An Amoral Manifesto (Part II)

[artisticsolution]

C: I can't understand where exactly you have made the error. Do you know what I mean by RSPCC?
I don't want to snipe, its just that you said you would punch a person trying to extort money to save a child. That is out of character.

AS: Sorry...I think I see the problem. When I make a point, I don't always make it from my perspective, sometimes I take on another persona to make a point. What I am doing is putting out a hypothetical to your hypothetical. It is allowed for me to go along with your fantasy as see where it takes us...right?

I did not know what the rspcc was...now I do TY. I thought you were saying they were going to start extorting money like the Mafia to "keep babies from being "Punched'." Meaning if you didn't give they would punch a baby.

C:I see what you are saying. But the problem is that a moral absolutism has been tried for centuries and has led to some of the worse horrors in human history. Victorians believed that they were morally superior and ti was their duty to civilise savages. This led to the destruction of 100s of native cultures. Much the same can be said of the expansion of the USA west to California.

Moral relativism is nothing more than accepting with humility that the ethical constrains we place on ourselves are okay for us as long as there is consent, but we also need to understand that other rules are allowed to apply in other countries without us imposing our world view on those countries.
Further to that it is my position that I be allowed to follow my own path, and that others be allowed to follow theirs. That means that others are not hurt by my actions as that would be preventing others from doing their thing. This is a position that is close to but not identical with Kant's categorical Imperative - more on the lines of John Stuart Mill I think (not sure).
For me, like Mill, this means resisting those that would attempt to stop me doing my thing. If I want to kill myself, take drugs, drink, or have sex with any other consenting adult I need to be allowed to do this where such action would not hurt another person. In turn I agree to allow others to think and act as they see fit as long as they don't try to impose themselves on me.
Whilst I think most people would agree with this position, there is along way to go for me to achieve my ideal ethical society - I can be thrown in Gaol for attempted suicide, taking drugs and until recently sleeping with a same sex partner - these are crimes - victimless crimes. such things are not deserving of punishment.
As for Christians that want to force me to behave like them and Nazis that want to punish Jews and other minorities - they deserve to be resisted.

AS: I am with you on all this Chaz...I have been all my life. But here is the difference and I think this is where alot of people don't get me and the way I communicate. I always put myself in another person's shoes to see where they might be coming from when I disagree with their stance. In order, to make my argument, I think of all the things they might say and their feeling for saying those things. So I will ask myself...what would motivate me to behave in such a manner if I were them? To do this requires that I keep in mind I/they think they are doing good. As I believe most people think they are doing good, whether they are or not.

I believe This is why people always seem to mistake my words as when I am writing, I am thinking aloud and supposing "what if." wootah asked if I had killed anyone because I said, "I am immoral." It's a thing I have about being as honest as I can. As far as "Christian" values go. I am not a Christian but I probably keep more of the commandment than most Christians do. But that doesn't mean I am morally absolute as I believe other people don't have to do what I do...WHich is why I can't understand why Christians don't routinely tell the truth and just say, "I am immoral." The 10 commandments commands that Christians not tell a lie so ...why do they? I believe That right there betrays them and their "moral absolutism....do you see what I mean? Am I making sense?

I don't believe they truly believe there is such a thing as moral absolution either. If they did, they would have to agree...even one commandment broken means that they are immoral. I question why people can't admit that they are. But I have to admit...admitting I was immoral made wootah wonder if I was a murderer...so maybe that is the reason...lol.

C:As for the word morality - I am using it as it has appeared in the Latest ed of Philosophy Now - in the sense of a universal ethical code. I think it is accurate to use the term this way due to its common usage; eg when Westerners talk about the Burkha they say it is immoral, in system that is sensitive to relativism it cannot be characterised thus.

AS: As far as a universal ethical code, I believe the only common sense thing to do is let live. The problem is sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that require compromise. For example, nudists want to be free to walk around nude. Prudes (sorry...can't think of another word) want to not see naked people walking around, esp. in front of their children. So...I think we can come up with a solution to solve this problem...possibly designating a time of day for nudity or certain places, etc. I am trying to come up with compromises so that all people can feel free. Now do you see where my arguments are coming from?

[Arising_uk]

See...now I have more questions about language. That is sure a justification Arising...but I thought the challenge was to find an example where punching a baby would be justified in reason.

