How Far is "Too Far?"

[teheviltwin]

The CWCki forums: where poking fun at an incontinent manchild intersects with the philosophical debate on ethics

OPL inspires so many things.

 

[Cwckifan]

My point wasn't really to prove that everyone agrees with what I'm saying, because nobody agrees with everything.It was to show that that my code--which is entirely based on objective realities, and absolutely no judgements or opinions of any kind

Kid, everything you have been saying is an opinion or arbitrary line-drawing. Every single part of it. You claim you have no hand in creating the problems of the meat industry, but you ignore that every individual consumer has a part to play. You constantly make assumptions about "well of course we can all agree on X and Y and Z". You act like the food you eat and the money you spend and the car you drive and the house you live in are magically disconnected from the greater world they impact simply because you want them to be and don't want to be held responsible for thinking about the really tough questions.

Honestly, can we just abandon this topic or lock the thread or something? I recognize that cwckifan is being pretty polite about his beliefs so I don't mean to call him immature, but I'm getting tired of arguing with someone who sounds like he just passed his Philosophy 101 course and now thinks he found the answer that Aristotle never could.

Do you want to continue on general, or privately, or something? This is an important topic to me, and any way I could improve my ethical code, I'd welcome it. Really, I'm not trying to troll (and I hope I'm not), but I can't see how anyone could disagree with what I'm saying. Also, I didn't pull these beliefs out of thin air, so much as they're actually based on an actual biological basis of Human rights (the theory of biological jurisprudence)

 

[Christ-Chan]

I think this thread is going down the shitter soon so I'll just get a shot in before the bell rings.

I really wished I wouldn't have inquired about the circumstances of Marvin's knowledge now that I've seen what a flood of shit I inadvertently released. I never wanted to hear any audio, I never wanted any "proof" of anything, all I meant to ask was "did you guys call Chris, and if so under what guise?". I thought we might get to learn if there were further Jackie calls or whatever, but man did that spin out of control.

So I guess I just want to apologize to the forums for unscrewing that lid.

 

[teheviltwin]

Well since we obviously can't get permission from everyone to do everything, it makes sense that we should only be concerned about how we effect others when we act on them, and how to appropriately react when others act on us. Seriously, suppose someone was offended by your having a game console, because they can't afford one; does this mean you have to apologize for it, or throw it away? Suppose someone is offended by whatever you're wearing, or that you drive a car, or that you go to a certain coffee store; are you obligated to change your clothes, sell your car, or shop for coffee elsewhere? Really, if you're not acting on anybody, then your life and habits really aren't their concern, and vice-versa. As such, if I had nothing to do with the death of slaughtered animals, and couldn't prevent it, then what's the problem? Is it unethical to eat road kill? How are they different?

These days people get offended by everything so I'm not sure how that applies. If you give your money to battery farmers you are contributing to battery farming. Maybe not the animal you just ate but the next lot they slaughter. If your coffee/clothes etc are manufactured by forced child labour then you are supporting that industry. So to have the ethical code of doing no harm whilst contributing to these things comes across as rather hypocritical.

Even with things like prison vs death penalty. The amount of money paid out to keep incurable psychopaths/paedophiles etc in prison is astronomical. That money could severely reduce the suffering of many in a community.

 

[Cwckifan]

My point wasn't really to prove that everyone agrees with what I'm saying, because nobody agrees with everything.It was to show that that my code--which is entirely based on objective realities, and absolutely no judgements or opinions of any kind

Kid, everything you have been saying is an opinion or arbitrary line-drawing. Every single part of it. You claim you have no hand in creating the problems of the meat industry, but you ignore that every individual consumer has a part to play. You constantly make assumptions about "well of course we can all agree on X and Y and Z". You act like the food you eat and the money you spend and the car you drive and the house you live in are magically disconnected from the greater world they impact simply because you want them to be and don't want to be held responsible for thinking about the really tough questions.

So what are you saying, Alec? That everyone is responsible for everything, regardless of their actual involvement? That it's our responsibility to look after the well-being of everyone and everything else, even though we all have our own problems to solve, lives to live, and expenses to cope with? That if someone is in a business that involves harming others, it's our fault for being customers (which we may not have a choice in) and not their fault for knowingly and willingly deciding to go into something that hurts others? Stop me if I'm getting this wrong, because that's what it looks like to me

Well since we obviously can't get permission from everyone to do everything, it makes sense that we should only be concerned about how we effect others when we act on them, and how to appropriately react when others act on us. Seriously, suppose someone was offended by your having a game console, because they can't afford one; does this mean you have to apologize for it, or throw it away? Suppose someone is offended by whatever you're wearing, or that you drive a car, or that you go to a certain coffee store; are you obligated to change your clothes, sell your car, or shop for coffee elsewhere? Really, if you're not acting on anybody, then your life and habits really aren't their concern, and vice-versa. As such, if I had nothing to do with the death of slaughtered animals, and couldn't prevent it, then what's the problem? Is it unethical to eat road kill? How are they different?

