Baron Max,
Well, I considered that goes without saying. Of course I speak from my point of view and using my models. That's the reason I'm talking to you..
And yes, I do only know myself. But I see no reason why anyone would be diffrent. Assides from having diffrent points of views.
Many people will also vote [insert politician here], but does that mean we should move on to a despotic system of government?
That is to say, a lot of people are also stupid.
With a handgun and a word of wisdom. Someone comes at me with killing intent, I put him down. Someone wishes to co-exist, I help them. It would breed violence, sure.
Did I ever imply I was a nice guy? I'm a JUST person. There is a fine distinction.
As for my emotions; I didn't really get that agitated, I just wanted to emphasise some things. But everything I do I do because I want to (I will it). And emotions breed wants. But I don't use my emotions to kill people, I use my anger to improve things. Or try to anyway. I do understand that hitting someone would change nothing, so violence seems just a stupid responce. I have nothing against using it, but see no reason to, either. I feel all the same things everyone else feels, indeed everyone feels the same way, but how they behave on these emotions is another thing. Trying to suppress emotions simply make you unable to react to them when they emerge, and THIS leads more to violence more than anger.
Besides, I see Saddam, Hitler and their kin more idealistic than emotional.
Hitler was religious, Saddam was very rational and paranoid.
No-one gets to be a head of the state by being an uncontrollable emotional wreck. They were all controlled and smart. They (ie.Hitler) didn't kill (ie. jews) in hate, but as a part of a plan (rule all).
It's not that simple, Hitler I think was emotional, he did commit suicide. So where is your evidence that he was not emotional? I think also he surrounded himself with very strong angry individuals and in this case it did not matter if he as an individual hated the Jews or not, his religion, his beliefs, could be interpreted in such a way so that hatred was a fair expression. Hitler was more like a religious leader, than a traditional ruler, he wrote a book that is almost like the bible, and people look up to him almost in the way people looked up to christ.
Create an enemy (jews), then protect the people (germans, all mankind) from the enemy (jews, demons, terrorists..).
Hitler killed more Germans than Jews. You can defend the political strategy of killing the Jews, but how exactly did it help Germany, or the German people? If it's all about being rational with you, either we are all people or none of us are people, so how can you or anyone say, "well if you are Aryan you are human, but if you aren't, you are an alien monster to be destroyed." Then turn this into "If you are Aryan you must have this look, blonde hair and blue eyes, be intelligent and not disabled or weak in any way, and be the perfect male or female.", Do you see how quickly a religion can turn from something rational to irrational?
So? All you have to do is figure out a system everyone agrees to. And to do this you'd have to figure out what people are willing to give away and what they will never give up. (That's where emotions come handy btw.)
I disagree, I think when you use examples like Hitler and Saddam, Saddam ruled by rational force, Hitler ruled by religious force. Hitler basically made the German people believe in the religion he was preaching. The only way Hitler can make sense to anyone is if that person believes in the concept of "race" and "eugenics". The only way a person can believe in these two things is to be educated in such a way so that these religious concepts make sense. In order to come to the conclusion that only one appearance or body type, is human and the rest arent, a person once again has to be taught that there is a hierarchy of personhood or humanity, from which you have alien and progressively up to human, all based on Aryan look, which is defined again by people. It was the religion, the ideology, and Hitlers communication skills which brought him to power. I don't think it had anything to do with the strategy because we see this happen all the time. You always see religious leaders first get people to believe in a common God, a Good and Evil, and once they believe that then it's easy to just declare yourself, or a your race, or your appearance as God, and everyone else as the devil.
perplexity,
By whom? Why? Where? And most importantly, what are they going to do about it?
I know; You're like this goth, who goes around whining about his cruel faith, in a very poetic fashion I might add. You're being overdramatic and bitch and whine about your cruel faith. Then (point two) bitterly talk to others about how it's their fault. (the message is between the lines.. Your "tone" and choice of words betray you.) And OF COURSE everyone hates that.
What you're trying to say is meaningless if the message is not received, thought WHATEVER conditions. And while you might blame others for not listening, the only thing you can ever do about it is to talk in a fashion that they cannot ignore you. I mean SLY, not LOUDER.
I agree with the fact that you could reduce study of ethics into mathematical calculations, but you DO really assume "scientist" are some type of gods. These are the same people who figured that everything was solved in the 19th century.
Religion has done a terrible job with ethics. You mentioned Hitler earlier, Hitler was very religious, he was a vegetarian, he had his beliefs and he stuck to them because he believed in them. Does that mean that killing millions of people is rational? You can debate the strategy, you cannot really debate the religion because people believe in religion in such a way so that it's impossible to change their mind, it's not debateable and it's pointless to debate religion with anyone ever. You can debate if it was rational to kill millions of people, considering what happened after this event, and how it damaged the image of Germany and the Aryan race, the German people, etc, you can have a rational debate about this.
The very problem is that the people who need to be taught are the people who have to figure it out. If the task was given onto some people then it would be just another religion, and would behave just like any other religion. "The Worship Of Omniscient Mathematics", with its "allseeing acolytes". We already have enough people telling us how to live.
No one is saying you should lose freedom of religion. We who like math and science prefer efficiency and accuracy of judgement over random religious jugements. You are correct, Hitler killed millions of people, as did many before him and after him, and can we say that these judgements are ever rational? The math can tell you the direct cause and effect of every action and you'll see what is rational just by seeing the effects. You'll see how killing causes an emotional ripple effect, you'll see how it damages both the killers and the survivors families, victims families, it basically taints everyone. If you want to examine it on the micro-level, Charles Manson, how do people view him? Do you view him as a rational man or an emotional man? Do you want to live next door to him? These things do influence global perception. Ethics have to be objective meaning you have to view it from all sides and all percpectives, from the perspective of the winner, the loser, the friends of the victim, the enemies of the victim, the friends and enemies of the winner, how it might influence world ideology and world religion, how it could influence global economics, policies, institutions, history, as well as billions of individuals minds. In the end, ethics are an actual science because if the human species were more ethical we would not be facing the current situations we face.
The reason it's not in the schools so some nut-head couldn't bend everyone to his point of view. The point is to allow everyone to create their own system of ethics, so we wouldn't be stuck to "it's okay to burn your wife if she's over 50years old".
