PDA

View Full Version : For Grind : Reraking Old Coals



AnyOldIron
11-01-2006, 07:56 AM
Grind. Why do you support legislating subjective morality such as anti-theft or murder laws?

BRUTALITOPS
11-01-2006, 06:58 PM
I am on record as saying that I am on the fence with regards to these matters. I'm still in the process of resisting all my socially instilled values and trying to look at it objectively, but such things aren't a light switch, they take time. I'll probably get there soon enough.

Also I am more partial to negative rights.

Beefy
11-01-2006, 09:30 PM
Why resist your values? To resist is to become dissatisfied, to introduce malcontent in your life. Why not observe them and see them for what they are? That is instilled values that came from without, not within. Observe them and see where they tug you, but accept that they are another entity, a perceived self. What do you, Grind, find truth in. Ditch the phantoms.

BRUTALITOPS
11-01-2006, 09:58 PM
beefy seriously shut the fuck up with the fairy talk.

Beefy
11-01-2006, 10:15 PM
beefy seriously shut the fuck up with the fairy talk.

Fairy talk? Why not read what I wrote, accept that I wrote it, agree or disagree as you must, and move on? What's with this fairy talk business?

BRUTALITOPS
11-02-2006, 06:30 AM
I read it. I disagree. I think what you said is crap. Ta.

AnyOldIron
11-02-2006, 06:59 AM
OK, a few questions to help you with your analysis....

What, in your opinion, is the source of morality? How do you think we define morality?

Do you believe that there should be no social morality, only individual morality?

Do you think it is possible for society to exist without common moral decisions to exist by?

Is social cohesion important, or can we exist with each other without it?

Am not looking for a confrontational argument, just a chat, as morality and legislation seems to be an interest we both have.....

Demwit
11-02-2006, 08:04 AM
Doesn't society always exist, no matter the form it takes ?

AnyOldIron
11-02-2006, 09:30 AM
Doesn't society always exist, no matter the form it takes ?

Not really. The definition of society means that it is cohesive and organised.

You could perhaps stretch the definition so that the smallest unit that could be deemed society would be the family, but we all know how unstable, uncohesive and disorganised families can be.

Non-existence of society would, essentiall, be anarchy....

OrnotBitwise
11-02-2006, 10:16 AM
Doesn't society always exist, no matter the form it takes ?

Not really. The definition of society means that it is cohesive and organised.

You could perhaps stretch the definition so that the smallest unit that could be deemed society would be the family, but we all know how unstable, uncohesive and disorganised families can be.

Non-existence of society would, essentiall, be anarchy.... Agreed. Society can indeed break down -- or become so dysfunctional as to make the question moot. We've seen it recently in Somalia, parts of Afghanistan, and various regions of sub-Saharan Africa.

uscitizen
11-02-2006, 10:21 AM
So a society based on grindism would not be a society ?

Damocles
11-02-2006, 11:53 AM
A dysfunctional society is still a society. It is just in flux.

BRUTALITOPS
11-02-2006, 12:48 PM
OK, a few questions to help you with your analysis....

What, in your opinion, is the source of morality? How do you think we define morality?

I don't believe in (objective) morality. What we see as morality is a large collective determining what is right. I don't think that is right. If you allow for the possability for 51% of the people to rule the 49%, that is no society I want to be a part of.


Do you believe that there should be no social morality, only individual morality?

I happen to like some of the benefits of social morality, but am I ready to force that on others? No. At the very least there has to be a suitable escape for those that do not wish to comply with society's arbitrary standards.


Do you think it is possible for society to exist without common moral decisions to exist by?

I'm not sure, but more importantly, I don't really care.


Is social cohesion important, or can we exist with each other without it?

Maybe we can, maybe we can't. If we can't, oh well, guess we just aren't that great of a specieis.

OrnotBitwise
11-02-2006, 01:04 PM
A dysfunctional society is still a society. It is just in flux.
Anarchy is to a normal society as diarrhea is to a normal stool. You can say it's the same shit if you like but there's still a fundamental difference: one is healthy and the other is not. And diarrhea kills tens of thousands every year . . . .

OrnotBitwise
11-02-2006, 01:05 PM
I don't believe in (objective) morality. What we see as morality is a large collective determining what is right. I don't think that is right. If you allow for the possability for 51% of the people to rule the 49%, that is no society I want to be a part of.



I happen to like some of the benefits of social morality, but am I ready to force that on others? No. At the very least there has to be a suitable escape for those that do not wish to comply with society's arbitrary standards.



I'm not sure, but more importantly, I don't really care.



Maybe we can, maybe we can't. If we can't, oh well, guess we just aren't that great of a specieis.So, the High and Mighty Grind passes judgment and says the human species doesn't deserve to survive, eh?

Damocles
11-02-2006, 01:07 PM
Anarchy is to a normal society as diarrhea is to a normal stool. You can say it's the same shit if you like but there's still a fundamental difference: one is healthy and the other is not. And diarrhea kills tens of thousands every year . . . .
It doesn't mean that it suddenly isn't stool though. Which was my point.

