<p>It's not that I can't debate (I've shown a few times too many that I can), it's just that I don't have enough interest in this one, hence my last two facetiously (is that even a word?) short posts. Sorry if I ruined your fun afruff =(</p>
<p>
[quote]
Depends...if by ethics you mean supporting universal healthcare because it's the "right thing" whereas opposing it (as a prospective surgeon) because it is the "smart thing" to do....well, I still wouldn't change my stance for that kind of scenario.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not what I meant.</p>
<p>Healthcare should be private.</p>
<p>piccolojunior, sorry, i truly missed the gender designation in your box.</p>
<p>piccolojunior has a logical conclusion to his position;
therefore, if you disagree with him it is necessary to discover and examine
his premises. perhaps he would be willing to share though i think them obvious.
again, i disagree with him but realize one cannot logically argue against his conclusion.</p>
<p>His conclusion would lead to imposing different sets of rules on different people. That is logically inconsistent and is why relativism is not a consistent moral proposition.</p>
<p>Relativism cannot hold up because it makes the claim that no claim is absolute. It self-detonates. It would be like me saying "all statements are lies".</p>
<p>"Do you defend liars (e.g. your parents) against those professing the truth (e.g. outside critics)?" - originally posted by afruff</p>
<p>sorry to be off topic here, but this is quite relevant to morals and ethics. My answer to the above question is YES. that is not the right type of moral and ethics, but just my answer goes about to show the corruption of morals in society. These factors such as jealousy, love etc all play into role and often stray us from having the right morals and ethics.</p>
<p>All I gotta say is: if you believe in good ethics and morals and want to shut down tobacco companies for marketing a product that is ultimately at the discretion of the consumer to, well, consume, then you're the hypocrite.</p>
<p>Hey, blame lawyers (I don't like em either). OJ did it, but that's the world we live in. Listen to Truman once in a while.</p>
<p>@paki786</p>
<p>You didn't take it off-topic. I don't believe any of us did either since we were debating about morals/ethics (especially relativism). Besides, its your topic.</p>
<p>Now, back to what you said about your parents. I'm glad that you realize that it is wrong to defend people based on their relation to you. But I don't think you understand why you do this. Jealousy and love are emotions; they don't spring up for random people for random reasons. There is a reason why you specifically defend your parents against the truth.</p>
<p>At the risk of sounding Freudian, your parents have corrupted you not your feelings. I would suggest being frank and living true to yourself. As hard as it may be to understand, that could mean disassociation from your parents. But of course, you're probably thinking I'm crazy right now. If that is what you are thinking, I suggest you read this metaphorical story:
My</a> Secret Life Exposed</p>
<p>Bottom line: If you are against X, yet surround yourself voluntarily with people of X nature for your pleasure, you are living in self-contempt.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But in any case, how often does this really happen? You people oughta focus more on the reality of violence in your day-to-day lives rather than lifeboat situations.
[/quote]
It saddens me that people talk about how horrible the holocaust was (which I'm not saying it's not) and then are clueless on other genocides. The western education system angers me to some extent, more Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese then Jews did Germans.but...to each, his or her own tragedy is the worst and of incomparable magnitude to that of the rest of the world. It just makes me angry that no one knows about 20 million died, some in ways just as cruel if not more so then the Jews... anyways...snap back...
Many people do not realize how fragile out world is, people think this couldn't happen to us... but it can. I agree with your statements, but this is only a larger example of what the world at large faces...
here is a more realistic example. A Man is accused of murder, theft (whatever you want... whether he did it or not does not matter right now). He sees he is about to lose, and maybe sent to jail, executed or fined...whatever... he bribes the judge... the judge takes it... you see his logic behind this no? He did not want to be convicted and sentenced to 'X'.... so he bribed the judge. Not a dumb move per se, but it pays off so... even if it was illegal. It pays off and he is free... Does this make him just a smart person? he made a logical move, and while granted this is not screaming 'evil'... it is an example.</p>
<p>@ChaiMex</p>
<p>If you read my post more carefully, you would have noticed I was referring not to war in general. I was referring to cases where POWs were killed. How often do you have to decide to kill POWs? That's not to say those situations are not valuable for analysis but it seems odd that you would completely ignore the violence we see every day.</p>
<p>@ panky
"Dude, the people who say abortion is wrong or stem cell research is okay would probably be on opposites sides of each debate (again, probably). So is that all people covered? So does that mean you believe that abortion is ok but stem cell research is wrong?"</p>
<p>Duhhhhhh. My whole point when mentioning the two different ideas was that people of all different beliefs often make the point that "all morals are relative" and "who are we to judge?" although it is often flawed because by declaring any statements of those kind they are setting up a double standard (saying that there are no universal morals, except it is still wrong to do this..that..this, hence creating morals that they think should be "universal"). </p>
<p>So of course I didn't mean to imply in any way that abortion is ok but stem cell research is wrong!!! I'm of the opinion that both are fine in most circumstances, but that's beside the point.</p>
<p>And I don't necessarily agree with my point anyways, I'm just spouting out a view of a paper I read in my class not too long ago...so I'm sorry my arguments aren't strong enough to appease you...I could give a rats arse about philosophy :D</p>
<p>A waste of perfectly good eggs.</p>
<p>hahahaha</p>
<p>you're still egging houses!?</p>
<p>Real BAs egg people.</p>
<p>haha egging! nice</p>
<p>lol yeah..........</p>
<p>anyone know of any books that go really in depth in morals and ethics, which by reading hopefully some of ours will improve? i love those types of things. They are not always right but they expand ur horizon and introduce you to new level of things.</p>
<p>People should do the smart thing for themselves when it does not conflict with their innate sense of what is right and moral. People should never base their decision on what is good to society -- Atlas Shrugged anybody? --this just leads to stupid and irrational decisions. </p>
<p>People are innately good. I do not think that a normal person would kill without being lead or being tricked (see religion). We need to have a world where people are not blind and use reason in all of their decisions. That would be the perfect real. </p>
<p>No morals aren't relative. </p>
<p>Oh and no **** this will never happen. It is an IDEAL!</p>
<p>if people were innately good
ideals would be realized.</p>
<p>@paki</p>
<p>A few papers/books that discuss morals/ethics in significant detail:
A Critique of Moral Relativism: Louis Pojman
Existentialist Ethics: Jean-Paul Sartre
Plato: Meno (more about virtues)</p>
<p>^^throw in a few religious texts of your choice as well</p>
<p>
[quote]
His conclusion would lead to imposing different sets of rules on different people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a more flexible approach than applying the same rules to people of different backgrounds. Context is key.</p>