Isn't there a difference between having a justification and being justified?

Ha! This place is rubbing-off on you AS

So lets, as has been so quaintly put, quibble.

So yes, you are right there is a difference and I think thats the rub. As the question was phrased as ... in reason when what they mean is 'reasonably justified'. The problem is that the implied 'reasonably' already assumes what its asking, i.e. that we all agree what is or isn't a good reason. So I took 'in reason' to mean an explanation for the behaviour that could be considered a reason for it.

Obviously the cases will be extreme as the situation is extreme by our cultural standards. Here's another, I and my kids are being held by sadists and they are going to mutilate my kids unless I punch this strange baby in the face. Unlikely? Not given the experiences of the boy-soldiers and many other like instances throughout history.

I agree with CW, looking for actual moral universals or absolutes is a dead-end philosophically. When I studied Philosophy, Ethics and Morals was compulsory for the first two years and it drove me mental as I could not get to grips with it, I dropped it at the first opportunity. The reason why was because a large part was the Germans and whilst without doubt worth grappling with I found it pointless from my cultural point of view as it seemed all a task of trying to replace 'god' as a justification for there being ethics and morals due to Darwin putting the kibosh upon the churchs idea that we are the center of a 'gods' attention. For myself I understood ethics and morals as unavoidable things taught to you by society as you grow to reason and from there its a process of seeing which ones are actually true for you when faced with lifes moral and ethical choices, i.e. if you can't hold to them when tested then don't bother holding them as a moral or ethic in the future. Still, thats by-the-by. In essence I agree that the evidence is for moral relativism but thinks that means that we could actually agree upon some principles, e.g. CW's 'no harm to others', although again the 'harm' can be open to definition.

[artisticsolution]

I agree with CW, looking for actual moral universals or absolutes is a dead-end philosophically. When I studied Philosophy, Ethics and Morals was compulsory for the first two years and it drove me mental as I could not get to grips with it, I dropped it at the first opportunity. The reason why was because a large part was the Germans and whilst without doubt worth grappling with I found it pointless from my cultural point of view as it seemed all a task of trying to replace 'god' as a justification for there being ethics and morals due to Darwin putting the kibosh upon the churchs idea that we are the center of a 'gods' attention. For myself I understood ethics and morals as unavoidable things taught to you by society as you grow to reason and from there its a process of seeing which ones are actually true for you when faced with lifes moral and ethical choices, i.e. if you can't hold to them when tested then don't bother holding them as a moral or ethic in the future. Still, thats by-the-by. In essence I agree that the evidence is for moral relativism but thinks that means that we could actually agree upon some principles, e.g. CW's 'no harm to others', although again the 'harm' can be open to definition.

I have never doubted Chaz's claim "no harm to others." All I wanted to do was have a debate of what that actually entails.

Here was the problem that frustrated me. If Christians were held accountable for being the one who "do harm to others" then Islam has to also be held accountable for the same crime. Meaning, we know there are Christians who are wrong to kill in the name of God, We also know there are Muslims that kill in the name of God. I think we can reasonable say this is " Harm to others."

Conversely, if we are going to say that 'harm' means enforcing rules upon others without their consent, then some Christians would be guilty as as some Muslims.

What confused me is that it seemed to me Chaz was arguing the point that defending Muslims based on the reasoning "What they do is their own business" was okay, but allowing Christians the same justification was not. This did not make sense to me.

Why should some Muslims be allowed to enforce rules upon others and not Christians, if we go by the motto "no harm to others"?

[John]

I did not know what the rspcc was...now I do TY. I thought you were saying they were going to start extorting money like the Mafia to "keep babies from being "Punched'." Meaning if you didn't give they would punch a baby.

I'm sorry, but I read that imagining the RSPCC campaign that says "give us money or we'll punch a baby" and almost pissed myself laughing.

