Aberrant RPG - Who ARE the good guys?

[Nullifier]

Erm... As a non-sequitor, a response to a statement made months ago:

Objective law: The initiation of physical force upon a rational being is evil.

Force is defined as: coercion in a physical form.

If this is true, the logical conclusion is: The enforcement of all law is evil. Ergo, since law is not law without enforcement, all law is evil.

Thus the fallacy of absolutism...

Godel's theorem: All systems of logic are either incomplete or inconsistent. Therefore, as any claim to "objectivity" must lay claim to a logical system based upon certain absolute principles, it must be inherently incomplete, or inconsistent, thereby negating any claim it has to being "objective."

Da de dum.

Descartes said, "Cogito, ergo sum." I think he had that pretty much right... Except that to be more accurate, he should have said "I percieve, therefore I am." Ultimately, all each one of us has is our individual perceptions. It's really impossible to say you have more than that, because while you may percieve that you have more than your perceptions, you perceptions of that are really all you have. I don't really know, or care for that matter, whether or not anything I percieve has any "Reality" or "Truth" to it. It seems real enough, and somewhat consistent, and as it's all I have to deal with, I sort of have to accept it, if only because I don't like percieving pain...

Getting back to the topic of this forum... Good and Evil are generally defined as undefined absolutes... But absolutes don't work, because absolutes must lay claim to logical systems, and logical systems are either incomplete or inconsistent... So then there's ethics, but again, ethics are standards of behaviour that work within logical systems, but as so many have pointed out, there are always exceptions to ethics, just as there are always exceptions to any logical system...

So, in my opinion at least, the only way to define any sort of Good, Evil, Right, or Wrong, is to do it based upon the perceptions of the individual. So here we go: Right and Good are paying attention to the various aspects of one's perceptions, accepting them, and acting accordingly. Wrong and Evil are not doing any one of those three things. Therefore, in the Aberrant world, at least, the Teragen generally come the closest to being "Right" and "Good," if only because they pay attention what they percieve themselves to be in relation to their other perceptions, accept it, and at least try to act accordingly. They don't always succeed, of course, but at least they try. None of the other factions even come close to this. That's just my opinion, though, I could be wrong. Have fun, folks. ::cool ::devilangel

[phoenix]

No matter what the action, I can find a situation that would challenge that ethic.

Darnell (if you're still around), I accept your challenge. I submit that there is no conceivable situation in which rape is acceptable.

[ezekiel]

Whew!

There's no way I have time to read all this topic (a lot of big posts in there...gotta keep some time for studies.. ::wacko )

Objective law: The initiation of physical force upon a rational being is evil.

Force is defined as: coercion in a physical form.

(dunno where this quote comes from)

If this is true, the logical conclusion is: The enforcement of all law is evil. Ergo, since law is not law without enforcement, all law is evil.

Thus the fallacy of absolutism...

Gotta agree with Nullifier here...I don't even know where the \"objective law\" comes from. But anyway, I'm the first to say that all \"isms\" and absolutes are stupid...as is qualifying something as Good or Evil. I think all comes in grays, right and wrong is easier to distinguish but its still individual.

Descartes said, \"Cogito, ergo sum.\" I think he had that pretty much right... Except that to be more accurate, he should have said \"I percieve, therefore I am.\" Ultimately, all each one of us has is our individual perceptions.

Here though, I totally disagree. I think too many people watched the Matrix and developed a cult around perceptions...You're cutting away the reasoning behind the maxim. It isn't based on perceptions at all. Its based on his faculty to think:

\"(...) Or je peux douter, des connaissances reçues de l'enseignement, des données des sens, des maximes morales, des vérités mathématiques, de la réalité de mon propre corps. Or une chose est indubitable, c'est que je doute. Si je doute, je pense, et si je pense, je suis. \" Je pense donc je suis \", cogito ergo sun \".\"

Basically it translates kinda like this (translated by me, so take it as you will): But I can doubt my teachings, I can doubt the information my senses give me (perceptions!), I can doubt oral maximes, mathematical truths, the reality of my own body. One things for sure, I doubt. If I doubt, I think and if I think, I am. \"I think therefore I am, cogito ergo sun\"

Had Descartes stated \"I perceive therefore I am\" his whole reasoning would've gone down the drain. Try to imagine this...a child devoid of senses since conception taken to term and kept alive. Its world is nothingness until...a thought. We probably can't conceive of what that thought would be like since we've always lived with multitudes of input but there's a world of difference between the Nothing and the Thought (be it what it may...and the child is just an example, could be aetherial nothingness, whatever)

Darnell (if you're still around), I accept your challenge. I submit that there is no conceivable situation in which rape is acceptable.