BRUTALITOPS
11-02-2006, 02:07 PM
"So, the High and Mighty Grind passes judgment and says the human species doesn't deserve to survive, eh?"

If we fail it's all our fault not just my own will.

uscitizen
11-02-2006, 02:17 PM
Anarchy is to a normal society as diarrhea is to a normal stool. You can say it's the same shit if you like but there's still a fundamental difference: one is healthy and the other is not. And diarrhea kills tens of thousands every year . . . .

Yeah but whether the soicety sucks or not , it is still a society ?

OrnotBitwise
11-02-2006, 02:22 PM
"So, the High and Mighty Grind passes judgment and says the human species doesn't deserve to survive, eh?"

If we fail it's all our fault not just my own will.My point, such as it was, was simply that your definition of failure seems both impractical and highly idiosyncratic.

You admit that there's no objective morality, yet you try to pass judgment on the entire human species based on your own preferences. You don't like paying your taxes and therefore you conclude that taxation is no different from theft, for example.

By your own standards, you've made yourself the philosophical equivalent of a lone neanderthal waving a spear and cursing the rising cro magnon tide. Seems a bit self-defeating to me. ;)

uscitizen
11-02-2006, 02:25 PM
Grinds stance is entirely self defeating Ornot. He will probably figure that out as he gets older, or he will suffer along in misery.

OrnotBitwise
11-02-2006, 02:28 PM
Yeah but whether the soicety sucks or not , it is still a society ?
There are two classics of anthropology that I would recommend to anyone here. They're by Colin Turnbull and represent two extremes of social functionality: Forest People and Mountain People. As cultural anthropology, they're badly dated. They do stand out in the history of simple ethnography, however.

Forest People describes a society that works and works very well. Mountain People describes a society that has truly collapsed and a culture in the process of dying. The latter is particularly instructive, I think.

Society really can break down to the point that it no longer exists, in any effective way. What happens to people in that situation is not pretty.

BRUTALITOPS
11-02-2006, 02:36 PM
"You admit that there's no objective morality, yet you try to pass judgment on the entire human species based on your own preferences."

I would say that extinction would be universally thought as bad. Perhaps it isn't. In that case, all the less reason for me to worry.

AnyOldIron
11-03-2006, 06:23 AM
A dysfunctional society is still a society. It is just in flux.

A society where there is only will and physical capability and no moral agreement isn't a society.

I realise that all terms are arbitrary and subject to mutual agreement, but cohesion and organisation are requirements for pretty much all definitions....

AnyOldIron
11-03-2006, 06:51 AM
AnyOldIron:
What, in your opinion, is the source of morality? How do you think we define morality?

Grind:
I don't believe in (objective) morality. What we see as morality is a large collective determining what is right. I don't think that is right. If you allow for the possability for 51% of the people to rule the 49%, that is no society I want to be a part of.

You don't believe in objective morality, fair enough, neither do I. Do you believe in subjective morality? How do you think subjective morality is created and defined?


Anyoldiron:
Do you believe that there should be no social morality, only individual morality?

Grind:
I happen to like some of the benefits of social morality, but am I ready to force that on others? No. At the very least there has to be a suitable escape for those that do not wish to comply with society's arbitrary standards.

So if there were an option for you to opt out of social morality and return to your natural freedom to do as you will and are physically capable of?

Does it not worry you that if you opt to retake your natural freedoms, you are extremely isolated, and have only your own physical capability for defence?

If you return to only will and physical capability, you lose property rights and you only possess the items you can defend from other's will?

That your right to life is lost, and your life depends on your ability to defend it from the will of others?



AOI:
Do you think it is possible for society to exist without common moral decisions to exist by?
Grind:
I'm not sure, but more importantly, I don't really care.

Why not?


AOI:
Is social cohesion important, or can we exist with each other without it?

Grind:
Maybe we can, maybe we can't. If we can't, oh well, guess we just aren't that great of a specieis.

Not thought of an answer then? Need more time to think?

AnyOldIron
11-03-2006, 06:58 AM
Anarchy is to a normal society as diarrhea is to a normal stool. You can say it's the same shit if you like but there's still a fundamental difference: one is healthy and the other is not. And diarrhea kills tens of thousands every year . . . .

Beautifully illustrated, Ornot....

Damocles
11-03-2006, 07:53 AM
A dysfunctional society is still a society. It is just in flux.

A society where there is only will and physical capability and no moral agreement isn't a society.

I realise that all terms are arbitrary and subject to mutual agreement, but cohesion and organisation are requirements for pretty much all definitions....
"Pretty much all" isn't the same thing. Anthropologists will tell you that a dysfunctional society doesn't change the fact that there is a baseline that remains, an unerlying society that may not be apparent instantly, but with careful observation will become apparent.

Some of those within the new society, or within the society within the state of flux, will take time to learn new rules, but they exist regardless.

