Yeah, I agree that people who break their own moral code, to the point where they would consider themselves evil, are rare. But that is partly because if people persist in doing something they consider to be wrong, they will try more strongly to rationalize it. To me, the truly "evil" people are the ones who have rationalized bad behavior for so long, that they believe it themselves. At that point, they aren't really capable of changing.
But while I believe that good and evil are more than subjective points of view, I don't think that most people can be pidgeonholed into one or the other - we are more complex than that.
My main point was, don't assume that everyone's moral code is always what they say it is.
Full Version: Evil in SR - imbrace chaos
Of cause there moral code isn’t what they say it is. If you can find somebody that can honestly define there moral code in less than 20 pages I would like to read it. I have enough trouble trying to understand my own moral code and could not begin to explain it to somebody else.
There are very few people that if shown there actions under the pretence of being the actions of another would consider themselves evil. In fact I know only one person that would and he will admit it if only to himself and a couple of others (although I don’t know if he would have at the time.)
Edward
There are very few people that if shown there actions under the pretence of being the actions of another would consider themselves evil. In fact I know only one person that would and he will admit it if only to himself and a couple of others (although I don’t know if he would have at the time.)
Edward
It's easy to give a brief overview of your moral code. It's nearly impossible to explain the nuances.
I mean, how do you explain how your moral code responds to something you never thought you'd encounter? If you honestly never gave any thought to a really odd situation, how your moral code will cover it isn't known. It will cover it -- there will be some adaptation or elaboration, but you won't know how until it happens (or you think about it).
Most moral codes can be boiled down to basic principles.. Christianity it boils down to the 10 commandments, plus a few glaring ommissions. Mine boils down to a single line, which is broad-sweeping "If it harms none, do what you want", but you wrestle with the idea of 'harm' so long morality becomes a complicated study.. and unlike the typical 'thou shalt not' form, inaction is just as wrong as action can be.
I mean, how do you explain how your moral code responds to something you never thought you'd encounter? If you honestly never gave any thought to a really odd situation, how your moral code will cover it isn't known. It will cover it -- there will be some adaptation or elaboration, but you won't know how until it happens (or you think about it).
Most moral codes can be boiled down to basic principles.. Christianity it boils down to the 10 commandments, plus a few glaring ommissions. Mine boils down to a single line, which is broad-sweeping "If it harms none, do what you want", but you wrestle with the idea of 'harm' so long morality becomes a complicated study.. and unlike the typical 'thou shalt not' form, inaction is just as wrong as action can be.
| QUOTE (Vuron) | ||||
There is some scholarship that tends to view the incest prohibtion as being related to a form of social contract due to the negative effects of sustained inbreeding on the sustainablity if a species. So if you follow that basic morality comes biological needs the incest prohibtion is a moral absolute developed to insure the common good of the society. |
Most forms of incest that are currently held as alright by any cultures are either too infrequent to really matter, or cannot bring forth offspring. Father-son fellatio, for instance, is not only common, but a required practice among an African tribe who's name I've forgotten (my wife studied it for her World Sexuality class).
Charon, it doesn't appear in the newspapers because it's so common it's not news, and because it really doesn't effect you. It's like saying 'Jews in Israel celebrated Passover this spring!' Of course they did. They've done so every year since Moses.
The same can be said of murder. There is a social contract against murder in most cultures. You can't just kill anyone for any reason, and you must pay recompense. If it's a slave, you pay for the slave. If it's a woman, you pay the price for her unborn child if she's pregnant, or the price of a new wife otherwise. However, there are cases when it's considered alright; the cop with the bank robber, the virgin at the Aztec sacrifice, the soldiers in the field fighting for 'freedom'.
There are moral absolutes across all functioning cultures. They serve to keep the society running. There are also exceptions across most cultures. Evil is anything that works to destroy society. Not change, destroy. The predator may be good, because it helps the herd, but the virus that leaves none alive is not.
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| Personally the only reason I don’t sware often is it offends people but I honestly do not understand what power words like fuck, hell and shit have that these people can not bare to hear them. If you know pleas tell me. |
Regarding the use of swearing in language, I personally think swearing is a tool used to put stress on a point. It works very well, but you have to use it in moderation. If you use it too often you make the power it gives to your language worthless. I'll give you an example of how it can be used to put stress on language, and I'll even use a "light" swear word.
Picture this, remember in "Pulp Fiction" where Vincent and Jules were speaking to the kids in the beginning, and Jules asked one of the kids a question. When one of the other kids interrupts he says something.
If Jules Winfield were using normal words he would have said something like this, " I don't remember asking you a thing!"
Now, using a lesser swear word we can get this, "I don't remember asking you a damn thing!" Can you read/hear how just that one word puts depth and impact on the statement?
Now lets go one step further to what is actually in the script, "I don't remember asking you a God damn thing!" Just using that deity's name puts even more impact on the statement. Behold the power of profanity.
It appears that there are a lot of people who disagree with the dictionary definition of the word "evil." At least from the way people are discussing it. Evil does exist. It's just not as supernatural as a lot of you are making it out to be.
Check the definition again.
Check the definition again.
I see but why would a word that ads emphasis be offensive.
My lack of understanding could come from the fact that when I was young my friends and I would swear all the time; in fact it wasn’t until the swearing stopped that you realized the persona was actually serious.
Edward
My lack of understanding could come from the fact that when I was young my friends and I would swear all the time; in fact it wasn’t until the swearing stopped that you realized the persona was actually serious.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| I see but why would a word that ads emphasis be offensive. |
The word was originally offensive, then a subculture decided to try to offend everyone. For some reason, this subculture took over most of the entertainment industry and started using such terms as punctuation, leading to the generation that has no idea why anyone would be offended.
Really, such words usually only serve to indicate the inability of a person to create a coherent statement, so they rely on dozen points of emphasis (believing that doing so evades the need for meaning). In some instances, this is to be expected, but there are other terms that can also indicate the same meaning.
Even the meanings they used to have don’t seem all that offensive to me. At least not any more than other words of the same meaning. .how is “this smells like crap” more offensive than “this smells really bad” or “this smells like fecies” (beyond that I know how to spell crap and bearing in mind that the object in question could well be some form of excrement)
If you are actually thinking in terms of the old meanings the common usage isn’t so much offensive as it is non scenical. What exactly dose “fuck off” actually mean and dose it make any scence in the context it is commonly heard.
If somebody made a comment like that and my only experience of the word fuck was meaning the act of sex with overtones of violence I would not be nearly so much offended as I was confused.
But perhaps this is a bit far of topic.
Edward
If you are actually thinking in terms of the old meanings the common usage isn’t so much offensive as it is non scenical. What exactly dose “fuck off” actually mean and dose it make any scence in the context it is commonly heard.
If somebody made a comment like that and my only experience of the word fuck was meaning the act of sex with overtones of violence I would not be nearly so much offended as I was confused.
But perhaps this is a bit far of topic.
Edward
| QUOTE (Edward) |
| But perhaps this is a bit far of topic. |
Quite definately. The argument over moral relativism was already off topic.
Each of your example terms has a different history which may explain how they became offensive instead of just descriptive. I do not have those progressions, but if you research you could probably find them. However, consider that a mispronunciation (or even abbreviation) of a term can become slander if those who it describes only hear it said with hate.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.