Mmmm...how about rape at gunpoint as seen in "Seven"? Would be defensible for one (the rapist) and wrong for the other (the gun holder)...or a pedophile being raped and beaten by fellow cellmates? You're the last two people on earth, the last chance for human survival, and she thinks you're ugly...(mmm, that last one might be far fetched... ::rolleyes )

[Nullifier]

Try to imagine this...a child devoid of senses since conception taken to term and kept alive. Its world is nothingness until...a thought. We probably can't conceive of what that thought would be like since we've always lived with multitudes of input but there's a world of difference between the Nothing and the Thought (be it what it may...and the child is just an example, could be aetherial nothingness, whatever)

Thought is only the perception of thought. Descarte's problem was that he was looking for a basis for "Reality." Some basis from which he could not deny. Unfortunately, he chose thought. But all he really had was the perception of his thought. He percieved that he thought, and couldn't disprove that particular perception. But in the end, it was just a perception. The world is nothingness without perception, or more correctly, interaction, because that's what perception stems from. At any rate, have fun. ::cool ::blink ::rolleyes ::tongue ::wink ::devilangel

[ezekiel]

Mmm..

I'm sorry but I'm sticking to Descartes on this one. Thought isnt a perception...though thoughts interpret your perceptions. The perception of the thought is just an aside...you can think without thinking your thinking, me thinks.

[Nullifier]

Thought isnt a perception...though thoughts interpret your perceptions. The perception of the thought is just an aside...you can think without thinking your thinking, me thinks.

Erm. Yes, you can think without thinking you're thinking, but you can't, and don't, think without percieving it. All is perception. Everything else is just elaboration. Perception without thought is possible, but not thought without perception. Trying to prove otherwise is a futile endeavour. To percieve is to be. To think is to be aware of being. Very different things. Perception is an outgrowth, or at the very least, a consequence of interaction. Interaction creates reality. Without it, there is only the probability, the possibility, of being. Thought is the outcome of interaction, of perception. Without perception, there can be no thought. Consciousness, as we know it, comes from the interactions of the perceptions of the moment with the perceptions of the past, as stored in memory. The chaos of the moment, and the order of the past, combining in a complex fashion to produce the emergent property that we call consciousness. The dance goes ever on. ::hehe ::smokin

[phoenix]

Mmm.. how about rape at gunpoint as seen in Seven?

No excuse at all. I would choose death.

or a pedophile being raped and beaten by fellow cellmates?

Rape as torture? C'mon. There are much worse fates, even ignoring the far more obvious (but more complicated) issue of whose place it is to judge the man.

You're the last two people on earth, the last chance for human survival, and she thinks you're ugly...(mmm, that last one might be far fetched...  )

Very far fetched. Like anyone could think I'm ugly ::sly

[Finbar]

1) Re: Rape as a Good Thing

Bad example. Given that rape is a bad thing in and of itself, choosing to do so is choosing a smaller evil, regardless of context. I could argue continuation of the species, but if there are only two, just how long is the species going to survive anyway?

In most things a duality is recognized, that there is a good side and a bad side, if you will. There are situations situations where I can kill another human (such as self-defense) that are not murder. In sex, that duality is consensual sex and rape. Unfortunately, choosing rape will always be a bad thing, just as choosing to steal or murder. The question that a person who sees it as potentially good is asking: Will it get me what I want? And that's not an ethical question...That's strictly a question of survival....

2) Absolutes

I tend to agree that there are some sort of absolutes out there...Then again, I tend to put more stock in the Book of Proverbs than Deuteronomy...And I laugh at pooor little Neische...

Basically, my studies in comparative mythology show that there are some things that every culture has in common...However, I think that some things are ethical red herrings (slavery, strangely enough, fits the bill, but that's because I feel that there times when it is justified). Genocide, however, is still always evil.

A good part of the problem, I feel, is that, since we are aware that the winner writes the history, and that a number of historical develops were given arbitrary dates, we are all too aware that one group's war is another's genocide. Another is that we tend to project onto events how we feel what is "really" happening...Combined, some look at certain events as morally wrong when a better understanding of the situation as a whole shows that some of their reasoning was too colored by emotion to give an accurate picture of what is happening.

For example, ecological issues. On one hand you have that protecting the ecology as a whole is a good idea; however, there have been certain times when the protection has made it worse (burning forests, for example). Germany's part in WWII was acceptable as far as going to war, but not the genocide of the concentration camps. I know that looking as war as acceptable is strange, but as one of the few limiters the on human population, I see it as acceptable. The genocide, as it was killing people just so you could feel better about your lot in life, is not.

Note on the last paragraph: I am aware that some feel that war is never acceptable. However, usually the same people can never find something that they are willing to defend, and avoid responsibility for their actions whenever possible. I don't consider these people ethical; to me, part of ethics is defining lines that you will not cross, and not crossing them. By avoiding your responsibilities (even to the degree that you will not care for your own children), I feel that you lose the right to have an opinion on what is ethical or not...