AnyOldIron
11-03-2006, 07:57 AM
"Pretty much all" isn't the same thing. Anthropologists will tell you that a dysfunctional society doesn't change the fact that there is a baseline that remains, an unerlying society that may not be apparent instantly, but with careful observation will become apparent.

If each individual member of a group acts upon their own will and capabilities alone, and has no moral structure to live by, it isn't society, but a group of individuals.

Society, to be a society, needs at least some moral structure.

uscitizen
11-03-2006, 08:00 AM
I thought a society was a group of individuals.....
This thing seems a pretty fuzzy line to me.

Damocles
11-03-2006, 08:08 AM
Once again... Any anthropologist will tell you that even in that state there is an underlying set of rules that may not be instantly obvious but can be determined through observation. Ignoring what I type to pretend that those people suddenly become animals and set upon each other indiscriminately is simply being deliberately obtuse. At least answer as to what I wrote rather than repeat the same thing that my post directly answered.

OrnotBitwise
11-03-2006, 10:36 AM
"You admit that there's no objective morality, yet you try to pass judgment on the entire human species based on your own preferences."

I would say that extinction would be universally thought as bad. Perhaps it isn't. In that case, all the less reason for me to worry.
But you weren't talking about extinction. For the record, what you said, in response to the question "can we get along without social cohesion" was:
Maybe we can, maybe we can't. If we can't, oh well, guess we just aren't that great of a specieis.I read that as saying if we can't get along without social cohesion the species doesn't deserve to survive.

I disagree. Culture -- and social cohesion -- is a survival mechanism that has evolved over millions of years. It's actually pretty amazing how well it works, in its seemingly chaotic way, and how flexible it is. Individuals vary tremendously in their degree of aculturation, but that's part of what makes it work. It's like genetic diversity in a sense.

Think of yourself as a recessive alelle, Grind. ;)

BRUTALITOPS
11-03-2006, 10:01 PM
"I read that as saying if we can't get along without social cohesion the species doesn't deserve to survive."

Well you read that wrong. Whether we deserve it or not is beside the point. It will either work or it wont, if it doesn't then society only has itself to blame.

" Not thought of an answer then? Need more time to think?"

I don't need more time to think, I dont find it to be an important question... I don't care about the answer... sorry.

"Does it not worry you that if you opt to retake your natural freedoms, you are extremely isolated, and have only your own physical capability for defence?"

No, it doesn't worry me. The option should exist.

"Do you believe in subjective morality? How do you think subjective morality is created and defined? "

I know subjective morality exists I just think it's wrong.

OrnotBitwise
11-03-2006, 10:38 PM
"Does it not worry you that if you opt to retake your natural freedoms, you are extremely isolated, and have only your own physical capability for defence?"

No, it doesn't worry me. The option should exist.
Since you don't believe in objecive morality and reject consensual morality, your "should" there has exactly zero (0) weight . . . to anyone other than yourself. ;)

BRUTALITOPS
11-04-2006, 04:49 PM
well i am the most important.

AnyOldIron
11-06-2006, 03:00 AM
Any anthropologist will tell you that even in that state there is an underlying set of rules that may not be instantly obvious but can be determined through observation. Ignoring what I type to pretend that those people suddenly become animals

But we are animals Damo. Only human pretentions deem otherwise.

Humans acting according only to their own will and physical capability obey only those rules.

AnyOldIron
11-06-2006, 03:05 AM
I don't need more time to think, I dont find it to be an important question... I don't care about the answer... sorry.

Well that's disappointing Grind. I thought you were a philosopher, and that all questions were important...

Damocles
11-06-2006, 11:19 AM
Any anthropologist will tell you that even in that state there is an underlying set of rules that may not be instantly obvious but can be determined through observation. Ignoring what I type to pretend that those people suddenly become animals

But we are animals Damo. Only human pretentions deem otherwise.

Humans acting according only to their own will and physical capability obey only those rules.
Hence there can be no anthropomorphizing, since all are animals.

Pretending that the natural state of humans are to live without family and to never learn from the adults around them is simply disingenuous. You know better than that. It isn't even the natural state of most animals to live that way.

The natural state of humanity is to learn from the parents, and thus we are all given a morality. It can be more or less than other times in history, but humans will naturally learn some form of morality.

AnyOldIron
11-08-2006, 04:53 AM
The natural state of humanity is to learn from the parents, and thus we are all given a morality. It can be more or less than other times in history, but humans will naturally learn some form of morality.

Humans can exist in a state where a moral agreement exists within a unit and not without.

A classical example is when warfare.

Nations have internal moral agreements that only operate within the nation, but if the nation's will conflicts with another's, and they are physically capable, war occurs.

Same can be said within a family. An agreement that exists within the family (or tribe) can be limited to the family only, and outside that agreement, will and capability only exist.

Natural freedom is simply the right to do as you will, provided you are physically capable, outside of any moral agreement.