[John]

Moral relativism is nothing more than accepting with humility that the ethical constrains we place on ourselves are okay for us as long as there is consent, but we also need to understand that other rules are allowed to apply in other countries without us imposing our world view on those countries.
Further to that it is my position that I be allowed to follow my own path, and that others be allowed to follow theirs. That means that others are not hurt by my actions as that would be preventing others from doing their thing. This is a position that is close to but not identical with Kant's categorical Imperative - more on the lines of John Stuart Mill I think (not sure).
For me, like Mill, this means resisting those that would attempt to stop me doing my thing. If I want to kill myself, take drugs, drink, or have sex with any other consenting adult I need to be allowed to do this where such action would not hurt another person. In turn I agree to allow others to think and act as they see fit as long as they don't try to impose themselves on me.
Whilst I think most people would agree with this position, there is along way to go for me to achieve my ideal ethical society - I can be thrown in Gaol for attempted suicide, taking drugs and until recently sleeping with a same sex partner - these are crimes - victimless crimes. such things are not deserving of punishment.
As for Christians that want to force me to behave like them and Nazis that want to punish Jews and other minorities - they deserve to be resisted.

I'll need to dig out the reference, particularly to make sure I've remembered the gist of it correctly, but I recall an argument against moral relativism from one of my text books that went along the lines of: "if you say no one (or no culture) should impose their moral view on someone else (or another culture) then you're expressing a moral view and unless it's an absolute moral view you have to accept that its OK for some people or some cultures to impose their moral views on others." I'm paraphrasing but hopefully you get the idea. I think the thrust of the argument was that claims in favour of moral relativism can only be made from a position of absolute morality.

[artisticsolution]

I did not know what the rspcc was...now I do TY. I thought you were saying they were going to start extorting money like the Mafia to "keep babies from being "Punched'." Meaning if you didn't give they would punch a baby.

I'm sorry, but I read that imagining the RSPCC campaign that says "give us money or we'll punch a baby" and almost pissed myself laughing.

Well, I didn't understand at first...lol. You have to remember I am from Las Vegas, Nevada. Past Mafia territory. So this is the first thing that came to my mind. It might interest you to know that people who have lived in vegas a long time, say that the mafia was better for the town than the corporations are...meaning they were more kind...more moral...how's that for moral relativity? lol

Anyway, my husband and I were joking around today because I had just made my last payment to citi bank and closed my account. He asked me if I drew a picture of an ass with a pair of lips on it. I said, "No, but I almost wrote on the check, K.M.A. (kiss my a..) Then he started doing his comedy routine, "No thanks citi bank...Don't need your money. I would rather go to a loan shark where I'll get a better interest rate. Not only that if I default...they'll only break my legs ...you'll take my soul."

Or something like that....lol...he worded it much better but I can't remember.

[artisticsolution]

I'll need to dig out the reference, particularly to make sure I've remembered the gist of it correctly, but I recall an argument against moral relativism from one of my text books that went along the lines of: "if you say no one (or no culture) should impose their moral view on someone else (or another culture) then you're expressing a moral view and unless it's an absolute moral view you have to accept that its OK for some people or some cultures to impose their moral views on others." I'm paraphrasing but hopefully you get the idea. I think the thrust of the argument was that claims in favour of moral relativism can only be made from a position of absolute morality.

Thank you John...this is what I was getting at. If moral relativism tells us 'to do no harm', that does not necessarily mean that 'no harm will be done.' So if a culture harmed someone, who would the victims go to to complain? Who would enforce moral relativity? It seems to me the statement "do no harm" is absolute.

[John]

Well, I didn't understand at first...lol. You have to remember I am from Las Vegas, Nevada. Past Mafia territory. So this is the first thing that came to my mind. It might interest you to know that people who have lived in vegas a long time, say that the mafia was better for the town than the corporations are...meaning they were more kind...more moral...how's that for moral relativity? lol

You might find this article amusing (that by coincidence I just stumbled across on the BBC directly after reading this thread and posting my last reply): The battle to showcase Las Vegas' mafia past.

[artisticsolution]

You might find this article amusing (that by coincidence I just stumbled across on the BBC directly after reading this thread and posting my last reply): The battle to showcase Las Vegas' mafia past.

LOL...that is interesting. Now I'll tell you the real truth. The article states:


"So when the mayor, Oscar Goodman - a man given to making public appearances with a showgirl on each arm - came up with the idea of a museum devoted to Sin City's delinquent ancestors, folks here barely batted an eyelid."

But that is not entirely true. There were plenty of Las Vegan's who were up in arms about the proposal. In fact, my Physician works tirelessly to try to get a free health care clinic going. Our mayor had promised her a lot of land but reneged when he decided to build this museum. She ended up going to the school district and they donated some of their land which was not going to be used. Unfortunately, some of that land was in upper class neighborhoods who fought against the free clinic. They did not want "the needy" to litter their doorstep I presume.