Obvious Hedging: No, I don't feel that war is great. Diplomacy should always at least be attempted, and other means, such as going to a mediator, should always be attempted before even raisng the spectre of war. However, there does hit a point when you have no real choice but to fight back...

3) This is getting dry.... ::wacko

4) Overall

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are some absolutes, but that those absolutes are subjective. A weird way of looking at it, especially when we are taught that absolutes are non-negotiable. However, this isn't the rarified, sterile environment of the laboratory where things like perfection can be attained. Real life is messier than that. We can agree that murder is "wrong", but also that killing a person who is, and always will be, in pain is acceptable, at least in some cases.

FR

[ezekiel]

No excuse at all. I would choose death.

That's easier said than done...Try to really imagine yourself in that position...would you choose torture? What if another was being tortured in front of you? You'd still abstain? Nazi experiments come to mind...and personnally I think you'd break.

There are much worse fates, even ignoring the far more obvious (but more complicated) issue of whose place it is to judge the man.

Huh?

Very far fetched. Like anyone could think I'm ugly

::biggrin

Thought is the outcome of interaction, of perception. Without perception, there can be no thought. Consciousness, as we know it, comes from the interactions of the perceptions of the moment with the perceptions of the past, as stored in memory.

See? Thats where my example of thought after nothingness becomes important...I think we have a problem of semantics here...Your definition of perception seems to include thought but thought can be independant of perception. That's one of the basis of meditation actually...

Given that rape is a bad thing in and of itself, choosing to do so is choosing a smaller evil, regardless of context.

Yes, but the problem is you're interpreting it as good or evil which are very subjective absolutes...you know people have killed their wives thinking they were demons in the name of Good, right? (actual caselaw I've read..) Good and evil is based on a persons view of something...your good could be my evil. As for right and wrong, thats more of a sociological question. Different societies have different views of whats right or wrong, hence the different laws. Also, what about rape done in your sleep? Or under the influence of debilitating drugs (taking for granted you didn't know you took the drugs)? Still evil?

The genocide, as it was killing people just so you could feel better about your lot in life, is not.

Hypothetical case: What if the genociders were killing off fatal infectious disease carriers?

[Finbar]

First off, could you tell us who you got the quotes from? It makes it so much easier to respond when we can at least look up the original response!

From ezekiel's post:

QUOTE

Given that rape is a bad thing in and of itself, choosing to do so is choosing a smaller evil, regardless of context.

Yes, but the problem is you're interpreting it as good or evil which are very subjective absolutes...you know people have killed their wives thinking they were demons in the name of Good, right? (actual caselaw I've read..) Good and evil is based on a persons view of something...your good could be my evil. As for right and wrong, thats more of a sociological question. Different societies have different views of whats right or wrong, hence the different laws.

Except that:

a) I'm acknowledging that the rape is bad even as I do it, and

They're doing something they view as good.

Both are bad (unless, of course, the wives were demons;-) ), but at least I'd be admitting it. Without knowing how the cases turned out (which sorta negates your point; it may be case law, but in was it because the husband's were found guilty of murder, or innocent because the wives were demons??), I have no real idea what you're trying to say here...

From ezekiel's post:

. Also, what about rape done in your sleep? Or under the influence of debilitating drugs (taking for granted you didn't know you took the drugs)? Still evil?

This deserves a flip answer: No. Doing things to my body without my permission is the best thing you could for me....Especially if you could ensure the mutilation...

Sorry, but rape is rape. Period. Doing it while the victim is asleep or under the influence of drugs just makes it seem even more heinous (and by law, it is)....

The genocide, as it was killing people just so you could feel better about your lot in life, is not.

Hypothetical case: What if the genociders were killing off fatal infectious disease carriers?

Well, um, gee, then I'm not killing people just to feel better about my lot in life, then am I? Part of the reason Nazis went after the groups they did because they were easily outcast; after the nastiness of the Treaty of Versailles, they were looking for any way to do something...Hitler just gave them easy targets....

Oh...Nice one...Almost gave it a total flip response, before my mental editor went on....

And I'm from California, and old enough to remember LaRouche (who wanted to take everyone with AIDS and put them on a quarantined island)...

Basic questions: Is there a way to keep the disease from spreading, or at least protecting myself from it? If I can quarantine the person or at least take basic safeguards to ensure my health (such as with ebola or AIDS), then the genociders should be nailed to the wall. However, if the disease is of a sort where that simply isn't possible, then yes, I'd side with the genociders, except of course, that they wouldn't be genociders, they'd be fighting to save humanity...

FR

[phoenix]

Ezekiel:

Try to really imagine yourself in that position...would you choose torture? What if another was being tortured in front of you? You'd still abstain? Nazi experiments come to mind...and personnally I think you'd break.

