The Purpose of Ethics

[Theoryofrelativity]

Do you feel better now?

--- Ron.

I think he's repressed, what do you think?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think he's repressed, what do you think?

I think he likes yanking chains to elicit reactions.

Then he uses the reactions to come up with his soliloquies.

 

[Satyr]

Theoryofrelativity
I only wish I had a 155 IQ.

samcdkey

I think he likes yanking chains to elicit reactions.

Then he uses the reactions to come up with his soliloquies.

Other than commenting on why you think I think, can you offer commentary on what I think?

If everything I’ve said is a ploy to elicit reactions then my opinions should be easily contradicted.
I’m waiting your perspicacious mind’s retorts….on subject, or do you want to go through life believing in your self-gratifying myths and coming to “philosophy” forums to gain credibility and self-assurances concerning their validity?

Sorry for this following solicitation:

Santa is a myth.
I know, I know I should just let children believe in their fairy-tales and watch them laugh gleefully in their ignorance, but isn’t this a philosophical forum….supposedly?


perplexity

Do you feel better now?

Much...how about you?

 

[Satyr]

Nowadays I try to find the extra time to exude more concisely, buttocks clenched.

--- Ron.

Yet, shit still comes out….why?

From now on I will imitate your style.

 

[S.A.M.]

Other than commenting on why you think I think, can you offer commentary on what I think?

Was I wrong in my analysis?

As for commentary, it seems to me (and I may be wrong) the purpose of a philosophical discourse should be to to clarify concepts. Abstraction is all very well, but when overlaid with cynicism to an overwhelming degree, it's self-defeating.

If everything I’ve said is a ploy to elicit reactions then my opinions should be easily contradicted.

Not so much a ploy to elicit reactions as to substantiate your theories.

I’m waiting your perspicacious mind’s retorts….

You flatter me. I make no claims to perspicacity, just offer opinions.

on subject, or do you want to go through life believing in your self-gratifying myths

No more than everyone else. It's all a matter of perception anyway and we all have our delusions.

and coming to “philosophy” forums to gain credibility and self-assurances concerning their validity?

Is that why you do what you do?

For me, it's interesting to interact with like- and not-so-like-minded people. I like ideas and exploring them. Their credibility becomes essential only in context. Sciforums is not one.

Sorry for this following solicitation:

No need to apologise. It's a public forum, I can choose to ignore it if I so wish.

Santa is a myth.

So is contentment; but a delicious myth all the same. Myths have their places in our lives, just like everthing else. You're not one of those who go to department stores in December telling all the kids there is no Santa, are you?

I know, I know I should just let children believe in their fairy-tales and watch them laugh gleefully in their ignorance,

Oh you answered my question.

but isn’t this a philosophical forum….supposedly?

It was just an opinion; isn't that what philosophy ultimately is? An opinion based on observation and analysis? I do enjoy some of your postings, if that makes you feel better.

 

[Satyr]

In imitation of perplexity’s style.

I’m a great believer in unequal opinions. Some are just more concise and detailed than others.
Inequality breeds conflict, which breeds progress.

Are you hot?

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you hot?

"I would have cast me into molten glass To cool me, when I enter'd; so intense Rag'd the conflagrant mass."

 

[Satyr]

samcdkey

"I would have cast me into molten glass To cool me, when I enter'd; so intense Rag'd the conflagrant mass."

Your eloquent verbal slurs arouse….interest in me.
Grrrrrrrrrr………….

I’m just a poor, beret, wearing married middle-aged man with a neatly trimmed grey beard to give off the image of wise, hip sexuality and experienced, animal, counter-cultural magnetism.

I am a part of an open marriage, as is popular in these modern times, and I’m pretending not to be looking for sexy, intellectual women to satisfy my needs as my wife can never do.
If you know what I mean.

My wife?
She’s not jealous. She might even join us in one of our midnight, slithering, pseudo-intellectual cessions, or she might just hold the camera as we flex our combined mental sphincters and practice our wet flexible verbosity.

But…….
But I must keep this short so as to insinuate knowledge and not give away my truth.

*wink* sexy.


Why pretend we are here to discuss when we are really here sizing each other’s genetic potential, baby.
You want me, I think I can tolerate you so let’s cut the bull and get it on.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I think he likes yanking chains to elicit reactions.

Then he uses the reactions to come up with his soliloquies.

he's dull

 

[S.A.M.]

samcdkey
Your eloquent verbal slurs arouse….interest in me.
Grrrrrrrrrr………….

I’m just a poor, beret, wearing married middle-aged man with a neatly trimmed grey beard to give off the image of wise, hip sexuality and experienced, animal, counter-cultural magnetism.

Incredibly, I came across your picture during one of my random internet perusals on philosophy. Sort of Richard Griffiths but not so much hair. I did not know it was you of course until I saw your home page link.

I am a part of an open marriage, as is popular in these modern times, and I’m pretending not to be looking for sexy, intellectual women to satisfy my needs as my wife can never do.
If you know what I mean.