Anyway, it has been a huge fight...but finally she got what she wanted...(well...as of the last time I saw her.)

The article is misleading when it says we "barely batted an eyelash." Liberals were having fits. Unfortunately, we are out numbered here. (it doesn't help that our only newspaper is Conservative as Fox news. Oh and here's another corporate bullshit thing....we do actually have another newspaper call "the sun" it is a liberal newspaper that the conservative newspaper owns so that they can get around the law that you can't have a monopoly. The sun is about 3 sections and lives within the massive folds of the giant conservative paper (so they don't have to pay extra money to package and deliver them separately.)

Also, it might be of interest that when the Mafia had Las Vegas they were very good to their employees. This is what people remember. Money actually trickled down...and they pretty much kept the violence to themselves...as they did not usually harm innocent townspeople.

Whereas, the corporations treat their employees like shit. The corporations get away with it by hiding behind the "corporate veil" where they can not be prosecuted as a human being but have all the legal rights of a human being. This is the reason why they have a thing called a "salary." where they can get around the 8 hour work day and make their employees work like dogs even with unions in place! Because they are in cahoots and "take care" of each other under the guise of "the law".

They also get tax cuts up the ying yang...supposedly in order for it to "trickle down" but then lay off tons of workers and make the other ones take up the slack.

That is why I said...if any business is going to get a tax cut because they supposedly are supposed to "create jobs" then they should not get the tax break until they have actually "created the jobs." But no...unlike the Mafia...the Corporations have the law on their side. That is the crux of the problem. The have turned the LAW into protection money.

[chaz wyman]

C: I can't understand where exactly you have made the error. Do you know what I mean by RSPCC?
I don't want to snipe, its just that you said you would punch a person trying to extort money to save a child. That is out of character.

AS: Sorry...I think I see the problem. When I make a point, I don't always make it from my perspective, sometimes I take on another persona to make a point. What I am doing is putting out a hypothetical to your hypothetical. It is allowed for me to go along with your fantasy as see where it takes us...right?

But that is a ridiculous and inaccurate view of my ethical position. I have always counselled NO HARM.

I did not know what the rspcc was...now I do TY. I thought you were saying they were going to start extorting money like the Mafia to "keep babies from being "Punched'." Meaning if you didn't give they would punch a baby.

Royal Society for the Protection of Children. Nice young men and women knock on doors and ask for donations.

C:I see what you are saying. But the problem is that a moral absolutism has been tried for centuries and has led to some of the worse horrors in human history. Victorians believed that they were morally superior and ti was their duty to civilise savages. This led to the destruction of 100s of native cultures. Much the same can be said of the expansion of the USA west to California.

Moral relativism is nothing more than accepting with humility that the ethical constrains we place on ourselves are okay for us as long as there is consent, but we also need to understand that other rules are allowed to apply in other countries without us imposing our world view on those countries.
Further to that it is my position that I be allowed to follow my own path, and that others be allowed to follow theirs. That means that others are not hurt by my actions as that would be preventing others from doing their thing. This is a position that is close to but not identical with Kant's categorical Imperative - more on the lines of John Stuart Mill I think (not sure).
For me, like Mill, this means resisting those that would attempt to stop me doing my thing. If I want to kill myself, take drugs, drink, or have sex with any other consenting adult I need to be allowed to do this where such action would not hurt another person. In turn I agree to allow others to think and act as they see fit as long as they don't try to impose themselves on me.
Whilst I think most people would agree with this position, there is along way to go for me to achieve my ideal ethical society - I can be thrown in Gaol for attempted suicide, taking drugs and until recently sleeping with a same sex partner - these are crimes - victimless crimes. such things are not deserving of punishment.
As for Christians that want to force me to behave like them and Nazis that want to punish Jews and other minorities - they deserve to be resisted.

AS: I am with you on all this Chaz...I have been all my life. But here is the difference and I think this is where alot of people don't get me and the way I communicate. I always put myself in another person's shoes to see where they might be coming from when I disagree with their stance. In order, to make my argument, I think of all the things they might say and their feeling for saying those things.

So do I, but when push comes to shove we have to think to protect our own position. Thus it is very helpful to understand the anger of your Muslims that want to thrash out due to centuries of political interference, and Christians ho think they are saving me from myself if they demand I don't sleep with a man (not that I do) or drink alcohol or masturbate. In the end you can understand them, but there is little use in that understanding if you don't use it to put your own point across.