Not gonna get into a \"would not!\" \"would too!\" kinda argument here.. ::sleeping

Huh?

Sorry, I don't understand what you meant with the pedophile example ::confused

you know people have killed their wives thinking they were demons in the name of Good, right? (actual caselaw I've read..) Good and evil is based on a persons view of something...your good could be my evil.

Yes, but one of us is right and one of us is wrong - just because we disagree doesn't mean we're both right automatically, and frankly, I'm pretty sure that those people's wives weren't demons, annoying personalities and mannerisms notwithstanding. Doing what one sees as good is not the same thing as doing good.

what about rape done in your sleep? Or under the influence of debilitating drugs (taking for granted you didn't know you took the drugs)? Still evil?

Well, I'm trying to describe my code of honor as dictates my actions, but if I couldn't control myself then I wouldn't bother trying to classify it as good or evil, I would just try to take responsibility for my actions as best I could.

[ezekiel]

Both are bad (unless, of course, the wives were demons;-) ), but at least I'd be admitting it. Without knowing how the cases turned out (which sorta negates your point; it may be case law, but in was it because the husband's were found guilty of murder, or innocent because the wives were demons??), I have no real idea what you're trying to say here...

Knowing how the case ended is irrelevant...what I'm trying to say is that basing your actions on notions of Good or Evil is highly subjective and prone to misperceptions.

However, if the disease is of a sort where that simply isn't possible, then yes, I'd side with the genociders, except of course, that they wouldn't be genociders, they'd be fighting to save humanity...

It'd still be genocide though, I don't see why the "fighting to save humanity" bit changes this. Though I agree that in this case it wouldn't necessarily be wrong...

[phoenix]

basing your actions on notions of Good or Evil is highly subjective and prone to misperceptions.

Yeah, but that's the way it goes. What else are you gonna base them on? ::notify

[Finbar]

Yo, ezekiel, baby!

QUOTE

However, if the disease is of a sort where that simply isn't possible, then yes, I'd side with the genociders, except of course, that they wouldn't be genociders, they'd be fighting to save humanity...

It'd still be genocide though, I don't see why the \"fighting to save humanity\" bit changes this. Though I agree that in this case it wouldn't necessarily be wrong...

The "fighting to save humanity" bit changes the >intent<...Actions in and of themselves are not good or evil, it's the intent that matters. I mean, genocide is after all an international-level crime; fighting to protect your country against a legitimate threat isn't. If EVERY OTHER SOLUTION had been tried and failed, and the disease was efectively contagious to the point that you needed suits just to feed the patient, and if there was absolutely no other way, then I'd advocate the mass killing...but I'd have to make sure that there was no other way first....

This is one of those situations where the good of the minority would take precedence over the good of the majority. After all, to ensure the survival of the minority would be ensuring the survival of the majority. If the minority could survive, then so could the majority....Weird way of looking at it, I suppose, but it sometimes survival takes precedence over ethics...And sometimes (like this) they go hand-in-hand...

The "rape question" is still bogus, because it's so loaded with stupidity. Basically, if the party I was raping knew that I had to, then there's a good possibility that she'd consent, thus negating the rape aspect. After all, the rape was at gunpoint, then both sides are under the gun. By consenting, she is allowed to live, as well as me. If she didn't, then there's a good chance she won't. In essence by making a survival issue, it's not an ethics issue...Um...So..Hah.....Don't I feel good....

FR

[Ayre el KaBeer]

My brain hurt when this thread was origionally going, my brain hurts alittle more now. ::ninja ::ninja ::ninja ::ninja ::ninja

[ezekiel]

Finbar: (See?! I quoted you!) ::tongue

Period. Doing it while the victim is asleep or under the influence of drugs just makes it seem even more heinous (and by law, it is)....

Oops, I think you got that wrong (just noticed)...not the victim under influence, the rapist. Of course if the victim is drugged it doesn't change anything. For the record, I didn't start the rape question...but I don't think its loaded. There are certain circumstances (like the involuntarily drug induced rapist) where the act is pardonable.

The \"fighting to save humanity\" bit changes the >intent<...Actions in and of themselves are not good or evil, it's the intent that matters. I mean, genocide is after all an international-level crime; fighting to protect your country against a legitimate threat isn't.

I'm glad we agree that Genocide isn't in and of itself evil. Though the saving humanity bit is still flawed 'cause Hitler thought he was bettering mankind...his intents were pure, so to speak...so I guess intents aren't necessarily what makes genocide right.

[phoenix]

Ezekiel:

For the record, I didn't start the rape question...but I don't think its loaded.

I started it - I think it's interesting. My challenge is still up, BTW, not a single circumstance that I can think of or that you guys have named justify rape.

There are certain circumstances (like the involuntarily drug induced rapist) where the act is pardonable.