Perfectly. Your wife does not understand you.

My wife?
She’s not jealous. She might even join us in one of our midnight, slithering, pseudo-intellectual cessions, or she might just hold the camera as we flex our combined mental sphincters and practice our wet flexible verbosity.

I can imagine she'd be glad of any deflection by now.

But…….
But I must keep this short so as to insinuate knowledge and not give away my truth.

*wink* sexy.

Too late.

Why pretend we are here to discuss when we are really here sizing each other’s genetic potential, baby.
You want me, I think I can tolerate you so let’s cut the bull and get it on.

Such ardent lovemaking will surely turn my head.

 

[invert_nexus]

Hey.

I know what you guys could do that would really get Satyr's goat.
Ready for it?

You could ignore any post he might make that is on topic. Bait him into making some off-topic remark. Then start a long drawn out conversation based on that off-topic remark rather than ever addressing the original on-topic post.

That'd really get him steaming, I bet. What do you say?

Oh. I guess you all came up with the idea first. Oh well. Maybe I'll be quicker to suggest something next time.

Carry on.

 

[invert_nexus]

Yeah. He's an arrogant bastard. So?

You're not?

We're all arrogant bastards here, aren't we?

Well. Everyone but our darling Samcdkey. She's a little sweetie pie. I've never seen her get upset at anyone. (I don't think she's human...)



Anyway. Do you demand polite discourse then?

Is this a fundamental requirement for your discussional ethic?

 

[S.A.M.]

Well. Everyone but our darling Samcdkey. She's a little sweetie pie. I've never seen her get upset at anyone. (I don't think she's human...)

You have to thank (Q) for that, I'm afraid.

He brings out my caring compassionate side.

And he's done it so often, it's become second nature now.

PS Thank you for the sweet words. They warm the cockles of my heart.

 

[S.A.M.]

The level of self-gratifying naiveté on this forum is astounding.

On all counts.

Imagine ethics being the pursuit of the “other's pleasure”.
Imagine that.
Imagine being blind to your own motives. Does not this characterize the majority of mankind?

Isn't that what it should be, though?
Though one may argue that people do good for the warm fuzzy feelings they get, or even for the sense of accomplishment and self aggrandisation, where they feel superior for having bestowed of their plenty.

But that is a human weakness is it not?

Ethics though is a concept, one that is aimed at looking beyond the self.

It reminds me of this claim that a woman dressing provocatively “..isn’t asking for anything.”
Well then, why does she dress so? Is she not sending out signals about what she wants?
Is she innocent in relation to her own actions?
We can say that she is ignorant but innocent?

Spoken like a man. Do you honestly believe women dress for men?
They dress for other women. If they waited for a man to notice that new nail color or the new hair rinse, they'd fossilise before it ever happened.

Imagine never seeing your own interests in your own actions and believing they are of a higher moral caliber.
Isn’t this called righteousness?
Isn’t this naiveté and ignorance the reason why those pretending the highest morality are always the ones perpetrating the greatest crimes against humanity?
Can one even fathom the amount of instances one acts selfishly under the pretension that he’s doing it for the “other’s good”?

I agree with you here. It takes a philanthropist to show real cruelty.

It takes special kind of stupidity to fall into this, self-assuring, trap.

“I’m not beating you because I like it, I’m doing it for your own good.”
“I’m not taking away your rights and snooping on your personal lives because I gain from it but I’m doing it for your security.”
“I’m not threatening you with eternal damnation or making you suffer for my own gratification and empowerment, but for your salvation.”

It’s the usual call of the charlatan talking down to morons.

Are they all morons? That rather a generalisation wouldn't you say?
I think people who fear are different. The fear rules them, changes them; they become insensitive to others. A happy man may not kill, but it's not hard for a fearful man.


That's all I'm thinking through right now.
Maybe I'll tackle the rest later.

 

[Satyr]

samcdkey

Incredibly, I came across your picture during one of my random internet perusals on philosophy. Sort of Richard Griffiths but not so much hair. I did not know it was you of course until I saw your home page link.

My dear girl you have fallen into a common error.
One many others have made, by the way.

The person you came across "accidentally" and with whom I share a name and age and genetic background is no other than a first cousin of mine.
We grew up together but he now lives in the States and I live in the more friendly Canada.

He has a wife and children and I do not.
He is ugly and I am pretty.
He is normal and I am....well you know....

I remember a certain spookz once tried to harm me using this mistaken identificating “information” and a certain Mephura as well.
He tried to get back at me and show off to his girlfriend using the same info.

My cousin works for an airline while I am a bum and a fake.

Perfectly. Your wife does not understand you.

That bitch!!!!
What wife?

Now, my sweet, watch them trying to get under my skin and vying for my attention:

he's dull

Sheer desperation: if an extremity of selfishness fails to attract the wished for interest pretend to take an interest in somebody else then the odd morsel of attention may bounce back for the sake of the vanity.

What do we get for the encore?

--- Ron.

Aren’t they precious?