So I will ask myself...what would motivate me to behave in such a manner if I were them? To do this requires that I keep in mind I/they think they are doing good. As I believe most people think they are doing good, whether they are or not.

Every suicide bombers thinks they are doing good, and has made that decision rationally. I despair at people who call them "evil" or "insane" - that is no way to understand the problem, or identify the next generation of killers.

I believe This is why people always seem to mistake my words as when I am writing, I am thinking aloud and supposing "what if." wootah asked if I had killed anyone because I said, "I am immoral." It's a thing I have about being as honest as I can. As far as "Christian" values go. I am not a Christian but I probably keep more of the commandment than most Christians do. But that doesn't mean I am morally absolute as I believe other people don't have to do what I do...WHich is why I can't understand why Christians don't routinely tell the truth and just say, "I am immoral." The 10 commandments commands that Christians not tell a lie so ...why do they? I believe That right there betrays them and their "moral absolutism....do you see what I mean? Am I making sense?

Yup!

I don't believe they truly believe there is such a thing as moral absolution either. If they did, they would have to agree...even one commandment broken means that they are immoral. I question why people can't admit that they are. But I have to admit...admitting I was immoral made wootah wonder if I was a murderer...so maybe that is the reason...lol.

Believing a thing when asked is not the same as finding that belief in behaviour. Christians do not think that god allows other rules to apply to other people, there is no room for relativism in their creed, as far as I can see.
But if it were true what you say then they could NEVER say they were immoral - because NOT believing in absolutism would be the very excuse they need to characterise their behaviour as moral when absolutism says it is immoral.

C:As for the word morality - I am using it as it has appeared in the Latest ed of Philosophy Now - in the sense of a universal ethical code. I think it is accurate to use the term this way due to its common usage; eg when Westerners talk about the Burkha they say it is immoral, in system that is sensitive to relativism it cannot be characterised thus.

AS: As far as a universal ethical code, I believe the only common sense thing to do is let live. The problem is sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that require compromise. For example, nudists want to be free to walk around nude. Prudes (sorry...can't think of another word) want to not see naked people walking around, esp. in front of their children. So...I think we can come up with a solution to solve this problem...possibly designating a time of day for nudity or certain places, etc. I am trying to come up with compromises so that all people can feel free. Now do you see where my arguments are coming from?

Sure a nudist has to consider harm to others.

As for the 10 commandments......

1 I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me
2 You shall not make for yourself an idol
3 Do not take the name of the Lord in vain
4 Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
5 Honor your father and mother
6 You shall not kill/murder
7 You shall not commit adultery
8 You shall not steal
9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour

1-4 guilty as charged.
5 usually
6 I have killed to eat, other wise not guilty.
7 I do this all the time, as I am still married and separated.
8 not regularly , but I have been know to take chocolate without asking.
9 never
10 Without covetousness none of us would aspire to a new fridge/tv/shoes.

So bad on 1,2,3,4, 7, maybe 8, and certainly 10

3/10 is a pretty low score.
How did you do?

I think this looks like a pretty crappy set of rules. Where is the protection for children, minorities and women??
And 1 -4 is all about me, me, me from gods pov.

[chaz wyman]

I agree with CW, looking for actual moral universals or absolutes is a dead-end philosophically. When I studied Philosophy, Ethics and Morals was compulsory for the first two years and it drove me mental as I could not get to grips with it, I dropped it at the first opportunity. The reason why was because a large part was the Germans and whilst without doubt worth grappling with I found it pointless from my cultural point of view as it seemed all a task of trying to replace 'god' as a justification for there being ethics and morals due to Darwin putting the kibosh upon the churchs idea that we are the center of a 'gods' attention. For myself I understood ethics and morals as unavoidable things taught to you by society as you grow to reason and from there its a process of seeing which ones are actually true for you when faced with lifes moral and ethical choices, i.e. if you can't hold to them when tested then don't bother holding them as a moral or ethic in the future. Still, thats by-the-by. In essence I agree that the evidence is for moral relativism but thinks that means that we could actually agree upon some principles, e.g. CW's 'no harm to others', although again the 'harm' can be open to definition.