It's not pardonable. "Person A", however, cannot be held responsible for the actions of "Person A on mind-altering drugs"* - if the mind is altered, it is, for all intents and purposes, a different person in control. However, there is no way to hold "Person A on drugs" accountable for his actions (please don't even bring up the possibility of forcing the person to take the drugs again and then punishing him.. my brain's starting to hurt too..), and Person A shouldn't be punished for what is essentially someone else's actions.

*"Person A" can be held accountable for taking the mind-altering drugs in the first place, so unless they were given him unwillingly, it's almost as bad as if he had committed the rape in the first place.

[ezekiel]

Phoenix:

It's not pardonable. \"Person A\", however, cannot be held responsible for the actions of \"Person A on mind-altering drugs\"* - if the mind is altered, it is, for all intents and purposes, a different person in control. However, there is no way to hold \"Person A on drugs\" accountable for his actions (please don't even bring up the possibility of forcing the person to take the drugs again and then punishing him.. my brain's starting to hurt too..), and Person A shouldn't be punished for what is essentially someone else's actions.

*\"Person A\" can be held accountable for taking the mind-altering drugs in the first place, so unless they were given him unwillingly, it's almost as bad as if he had committed the rape in the first place.

Well, if Person A can't be accountable then his actions are pardoned, aren't they? If he took the drugs willingly then it would no longer be "involuntarily" drug induced...the best example is drugs put in somebody's glass in a bar without their knowing. (To avoid confusion, I'm talking about drugs put in the glass of the drug induced rapist, not victim) I never implied you could force someone to take drugs and then punish him.

[Nullifier]

See? Thats where my example of thought after nothingness becomes important...I think we have a problem of semantics here...Your definition of perception seems to include thought but thought can be independant of perception. That's one of the basis of meditation actually...

Erm. Thought cannot be independant of perception because thought is a certain type of perception. Namely, its the neurons in a brain percieving themselves and each other, or rather the interactions between them. My definition of perception specifically stated that there can be perception without thought, but not thought without perception. Try to read a bit more closely next time. This isn't a semantic problem, its a problem of understanding. You somehow believe that thought is possible without perception, while I understand that thought, at a very basic level, is perception, albeit an emergent property of very complex perception. Thought can never be independant of perception. Reinterpret, close off parts of, open up parts of perception, yes. But escape it? No. A thing cannot escape that which it is made up of, and still be.

[ezekiel]

Namely, its the neurons in a brain percieving themselves and each other, or rather the interactions between them. My definition of perception specifically stated that there can be perception without thought, but not thought without perception. Try to read a bit more closely next time. This isn't a semantic problem, its a problem of understanding.

I fully read and understood your definition, I just think its ridiculous. Especially this new bit about neurons perceiving themselves. If you define thought as perception and interaction as perception then the argument is moot. I concede that using your definition of perception then everything is perception. I just think its a bad definition.

From Websters Dictionnary:

Main Entry: per·cep·tion

Pronunciation: p&r-'sep-sh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin perception-, perceptio act of perceiving, from percipere

Date: 14th century

1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT

2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS

3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience

4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition :

I maintain that cognition is possible independantly of perception.

[Nullifier]

I fully read and understood your definition, I just think its ridiculous. Especially this new bit about neurons perceiving themselves. If you define thought as perception and interaction as perception then the argument is moot. I concede that using your definition of perception then everything is perception. I just think its a bad definition.

From Websters Dictionnary:

Erm. You're welcome to think that. You're incorrect, of course, but you're welcome to it. Webster can go hang for all I care, as it does not truly define anything as such, but merely offers potential interpretations, many of which are useless in dertermining meaning.

