what it's basic meaning is), then we won't really know unless he tells us, so by all means take your own definition. Just know that:
1.Your definition could be just as different from his as mine was.
2.Remember that you shouldn't try to argue with every person who replies to their post. They might be giving a sugguestion(like I did), agreeing with you, or using your point to make their own point that doesn't contradict your own. It seems that you're just trying to pick a fight, instead of figuring out the awnser to the topic.
3.You can't count people's statements as incorrect becuase they weren't precisely specific. If I said, "Good is seen as more virtuous than evil to mos tpeople," then I wouldn't be wrong just because I don't have any facts to support that, or know the names of the people who believe that. It's just common knowledge. It may be vague, but it gets the general idea across.

Sory to be so prudent, but I really do mean it.

Where was the prudence in that? None of that was full of good judgement.

For some reason, that is unknown to me, you are taking my statements (or rather, questions) as a personal attack on you, which is odd because I am only trying to discuss & come up to a philosophical conclusion. Does Socratic Method ring a bell?

And no one said I was asking you "what is morality" it was open for anyone to answer, you could have not answered and I would have followed up with the same response anyway.

It's not an argument, it's a debate.

Never did I say anyone was wrong. I just asked a question that apparently seems simple to you. I don't see why you should be offended answering it.

My point is, morality is a subjective thing and since it is there is no way to state weather or not they are in constant conflict with morality to the masses.  

[27x]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

27x

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

amphidextros

What can justly categorize these three things, are they within the human mind for a rightous course of action, or are they in constant conflict with morality?

Well, what is morality?

I believe he is using it in this sence.
Morality: A general mix of the most common believes between people that try to define what is good and what is evil.

What are the most common morals the people as a whole share?

The instinctive ones. They arn't always correct, but most people follow them.

For example, most people instinctively believe morally that killing is wrong.

Is that correct in all situations?

Maybe not, if you're a solder, or you're trying to save your life from somone who is killing you.

I see what you're saying; not all people have the same morals.

My rebuttle is, I'm not talking about something that you can count, so it's useless to try to tell me that I'm wrong to say that most people share a few general morals in common.

It's a simple truth; otherwise our history would be very different.

That being said, you're not arguing with me, you're taking my advice on how he was using the word moral, and then awnsering his question if you aggree with my statement.

If you don't believe that my definition of morality is true then:
1. To know that mine is false, you must have some idea of what is true. Therefore you already know what morality means, and you shouldn't be asking.
2. There are many different meanings to the word morality. Just because you define it differently doesn't mean that it's the correct awnser to the question, "Well what do you mean by morality?" because he could have meant something entirely different than what you think it means, and still be correct.

If you truely meant something different than what I thought HE meant(not what it's basic meaning is), then we won't really know unless he tells us, so by all means take your own definition. Just know that:
1.Your definition could be just as different from his as mine was.
2.Remember that you shouldn't try to argue with every person who replies to their post. They might be giving a sugguestion(like I did), agreeing with you, or using your point to make their own point that doesn't contradict your own. It seems that you're just trying to pick a fight, instead of figuring out the awnser to the topic.
3.You can't count people's statements as incorrect becuase they weren't precisely specific. If I said, "Good is seen as more virtuous than evil to mos tpeople," then I wouldn't be wrong just because I don't have any facts to support that, or know the names of the people who believe that. It's just common knowledge. It may be vague, but it gets the general idea across.

Sory to be so prudent, but I really do mean it.

Where was the prudence in that? None of that was full of good judgement.

For some reason, that is unknown to me, you are taking my statements (or rather, questions) as a personal attack on you, which is odd because I am only trying to discuss & come up to a philosophical conclusion. Does Socratic Method ring a bell?

And no one said I was asking you "what is morality" it was open for anyone to answer, you could have not answered and I would have followed up with the same response anyway.

It's not an argument, it's a debate.

Never did I say anyone was wrong. I just asked a question that apparently seems simple to you. I don't see why you should be offended answering it.

My point is, morality is a subjective thing and since it is there is no way to state weather or not they are in constant conflict with morality to the masses.

Firstly, I used the wrong word. I said prudent when I meant to say frank.

Secondly, I think you misunderstand what I'm getting at.

It is possible to define morality. It's just that there are so many definitions, that most people can't agree on them.

If I wrote a thread with the question,"Is it really possible to give love to the whole world." there would be some difficulty in the word love.

You could argue till the end of time that to give love means to have sex with somone, but you could still be wrong, because I had a different definition in mind. That is becaues there are multiple definitions to love.

In the same way, there are multiple definitions to word like peace. Inner peace, future peace, peace from war, world peace, spiritual peace, the peace movement; all things that one could get from that one word.

Morality, has never been something set in stone. It is a very controversial topic.

However, we do now for certian that he did have an idea of not what it means entirely, but how he had DECIDED to use the word.

Therefore, no matter how you tried to convince him that he had no idea what he was refering to, you could still be wrong.

You left an open ended question, "What do you mean by this."

I examined what he wrote, and said, "I think he means that."

It's not an arguement or a debate, it's a cooperatoin.

Secondly, just because you are debating doesn't mean you are using the Socratic Method.

Socrates didn't just contradict the first thing that people said; that's not how philosophical debate works.

If There were three men payed to find solutions to broblemb A, and one of them only shot down the ideas of the other two, instead of coming up with new ones, then that person wouldn't be working there much longer.

It's not always wrong to say, "I think you're wrong, and here's why."

But it is wrong to simply contradict for the sake of contradicting.

In conclusion:

You asked the question, "What does this mean?"

Then I awnsered.

Instead of using my awnser to understand the topic, and start discussing it and forming my new ideas, you started to contradict the ideas that I had.