Such ardent lovemaking will surely turn my head.

invert_nexus

You could ignore any post he might make that is on topic. Bait him into making some off-topic remark. Then start a long drawn out conversation based on that off-topic remark rather than ever addressing the original on-topic post.

That'd really get him steaming, I bet. What do you say?

Good idea!!!
Let us put it into practice immediately.

I love ignoring myself.

perplexity

It is not about the arrogance; it is about the impertinence.

Sir, I spit in your general direction.
Nobody calls me imperty and gets away with it.
Mama sais I’s perty-nent.

 

[invert_nexus]

Sam,

That's all I'm thinking through right now.
Maybe I'll tackle the rest later.

Too late. His feelings are already hurt. (He's sensitive.)



Perplexity,

It is not about the arrogance; it is about the impertinence.

So, your ethic revolves around polite discourse then?



Satyr,

That picture of you from '85 bears one hell of a resemblance to the baldheaded guy that works for the airline. Or is that also a pic of your cousin? Maybe you're identical cousins? Or just really close genetic lines? Dominant features and whatnot?

Not that it matters, of course. Only reason I went digging was because I too remember Mephura trying to slyly interject the wife and kids thing. When Sam brought it up, it made me curious.

I guess I can understand why you might want to distance your offline persona from your online if you were the American one though.

I'm bored and depressed.
I think I should leave this forum for awhile...

 

[Satyr]

Satyr,

That picture of you from '85 bears one hell of a resemblance to the baldheaded guy that works for the airline. Or is that also a pic of your cousin? Maybe you're identical cousins? Or just really close genetic lines? Dominant features and whatnot?

It does?
I don’t think it looks anything like that guy with the wife and the kid, working for the airline. ( he also had a daughter recently)

He and I are insulted.
I guess some resemblance is natural since we are cousins but "identical".
Wipe your eyes.

If you check the details it states that he lives in the US.
I, from what I can piece together from looking outside, live in Montreal.

Not that it matters, of course. Only reason I went digging was because I too remember Mephura trying to slyly interject the wife and kids thing. When Sam brought it up, it made me curious.

That was funny.
Aaaah Mephura…what a guy.
What woman is enjoying that hunk of man flesh?

Did I ever tell you he called my home once, claiming to be looking for his daddy?

I really don’t care if you think that’s me.
But there is a more recent pic of me on my Blog.
It looks nothing like my cousin.

I guess I can understand why you might want to distance your offline persona from your online if you were the American one though.

Whatever.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - How's it going?

Y'all good? Good. Man-flesh, nostalgia, &c ... purpose of ethics? I'm sure I'll see the connection. In the meantime, don't let me be a buzzkill. Go about your business. Right. Good.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Three questions:

1. Ought a system of ethic's primary objective be the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of displeasure, or ought other ends be admitted and allowed to perhaps even supercede pleasure/pain?

2. If both is impossible, ought one be considered superior to the other, that is, ought we maximize pleasure or minimize pain first, or can reduction or increasing both simulteneously to maximize or minimize one be construed as proper?

3. Are all instances of increasing pleasure moral? All instances of decreasing suffering good? Or are their times when decreasing pleasure is moral and increasing suffering is good?

Discuss.

The purpose of ethics is to minimize the harm you do to others and to your environment. It's not about emotions like suffering as some people like suffering. It's not about pain or pleasure because some people find pleasure in pain, so once again it's not going to be something emotional as we don't all feel the same emotions. We do know however that the world is better when we minimize damage.

Ethics should be based on science. The science of harm minimalization. The science of harm reduction. An unethical person is a destructive force that does harm to everything and everyone around it or under it's influence. This is not emotional, or subjective, this is fact and it's based on logic. No one benefits from this behavior, and all rational people can see that it's bad to destroy all that you touch. If you want to be ethical simply do the least harm. No harm is impossible, least harm is possible and desireable.

 

[TimeTraveler]

I wouldn't think ethics or morals had much to do with pleasure increase at all? Rather it removes it, ie it is more moral to be monogamous but maybe more pleasureable to sleep around. It may be ethical to not kill your neighbour for being noisy, but certainly more satisfying to do so.

I think morals and ethics stop our pleasure seeking ways getting out of control and being harmful to others and society rather than supporting them.

In my opinion, monogamy is only moral when two people don't want anyone else. Monogamy is immoral when it leads to divorce or cheating. Monogamy is immoral for most people because most people are polyamorous and simply pose as monogamists. There is nothing inherently moral about monogamy. If you want one person be with one person, if you don't want one person don't be with one person, but whatever you do, don't harm any of the people you deal with.

If you want to be with two people, tell both people right away and don't try to be sneaky and cover it up. The problem with most people is, they fake monogamy because they want their partner to be monogamous while they are polyamorous, and this is immoral because it harms everyone involved. Perhaps if they instead simply had an open relationship they'd be moral. Cheating is always immoral, monogamy is usually immoral due to the nature of the people involved. If 70% of people cheat, monogamy is immoral because it creates "cheating" and secret lives.