I have never doubted Chaz's claim "no harm to others." All I wanted to do was have a debate of what that actually entails.

Here was the problem that frustrated me. If Christians were held accountable for being the one who "do harm to others" then Islam has to also be held accountable for the same crime. Meaning, we know there are Christians who are wrong to kill in the name of God, We also know there are Muslims that kill in the name of God. I think we can reasonable say this is " Harm to others."

Conversely, if we are going to say that 'harm' means enforcing rules upon others without their consent, then some Christians would be guilty as as some Muslims.

What confused me is that it seemed to me Chaz was arguing the point that defending Muslims based on the reasoning "What they do is their own business" was okay, but allowing Christians the same justification was not. This did not make sense to me.

Why should some Muslims be allowed to enforce rules upon others and not Christians, if we go by the motto "no harm to others"?

Just to clear this up. Accepting there is such a thing as moral relativism is not the same as saying "what they do is their own business". It means that things we might think of an immoral might fulfil a cultural logic which is for them moral; such as the burkha. It does not mean one has to abandon one's own ethical code nor forbear upon suggesting that they could change theirs towards your way of thinking. But it ought to recognise how stupid it is to insist that our moral code is superior, absolute, universal or ought to be inflicted on other cultures.
And the fact that Christians affect the way I live more than Islam, I have every right to treat those religions differently.

[chaz wyman]

I did not know what the rspcc was...now I do TY. I thought you were saying they were going to start extorting money like the Mafia to "keep babies from being "Punched'." Meaning if you didn't give they would punch a baby.

I'm sorry, but I read that imagining the RSPCC campaign that says "give us money or we'll punch a baby" and almost pissed myself laughing.


It would probably work better than what they do now; ambushing you in the high street wearing bright green tabards.

http://www.donation4charity.org/charities/nspcc

[chaz wyman]

Moral relativism is nothing more than accepting with humility that the ethical constrains we place on ourselves are okay for us as long as there is consent, but we also need to understand that other rules are allowed to apply in other countries without us imposing our world view on those countries.
Further to that it is my position that I be allowed to follow my own path, and that others be allowed to follow theirs. That means that others are not hurt by my actions as that would be preventing others from doing their thing. This is a position that is close to but not identical with Kant's categorical Imperative - more on the lines of John Stuart Mill I think (not sure).
For me, like Mill, this means resisting those that would attempt to stop me doing my thing. If I want to kill myself, take drugs, drink, or have sex with any other consenting adult I need to be allowed to do this where such action would not hurt another person. In turn I agree to allow others to think and act as they see fit as long as they don't try to impose themselves on me.
Whilst I think most people would agree with this position, there is along way to go for me to achieve my ideal ethical society - I can be thrown in Gaol for attempted suicide, taking drugs and until recently sleeping with a same sex partner - these are crimes - victimless crimes. such things are not deserving of punishment.
As for Christians that want to force me to behave like them and Nazis that want to punish Jews and other minorities - they deserve to be resisted.

I'll need to dig out the reference, particularly to make sure I've remembered the gist of it correctly, but I recall an argument against moral relativism from one of my text books that went along the lines of: "if you say no one (or no culture) should impose their moral view on someone else (or another culture) then you're expressing a moral view and unless it's an absolute moral view you have to accept that its OK for some people or some cultures to impose their moral views on others." I'm paraphrasing but hopefully you get the idea. I think the thrust of the argument was that claims in favour of moral relativism can only be made from a position of absolute morality.

This is quite a common philosophical position against all relativism. Let me think..... But this relies on an absolute definition of moral relativism which is normative. In other words that it is making a suggestion by which cultures ought to or should behave. A moral relativist is not making any demands, they are simply stating that moral law fulfils a local cultural logic, not a universal one. Within this definition is a recognition that adopting a foreign moral law might actually work in another culture. There is not necessary an injunction against imposing moral law cross culturally, but suggest that such a thing is likely to be problematic.
I think that answers that one.

[chaz wyman]

I did not know what the rspcc was...now I do TY. I thought you were saying they were going to start extorting money like the Mafia to "keep babies from being "Punched'." Meaning if you didn't give they would punch a baby.

I'm sorry, but I read that imagining the RSPCC campaign that says "give us money or we'll punch a baby" and almost pissed myself laughing.