I'll try to be a bit more complete though, in the hopes that you'll understand what I'm talking about. I define conscious thought as an emergent property stemming from the complex interaction of two different types of perception, themselves made up of the complex interaction of many, many other types of perception. Perception itself, however, is an emergent property stemming from the complex interaction of a large number of electrochemical processes occuring between certain types of cells, their environments, and each other. The brain is basically just a really big sensory organ. A large part of what it senses, i.e. percieves, however, is itself. This self perception leads to what we call conscious thought. A worm can percieve things. A worm does not, however, think. This is because its processing of its perceptions lacks the complexity necessary for thought. However, most of the higher animals think. They are even conscious, and perhaps even self-conscious to a certain degree. Not as much as humans, it must be said, but it's there. This is because they have developed what a worm has not: a truly complex self-sensing sense processing organ, what we commonly refer to as a brain. By sensing, i.e. percieving, itself a brain sets up feedback loops that create a highly effective and flexible pattern recognition and storage system. As the complexity of this system increases, through changes in size, structure, and interconnection, the feedback loops also grow in complexity, until at some point they develop into what we refer to as consciousness, which acts as a sort of buffer between internal and external perceptions, interpreting one through comparison to the other. What you refer to somewhat simply as thought emerges as a result of the increasing complexity of consciousness, when the buffer self organizes to the point where it is able to extrapolate from both internal and external perceptions in order to form its own unique useful patterns. Since a closed system can never be truly complex, external perceptions are as necessary to thought as internal ones. Fortunately, there's really no such thing as a closed system in this case, since internal perceptions are by their very nature external to some degree. However, I find it doubtful that a system's state could become complex enough for self-conscious thought without a significant amount of external perceptions outside of the externality of internal perceptions. Of course, once that level of complexity is reached, while the external perceptions are no longer strictly necessary for self-conscious thought, they do appear to be necessary to maintain the coherence of that thought. Indeed, if the amount of external perceptions drop below a certain level even, coherence will almost certainly be lost given a sufficent amount of time, unless the coherence is both strong and clever enough to begin with to preserve itself indefinately at such a low level of external perception, which is generally unheard of given enough time at a low enough level of external perception. So I'm not saying thought is perception per se, I'm saying that thought is created by perception. It's an emergent property, greater than the sum of its parts. However, its parts happen to be the interactions of many different perceptions and types of perceptions, both internal and external, and it can't exist without them.

As I said, you're quite welcome to not believe me, although it'd be unfortunate, as I think it's a shame for people to ignore truth, as little of it as there is in this world.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Perception is the final conclusion drawn after all sensory input is sent to the brain and processed. Perception is not thought as thought is internal regardless of whether or not it uses perception in the process. I could go into a massive spiel with more detail and reasons but it's not nessecary.

[ezekiel]

Well, el Kabeer beat me to it...must've taken quite some time to expose the "truth"... ::rolleyes

[Ayre el KaBeer]

lol not really i thought someone had already said it somewhere before, but instead i noticed that it was only being hinted at, as soon as i spotted that i decided to put it in.

[Nullifier]

Perception is the final conclusion drawn after all sensory input is sent to the brain and processed. Perception is not thought as thought is internal regardless of whether or not it uses perception in the process. I could go into a massive spiel with more detail and reasons but it's not nessecary.

Perhaps we are having a semantic problem after all. What you're refering to is what is generally called conscious, or more precisely self-conscious, perception. I'm just talking about perception itself. You're talking about that tiny, miniscule portion of perception that our consciousnesses filters out of the morass of sensation and presents to that set of complex feedback loops that we refer to as the I. I'm talking about what our sensory apparatus, as a whole, percieves. And I'm willing to agree that that tiny, filtered, altered, watered down, portion of what our bodies and brains percieve is to a certain extent rather unneccessary to the complex process of internal feedback loops of perceptions that is commonally called thought. Interesting little semantic mix-up there. I think it occured because I'm more concerned with base causes than with macro level assesments. *shrug* Happens all the time. ::wacko ::hehe

[phoenix]

I'll ignore the talk on the nature of consciousness because it's over my head.

However, Ezekiel:

Well, if Person A can't be accountable then his actions are pardoned, aren't they?

What I'm saying is that Person A took no actions. After the mind-altering drugs took effect, his mind was altered, and after that point he must be treated as under the control of a different mind. That different mind took the actions using his body, then returned it to him later. Person A had nothing to do with it.

[ezekiel]

Phoenix:

What I'm saying is that Person A took no actions. After the mind-altering drugs took effect, his mind was altered, and after that point he must be treated as under the control of a different mind. That different mind took the actions using his body, then returned it to him later. Person A had nothing to do with it.

I see what you're saying but it doesn't change the fact that actions were taken by A. The fact that he didn't have the mental capacity to realise what he was doing doesn't change the fact that he did it. He is the rapist, not someone else. It does, however, excuse him from responsibility. His actions are pardoned (not condoned).

Btw,

My challenge is still up, BTW, not a single circumstance that I can think of or that you guys have named justify rape.

If you're asking for someone to justify rape, then I do think the question is loaded. Unless the world is invaded by beautiful evil Amazon aliens who are invincible to everything but die through intercourse...then yes, rape is justified under those circumstances..(sounds like a porn movie script) ::tongue

But the act itself can be devoid of evil intents...its not inherantly evil.

[ezekiel]

Well, el Kabeer beat me to it...must've taken quite some time to expose the \"truth\"...

lol not really i thought someone had already said it somewhere before, but instead i noticed that it was only being hinted at, as soon as i spotted that i decided to put it in.

::wink I was hinting more at Nulli's longwinded discourse.

[phoenix]

If you're asking for someone to justify rape, then I do think the question is loaded. Unless the world is invaded by beautiful evil Amazon aliens who are invincible to everything but die through intercourse...then yes, rape is justified under those circumstances..

::dry Well, give me a ring when that happens..

