Inconsistency Of Moral And Ethical Values.

[billyjack]

If you can't compete with a man in a debate of philosophy attack the definition of his philosophy.

(How original.)

Those dam impure nihilists and pessimists. The scurge and scum of humanity.

when the foundation is cracked i dont address the exterior.

[Mr Hyde]

when the foundation is cracked i dont address the exterior.

Your full of hot air. Much like those historical windbags who would discuss the ideal moral citizen and grand sweeping utopias coming into existence three hundred years ago.

What great prophets they turned out to be.

[billyjack]

Your full of hot air. Much like those historical windbags who would discuss the ideal moral citizen and grand sweeping utopias coming into existence three hundred years ago.

What great prophets they turned out to be.

I can appreciate your acceptance of immoralities, thats better than denying them or wishing them out of existence, but with that said, its strange that you deny their opposite's existence or possibility there of. light and dark, good and bad--they all exist only because of their opposite and our ability to thereby differentiate, note, and then judge in accordance to social standards. sure immorality and cruelty exist, but so do virtue and common decency.

we might be living in a utopia right now, that's for the historians to decide. but we as a people can still strive for betterment/harmony(which by the way could include wars). what else are we gonna do? throw the towel in? boo to that

[yanni]

"I always thought the connecting tissue of society was inequality, blackmail,violence and competition.....human cruelty and control is the dominant feature of man amongst man"

Inequality is a fact of life (nature) that can't be bypassed by any constitution (that furthemore deifies competition, free trade and laissez faire).
Blackmail and violence are crimes usually punishable in any society, there are many "societies within society" that oppose "cruelty" (that would have you as member) and as for "control" you failed to mention the media (as a means of) and their relatively recent rival, the web, that allows for "free expression and exchange of ideas between individuals".

You bypassed my comment re the hypocricy of one society imposing itself violently onto another and admitted, more or less, your submission to- my hint of- a "cannibal" society.

It all boils down to what "you" choose as "moral" principles, how "you" decide to live your life, what "your" moral concessions are to survive, what "your" greed (consummer) limits are, what YOU do to oppose injustice.

[Scheherazade]

.

Please do not personalise your comments.

Posts containing inflammatory and/or personal comments will be deleted without further notice.

.

[Mr Hyde]

I can appreciate your acceptance of immoralities, thats better than denying them or wishing them out of existence,

Thanks.

but with that said, its strange that you deny their opposite's existence or possibility there of.

That's because I deny dualism.

light and dark, good and bad--they all exist

You speak of black and white but I all I see is bitter grey.

we might be living in a utopia right now,

that's for the historians to decide.

Through bias no doubt.

but we as a people can still strive for betterment/harmony

In my eyes that will never happen.

what else are we gonna do? throw the towel in? boo to that

I look at most of civilized life as a joke and a waste of time.

But I suppose it other people's time if they wish to waste it.

Inequality is a fact of life (nature) that can't be bypassed by any constitution

In otherwords it can't be bypassed by any idea, moral, principle, symbol, metaphor or ethic.

Atleast your honest compared to most.

Blackmail and violence are crimes usually punishable in any society,

Although if you use blackmail and violence through that of governmental legislation it is considered perfectly legal if not necessary at times.

there are many "societies within society" that oppose "cruelty" (that would have you as member)

(Curious) Please elaborate.

and as for "control" you failed to mention the media (as a means of)

To me the media and government are practically the same thing.

( Same creature.)

and their relatively recent rival, the web, that allows for "free expression and exchange of ideas between individuals".

Of course many are trying to fight net neutrality as we speak.

( How along will it be before unrestricted expression goes by the way side?)

You bypassed my comment re the hypocricy of one society imposing itself violently onto another and admitted, more or less, your submission to- my hint of- a "cannibal" society.

I bypassed it because I didn't really understand it although I'm willing to listen.

[billyjack]

That's because I deny dualism.

admitting the existence of opposites that clearly exist isnt dualism.

You speak of black and white but I all I see is bitter grey.

i see a touch of grey

I look at most of civilized life as a joke and a waste of time.

But I suppose it other people's time if they wish to waste it.

Life IS funny. who's to say whats a waste and whats not.

[Mr Hyde]

It all boils down to what "you" choose as "moral" principles,

Or if you even choose any at all. I have no moral principles myself. I'm somewhat a opportunist.

how "you" decide to live your life,

Unfortunately the limits of everyone's life who exists today is dictated by the entity of society.

Nobody really chooses the way to live their life within society. Everyone is either given choices directed and illustrated by society itself or there are those who are not given any choices at all.

Genuine undetermined choice is imaginary.

what "your" moral concessions are to survive, what "your" greed (consummer) limits are,

I have none personally.

what YOU do to oppose injustice.

In a world of nature where inequality happens naturally injustice is an illusion.

admitting the existence of opposites that clearly exist isnt dualism.

Your moral opinions are dualist. I'm more of a pluralist or monist myself.

Life IS funny. who's to say whats a waste and whats not.

I say it all the time. Don't get me confused for I'm not saying private life is a waste of time but merely I look at all public and civic life as a waste of time.

[billyjack]

Your moral opinions are dualist. I'm more of a pluralist or monist myself.



I say it all the time. Don't get me confused for I'm not saying private life is a waste of time but merely I look at all public and civic life as a waste of time.

monist as well. no need to eradicate differences to preserve a feeling of oneness

public life's not so bad. that how people come together and make more people. your here right?

[Mr Hyde]

public life's not so bad. that how people come together and make more people. your here right?

Noone is truely unified together publically or by that of civic transactions.

Life is operated through self interests.

[yanni]

"the limits of everyone's life who exists today is dictated by the entity of society....Nobody really chooses the way to live their life within society. ...Everyone is either given choices directed and illustrated by society itself or there are those who are not given any choices at all"

In other words society imposes on you certain rules (aka laws, morals, ethics) you find hard to obey but still refuse to withdraw (to become a hermit for instance) and select to live as "consummer unlimited".

"In a world of nature where inequality happens naturally injustice is an illusion."

It's not when you are caught breaking the law. I do agree however that justice should provide for the fact that people were not "created equal", have different needs and should be judged accordingly, ie "not equal before the law".

"I have no moral principles myself....."

Then why complain?

[Mr Hyde]

In other words society imposes on you certain rules (aka laws, morals, ethics) you find hard to obey but still refuse to withdraw (to become a hermit for instance) and select to live as "consummer unlimited".

Wasn't quite clear where you were going with that statement.

Can you please explain further?

It's not when you are caught breaking the law.

Only through other people's perspective, preferences and bias.

I do agree however that justice should provide for the fact that people were not "created equal", have different needs and should be judged accordingly, ie "not equal before the law".

I can see that.

Then why complain?

I despise other people's pretentious hypocrisy.

[yanni]

Wasn't quite clear where you were going with that statement. Can you please explain further?

I can but there is no need to, I was clear enough!

I despise other people's pretentious hypocrisy.

So do I:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=38358