Well, I didn't understand at first...lol. You have to remember I am from Las Vegas, Nevada. Past Mafia territory. So this is the first thing that came to my mind. It might interest you to know that people who have lived in vegas a long time, say that the mafia was better for the town than the corporations are...meaning they were more kind...more moral...how's that for moral relativity? lol

Anyway, my husband and I were joking around today because I had just made my last payment to citi bank and closed my account. He asked me if I drew a picture of an ass with a pair of lips on it. I said, "No, but I almost wrote on the check, K.M.A. (kiss my a..) Then he started doing his comedy routine, "No thanks citi bank...Don't need your money. I would rather go to a loan shark where I'll get a better interest rate. Not only that if I default...they'll only break my legs ...you'll take my soul."

Or something like that....lol...he worded it much better but I can't remember.

Mafia Morals.

"Don't rat on yer friends, and keep yer mowt shut!"

Jimmy Conway Goodfellas

[artisticsolution]

C:But that is a ridiculous and inaccurate view of my ethical position. I have always counselled NO HARM.

AS: Sorry...I was talking about the hypothetical story about the RSPCC. To me Hypothetical/fantasy is the same thing. I thought you were saying that the RSPCC was making people give them their money or else they would punch a baby. That is the fantasy/hypothetical I was talking about. Pay no attention to my reply...I didn't understand then...I do now. Please strike my comment from the script. lol

C:Believing a thing when asked is not the same as finding that belief in behaviour. Christians do not think that god allows other rules to apply to other people, there is no room for relativism in their creed, as far as I can see.

AS:Until they love someone who has committed a sin. Then all of a sudden they demand mercy for the one they love...which again...betrays their belief.

C:But if it were true what you say then they could NEVER say they were immoral - because NOT believing in absolutism would be the very excuse they need to characterise their behaviour as moral when absolutism says it is immoral.

AS: Perhaps you are right...but I think all they have to do is follow the good points in the bible which says judge not lest ye be judged and they would be fine. I don't think anyone can call themselves moral when they want mercy for themselves and damnation for others. That just smacks immoral...and is the reason I don't follow the Christian church. Their beliefs and actions betray them.

C:Sure a nudist has to consider harm to others.

AS: Yes, and others have to be considerate of the nudist as well. Imagine if you hated clothes but yet were forced to wear them by society. Isn't is natural to be nude? I say there should be allowances for nudity in society. I am sure a compromise could solve this morally relative problem.

C:As for the 10 commandments......

AS: Oh goodie...playtime! Okay let's see....

1 I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me .

AS:Well, technically I haven't found God yet...I have been trying but religion pushes me away....because they have no idea who he/she is. So until God appears to me...I will hope and pray he's the moral relative God I know in my heart. If he/she isn't...then he doesn't exist. So...I think I can say yes...I keep this one...because I am not going to follow any ol God I don't feel is as ethical/moral/good as me.

2 You shall not make for yourself an idol

AS: I think that goes with the one above so I would say technically...I keep it.

3 Do not take the name of the Lord in vain

AS: I break it all over the place. So if God is forgiving...and exists...he will forgive me for this fun indulgence as I don't do it maliciously.

4 Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

AS: I never understood what this meant. I can't see how not working = holiness. But ok...I don't keep it...occasionally I work on Sunday.

5 Honor your father and mother

AS:Mother almost always. Don't really know my Dad so I don't think it counts.

6 You shall not kill/murder

AS: I think by murder, God mean another human. So Yes I keep this commandment.

7 You shall not commit adultery

AS:Yes, keep it... cept for porn and dreams...lol.

8 You shall not steal

AS:I only stole once when I was 5 or 6. My mom bought me an Indian headdress and I stole some feathers and put them under my shirt so that my sister could have one too. The manager told my mom at the counter and they lifted my shirt for all to see. Quite embarrassing! ...and I have never stole anything again.

9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour

AS: never.

10 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour

AS: Never coveted my neighbor's wife...lol. Oh shit...wait...I take that back...there are times when I wish I had been born a 50's era dad...where all you had to do was go to work and come home and you would have the little woman bring you your paper and slippers, have a hot meal waiting in a clean house and all you had to do was pat each kid on the head and your attractive high heel wearing wife would keep the kids quiet...and you could just do what you wanted anytime and all you had to do was bring home a paycheck...sounds like heaven! Okay...Count this one as a definite "break it."


How did I do?