[Ayre el KaBeer]

I was hinting more at Nulli's longwinded discourse.

Whoops.

[Finbar]

Having fun now..... ::sarcasm

Okay...Nullifier:

Your arguement breaks down because you are arguing perception vs. the ability to perceive that you perceive. Or, more accurately, to what degree that self-perception is important. because you keep confusing the two when you write (or at least it sounds like you are). Because of that, I believe that you bogging yourself down worrying about the definition of consciousness, and that is not germaine to this conversation. What is, is what makes a a group, and the individuals that make up that group, good or evil.

In terms of perception, we are not dealing with an individual's perception of his actions in terms of good or evil, but those of how society sees the group...

Interesting though it may be....

Phoenix:

I hate a challenge... ::devil

In some cases, an individual does such an heinous act that society has decreed that the individual must suffer above the norm for said crime. We tend to judge those crimes against children and women especially heinous, for both the futures cut short and the lives that were caused more suffering than the law allows for. In essence, we look at the potentiality cut short, directly (as in a child's death) or indirect (as in a woman being raped). In those instances, the punishment tends to be steeper, and even the most stringent anti-death penalty advocate has a problem when he finds himself defending the life of a childkiller...And eye-for-an-eye punishments are considered ideal for such crimes.

When those that have commited said crimes are sent to jail, it is done with the understanding that even the best defenses will not keep other inmates from inflicting their own punishments upon the criminal. At best, this is murder and minor humilation. However, the criminal is more than likely to raped repeatedly during his stay. In this one instance, I can see rape being justified, as it allows the criminal to feel the degradation and suffering he put his victim through, while allowing him to still live and hopefully learn not to do it again, for if he does it again....

Not happy doing it, but did I meet your challenge?

FR

[Finbar]

On the grounds that I'm not going to leave THAT as the last message...

Sorry if I got a bit out of bounds on that last response, but you had asked a pretty heinous question...Not trying to make an excuse, it's just that, as a puzzle, and me being someone who likes solving them, I figured I take a shot at it. Again, my apologies for that response...

FR

[Nullifier]

Actually, in my view what a person percieves and how they are able to deal with those perceptions in relation to their other perceptions, since that's all they have access to, directly affects their ability to act in a way that's even remotely good or right. If you're talking about what a society terms good or evil, again you've got problems, because first societal standards are somewhat arbitrary, and although they tend to have a least some basis in the who do unto others gschtick, none ever really adheres to it. Not to mention the fact that histories are invariably written by the winners. So groups deemed good or evil by one society may, are are even likely to, be deemed the exact opposite by another. Furthermore, individuals in various societies may believe differently from the society as a whole, further complicating things. In the end, it's only an individual's perceptions and how they relate to them that can determine good or evil, right or wrong, and that's only in relation to their other perceptions and actions. Everything else is just an illusion of one sort or another.

[T-dev]

If we abmit that goodness of evil actually exist, then by denifition they are objective standards. Ones perception of morality would not determine how moral one is. It would determine how responsible one is for how moral or immoral one is. If morality is not objective, then it is not really morality at all, it is personal perference.

See before we can go defining what actions are moral & how individuals interact with morality, we must define the nature of morality.

Now I am going to argue for an objective moral standard. My grounds for this are several. Firstly is that one only need to observe how individuals quarrel. We all know a starndard of fairness or basic morality. We all try to justify our behavior. We do not throw out the standard. We argue that for various reasons we are justified in any action we do. We don not say " To h*ll with your standard". Even cultures that did horrible things came up with a justification.

Secondly, we can not truely imagine a world where the opposite of our sense of morality opperates. Oh, we can play at it, but can anyone honestly say that deep down you don not know on an intuitive level that the imagined world is wrong?

Thirdly, morality is a human norm. I am not saying all humans believe the same system of moral values, but all have a system. They vary greatly, but all also claim an outside source for the validity of the system.

Fourthly, we all know that we do not live up to the fullest expression of morality. We all know that we fall short. We all have an ideal of moral perfection.

I would be interested in seeing what the board thinks of my thesis. I would to discuss it. One last thought, I am not trying to argue what is moral. I am arguing that morality exist & transcends the preference of individuals.

[T-dev]

Another thing, when someone argues that they can bring situation that challenges the morality of a particular ethically belief of makes an apperently moral action an immoral one, they are really making a strawman arguement.

When this sort of moral question comes up, it doesn't really challenge the morality of a claim, but instead invokes higher moral principles or brings unforeseen consequences to an action. Of course situations effect how morality is played out. After all situations bring morality up in the first place. When this sort of game is played, what is really being asked is what is the higher moral principle in that situation.

If anyone can think of a situation where what is normally moral becomes immoral due to circumstance then I can show you what I mean easily.