Then, when I called you on it, you denied it.  

[x3 SuGarr CoOkiie]

Morality, has never been something set in stone. It is a very controversial topic. It is, therefore there is no SET definition. It is up to us all to find a common definintion in order to debate this and/to come to a conclusion. That was my intention. You just take my questions as personal attacks on you.

He did have an idea of the definintion, I wanted to see WHAT it was. -.-

I was not trying to convince anyone anything.

I clearly am using the Socratic Method because I am trying to come up to a conclusion by questioning the said statement and what it means. I strongly suggest you read a book most evidient and portrays the Socratic Method well like Platos' Republic.



I was not contraditing anything. I asked a question, you answered and I asked another question to get closer to a definition that would work and I would be satisfied with. Also, it is really amusing to me that you keep saying that I was insisting that you were wrong by making contradictions when I did not even say what my thought on the subject was.

And now I shall say something contrary to your statement, or as you call it "contradicting", in regards to "Socrates didn't just contradict the first thing that people said; that's not how philosophical debate works".
No. A debate is a debate. People put in ideas and thoughts and try to come up to a conlcusion about something it doesn't matter how you do it, you could make "contraditions" which are statements contrary to the other persons statement which are counterpoints which happen to be very common in philosophical discussions. There is not one way to debate.

If three men worked on finding solutions of Problem A and one of them made points about how the Soultion to Problem A would not work then their points are considered invaild in the subject of philosophy. Which is why Man 1 and Man 2 continue to shoot possible soultions and Man 3 is able to say WHY the solutions wouldn't work and they'd come closer to a better soultion.

Again, dear, I was not contraditcing anyone. I was asking a simple question. Besides, you have no right to tell me which ways and which ways not to debate. I will do so as I please, if you think my questions are "contraditions" (which they are clearly not) then just don't answer me. I will await a responce from an individual who is up for a real discussion and wont be sensitive about it.  

[27x]

x3 SuGarr CoOkiie

Morality, has never been something set in stone. It is a very controversial topic. It is, therefore there is no SET definition. It is up to us all to find a common definintion in order to debate this and/to come to a conclusion. That was my intention. You just take my questions as personal attacks on you.

He did have an idea of the definintion, I wanted to see WHAT it was. -.-

I was not trying to convince anyone anything.

I clearly am using the Socratic Method because I am trying to come up to a conclusion by questioning the said statement and what it means. I strongly suggest you read a book most evidient and portrays the Socratic Method well like Platos' Republic.



I was not contraditing anything. I asked a question, you answered and I asked another question to get closer to a definition that would work and I would be satisfied with. Also, it is really amusing to me that you keep saying that I was insisting that you were wrong by making contradictions when I did not even say what my thought on the subject was.

And now I shall say something contrary to your statement, or as you call it "contradicting", in regards to "Socrates didn't just contradict the first thing that people said; that's not how philosophical debate works".
No. A debate is a debate. People put in ideas and thoughts and try to come up to a conlcusion about something it doesn't matter how you do it, you could make "contraditions" which are statements contrary to the other persons statement which are counterpoints which happen to be very common in philosophical discussions. There is not one way to debate.

If three men worked on finding solutions of Problem A and one of them made points about how the Soultion to Problem A would not work then their points are considered invaild in the subject of philosophy. Which is why Man 1 and Man 2 continue to shoot possible soultions and Man 3 is able to say WHY the solutions wouldn't work and they'd come closer to a better soultion.

Again, dear, I was not contraditcing anyone. I was asking a simple question. Besides, you have no right to tell me which ways and which ways not to debate. I will do so as I please, if you think my questions are "contraditions" (which they are clearly not) then just don't answer me. I will await a responce from an individual who is up for a real discussion and wont be sensitive about it.

Here's what his topic was: A.

Here's what we said: This is what I think about A.

Here's what you said: Well define A. I don't aggree with your definition of A, and I don't have my own, but I'll still argue about it.

If you don't wish to discuss this topic, I can start deleting the unrelated posts.

Is there anything you'd like to say that is relevant to the topic?  

[Niniva]

Quote:

My point is, morality is a subjective thing and since it is there is no way to state weather or not they are in constant conflict with morality to the masses.

Before I get in the middle of your discussion here.....this statement above is at least on topic.....however.....


I fail to see how there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim. Now, I haven't read this entire witty banter of two intellectuals flexing their brain matter prowess, so I don't know if there has even been an arguement to support such a statement but I'll tell you something......

While it is quite eveident there are SOME PARTS of morality that are in deed subjective and relative, claiming that the WHOLE OF MORALITY....is subjective and relative is a fallacy as it is quite clearly not something you could ever possibly prove, and so you are making claims about a point of view....that you can't prove....as truth when in point of fact the stronger argument is for the opposite point of view.

And I digress.

I'm probably adding to the problem here but claims of such Truths as the one quoted above bother me as they are wrought with arrogance and ignorance. If it was so obvious a truth all reasonable men would see it that way....but there is at least one here who is reasonable that does not see how you can claim it is true based on the evidence provided and therefore it is not only not obvious, but also not provable so have your opinion all you want but to assert it as though it were true is no different then asserting the opposite. Thus making claims about the nature of morality are useless and bland and hardly worth stating as no matter where it comes from....we still have it....we have personal and social morality and I dare you not to follow the social morality and then try and claim in a court of law that the court has no right to impost their subjective morality on you......if the world functioned that way we as a society would utterly fail. So call it whatever you want but social morality looks more like a product (a necessary one no less) of evolution...which is a natural process and deterministic, following causality in which case....it is not at all "subjective" as your opinion on what is right and wrong does not change what is naturally more beneficial for the continuation of the species.