I SEE ETHICS BEING RUN ON BY MORALITY, AND THE TROUBLE IS THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH AS TO WHAT CAN BE DEFINED AS MORAL BECAUSE IT CONSTANTLY IS PUT UNDER ATTACK. MODERN ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY MAKES EVERYTHING EASIER. AMERICAN WAS FOUNDED ON THE MORALS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE BIBLE, IN A TIME WHEN PEOPLE DIDNT HAVE THE LEISURE OF TELEVISION, CELL PHONES, LAPTOPS TO CORRUPT THEIR WORK ETHIC, TO CORRUPT THEIR SENSE OF HONEST AND TRUE AND YES SOMETIMES DIFFICULT MORALITY. SO WHAT IS THE POLITICALLY CORRECT RUBRIC FOR JUDGING ETHICS WHEN WE ARE ALL VULNERABLE TO HUMAN NATURE/FLAW/ERROR:shrug:
Define Ethical
- Thread starter aviate
- Start date
It is objectively evil to write a post in all caps, you motherless son of the devil.
I concur.
Furthermore, gross syntax errors and numerous run-on sentences are similarly indicative of evil.
Ethics and morality are what "I" say it is. It's really as simple as that. Both are strictly and surely personal ideals.
When a bunch of people get together, live together, then they will ultimately "create" their collective ideas of ethics and morality, and they enact laws and rules to enforce them ...we call such a group "society".
Baron Max
ok, try this. technology has many gratifying benefits. the lesser significant, such as a telephone, have a monumental impact on society's smooth functioning. but what does a life of near complete gratification do to society's ethic's and moral's. is it corruptive, is that why there is never an absolute standard for what is right and wrong? and as humans ( when i say humans i defeat my purpose of political correctness, but humor me) but who says we are the ones to judge when we are all subject to human nature/error?
Last edited:
Forget all that techno crap and such. You're making it waaaaay too complex for no reason.
In the old days, there were fewer people who interacted directly, therefore it seemed, but only seemed, as if moral and ethics were all agreeable. There was just much, much fewer people who did NOT interact in nearly the same closeness as we do now.
Surely you must realize that the fewer the people in a group, the easier it is to get them all to agree, right? So if New York City had, say, five people in it, they'd probably come to some agreement, right? But could the gazillion people in NYC ever agree on any-fuckin'-thing? NO!
See? It's got little or nothing to do with techno bullshit ....it's strictly a matter of population in the society. That and the methods, etc of actual interaction. If few of the people actually interact, then they don't even have to agree to be able to function.
Judging things and other people is what humans do best!
Baron Max
is abortion for everyone who gets pregnant and doesnt want to be...a good idea? i have this theory. techno leads to lack of work which leads to lack of respect, which leads to humans who will do anything to corrupt the natural order and syncrozination (sp?) of their body and the world around them, just to make themselves feel good.
do you agree?
do you agree?
What's "techno"?
You're making this waaaay too complex.
Envision one person living in the world all alone, eating natural fruits and vegatables. He's perfectly agreeable.
Now add a few more people. It's no longer so agreeable, is it? Can all of those people agree on everything? NO, of course not. So that leads to a.) a form of compromise in order to function together, or b.) conflict and war.
Now add so fuckin' many people that they're all in competition for all the food. What do you think happens? Do you really think all those people will agree? Do you think there's a form of control that can force them all to agree?
Too many people living too close together is the cause of all of man's problems. It's really as simple as that. There's no reason to make it so complex and difficult.
Baron Max
and you refuse to look at this with religious affiliation. which i cant decide for myself if i should. are ethics even going to be a part of society later in years because people have the freedom of religion? morals and ethics and conscience are just part of some big religious movement-do what feels good now, never care about the effects it carries on other human beings, who will in turn, not care what they do to you?
Perhaps you just went a bit too far? "Ethical- an aspect of a human interaction practiced for the good and the benefit of those who are interacting."
We use a system of "ethics" even if it's just between new roommates ...we make "laws/rules" so that we can live together peacefully. Those "laws/rules" are ethical for those two people ...whether they're ethical for everyone on Earth doesn't matter.
In the same way, a "society", a group of people living and working together, will set their own "ethics" in much the same way. But again, to think that those "laws/rules" should be or are "ethical" for everyone on Earth is going a bit too far.
Ethics is simply rules and laws that we make in order to live and work and function together. If some parts of the world are different, as long as they don't have to live and work and function with the other groups, then it's fine and workable.
Baron Max
"Originally posted by Baron Max"
Perhaps you just went a bit too far? "Ethical- an aspect of a human interaction practiced for the good and the benefit of those who are interacting."
Kendall- would it be good ethics to destroy our world in the process of benifiting you and your roommate then? I just wrote it off the top of my head anyway.
Perhaps you just went a bit too far? "Ethical- an aspect of a human interaction practiced for the good and the benefit of those who are interacting."
Kendall- would it be good ethics to destroy our world in the process of benifiting you and your roommate then? I just wrote it off the top of my head anyway.