[Finbar]

From t-dev:

Another thing, when someone argues that they can bring situation that challenges the morality of a particular ethically belief of makes an apperently moral action an immoral one, they are really making a strawman arguement.

Actually, make that an easily nailed straw man argument. After all, we are looking at morals as a whole and exploring anomalies like that gives a better understanding. Especially given that in order to make it fit you need to ignore that any rule is geared toward the majority rather than the minority (but a good rule system allows for those exceptions).

However, what is tougher, due to the level of creativity required, is how to make a normally immoral act into one that can be moral in the right situation (love ya, phoenix ::sly ). After all, we then need to explore what makes the thing immoral in the first place, and finding a way to apply it for good rather than evil...

FR

[T-dev]

I would actually argue that since morality is an objective thing, then I would argue that any act that violates that standard is by definition immoral.

As to making an apparently immoral act seem moral, that is easy once you get someone to define what they consider moral.

Easy example, most people would say that the cold blooded murder of a child is wrong. Now to make it moral, let say you knew for certain that the child would grow up & kill every living thing on the planet & the only way to stop it from happening was to kill the child now. See it is not that hard.

[Nullifier]

Not to quibble over details, but I'm kinda lost on this whole morality thing. This discussion seems to revolve around the concept of right and rights. Theoretically, each of us has the right to do anything we want to and can do, and not to do anything we don't want to do. Unfortunately, these individual rights conflict with each other at times and therefore we adopt systems and standards of behaviour reinforced by familial and cultural moulding, i.e. ethics. Ethics are useful because while they may claim a higher source for inspiration, they tend to be flexible and open to interpretation. Morals, on the other hand, seem to always already bring with them a certain amount of both absolutism and inflexibility. So while it is certain that we have a need for certain ethical standards and systems in order to protect ourselves to a certain extent from seriously detremental violations of our natural rights, it is unnecessary, and in my opinion harmful even, to impose a system of absolute morals over our actions. That being said, I'd agree that there are definately things I find more and less pleasing in regards to the actions of myself and others. I have a sense of wrong and right, but to say that it defines an objective set of morals would be reading a bit much into it, imho.

[T-dev]

OK as to the terms ethics & morality. Strictly speaking ethics is the philosophical study of morality, but we use the two terms interchangably.

I would challenge you axiom that humans have the right to do anything they want to. Why do we ahve the right, on what basis to you make the claim? The only reasons I could really think of were twofold.

1) This is a cultural bias. Those of us living in modern Western culture have been taught & believe in individual rights being top dog. However, as culutre changes & not all cultures agree on this, then it must be proven that humans even have individual rights.

2) You are arguing from ability. Humans can do a great many things. They do pretty much anything they want to. However, just because we can do something does not give us the right to do it.

In the end you are arguing for objective morality. You are arguing that it is objectively true that all humans have the right to do what they want.

Lastly as to the distinction you are drawing between ethics & morality is a distinction without a difference. What you are really highlighting is 2 different ways of approaching the same issue. Ethics, the way you described it would just be a flexible system of morality. Morality as you used it would just be an inflexible form of ethics.

I am using morality as any way to view questions of right & wrong. Also saying that morality is objective does bring absolutism to the table; however, it does automatically mean that any application of morality (or ethics if you prefer ) has to be inflexible.

One last thing, if you really look at when someone is wronged in their mind, they don't argue that their preferences have been violated. They argue that an objective standard morality has been viollated, their rights.

[Nullifier]

2) You are arguing from ability. Humans can do a great many things. They do pretty much anything they want to. However, just because we can do something does not give us the right to do it.

In the end you are arguing for objective morality. You are arguing that it is objectively true that all humans have the right to do what they want.

Actually, having the ability to do something is the only way to claim that one has any right to do it. Any other claim of that sort needs to be based in a system of laws, etics, or morality that's already pre-existing. I'm arguing that it's objectively true that everything in the world has the right to do whatever it wants and is able to do. In the case of human interactions, however, these rights often interfere with each other. Thus we create systems and standards of behavior supposedly in an attempt to limit these conflicts. Ethics. Then those who have seized power through either force, guile, or both use our fear of the unknown, fear of pain, and compassion to try to make us believe that these ethical standards are somehow objective absolutes, morals. I don't believe in good and evil, or right and wrong. It's all relative, so what's good or right to me may be evil or wrong to someone else. ::devilangel ::malrules ::downmal

The distriction between morals and ethics in an important one, I think, because as long as we think of them interchangably, people get drawn into the idea that they really are the same, and that it's alright to have morals, these absolute standards of good and evil, right and wrong. I think that it's generally harmful to our culture and our species to be so rigid and inflexible in such a vital part of our thoughts about our interactions, and therefore it'd be better if we paid attention to the distinction and thought about this stuff only in terms of ethics and ethical choices. ::devilangel

::malrules