These days people get offended by everything so I'm not sure how that applies. If you give your money to battery farmers you are contributing to battery farming. Maybe not the animal you just ate but the next lot they slaughter. If your coffee/clothes etc are manufactured by forced child labour then you are supporting that industry. So to have the ethical code of doing no harm whilst contributing to these things comes across as rather hypocritical.

How? I would contend that it's no more hypocritical than not supporting the Iraq war, while still driving a car. Really, short of living in a cave (where you may still harm microbial communities), there's no way to live without impacting something, somewhere. As such, we should really only be concerned with what we do to others, and what others do to us. If everyone did that, there'd be nothing to worry about

Even with things like prison vs death penalty. The amount of money paid out to keep incurable psychopaths/paedophiles etc in prison is astronomical. That money could severely reduce the suffering of many in a community.

Eh, it's the money of the prison industry, and they can use it how they want, I guess

 

[BT 075]

You impact things. Big deal. I impact lotsa things. It's a really good opening line too: "Hey gurl, come with me and imma impact you soooo good"
Yep, definetely trying that one sometime.

 

[Cwckifan]

Use that line, and I'll give you a cookie

 

[teheviltwin]

How? I would contend that it's no more hypocritical than not supporting the Iraq war, while still driving a car. Really, short of living in a cave (where you may still harm microbial communities), there's no way to live without impacting something, somewhere. As such, we should really only be concerned with what we do to others, and what others do to us. If everyone did that, there'd be nothing to worry about.

There are always choices. You could buy clothes second hand or buy fair trade. You could refuse to give your money to people who mistreat animals. It's your code of ethics that you are not supporting with your actions.

Eh, it's the money of the prison industry, and they can use it how they want, I guess

 

[Cwckifan]

How? I would contend that it's no more hypocritical than not supporting the Iraq war, while still driving a car. Really, short of living in a cave (where you may still harm microbial communities), there's no way to live without impacting something, somewhere. As such, we should really only be concerned with what we do to others, and what others do to us. If everyone did that, there'd be nothing to worry about.

There are always choices. You could buy clothes second hand or buy fair trade. You could refuse to give your money to people who mistreat animals. It's your code of ethics that you are not supporting with your actions.

I don't see how. I can't always buy organic or from thrift shops (although all of my clothes are second-hand), so it's not for lack of trying. Also, the very fact stands that unless you act on someone, you're not responsible for their actions

Eh, it's the money of the prison industry, and they can use it how they want, I guess

I mean, it's their money, and their free to use it how they wish

 

[teheviltwin]

Nope, can't continue this. You're very polite but it'd take too much explaining and even then it's debatable if it'd sink in.

 

[FreeBitch]

I think this thread is going down the shitter soon so I'll just get a shot in before the bell rings.

I really wished I wouldn't have inquired about the circumstances of Marvin's knowledge now that I've seen what a flood of shit I inadvertently released. I never wanted to hear any audio, I never wanted any "proof" of anything, all I meant to ask was "did you guys call Chris, and if so under what guise?". I thought we might get to learn if there were further Jackie calls or whatever, but man did that spin out of control.

So I guess I just want to apologize to the forums for unscrewing that lid.

Το κουτί της Πανδώρας

 

[Cwckifan]

Nope, can't continue this. You're very polite but it'd take too much explaining and even then it's debatable if it'd sink in.

Fair enough. Short version is, it's wrong to hurt innocents, and so we should never do it. I should probably get back to my homework now!

 

[Holdek]

I don't buy that 'greater good' crap, and care more for individual liberty and rights

Holodek, there is absolutely nothing in my view of ethics that is based on opinion, and that's the beauty of it. Really, is there anything in there that is not based on solid, objective fact? Ethics basically just means treating others the right way, and since we can all agree that the right way is a way which doesn't cause harm, everything else just flows logically from there
. Really, have differing opinions if you want, but the beauty of fundamentals is that their strength isn't reliant upon them

I don't intend for this to be insulting, but how old are you/what level of school have you completed? This can be a hairy subject to get into and I want to make sure it's worth my while, and you have claimed to achieved a feat that no one, going back to and including Aristotle, has managed to do so far.

For what It's worth, what difference does it make? I'm a grown-up, Holodek, and if you want to critique my philosophy, I'm not going to throw myself on the floor and tantrum. Hell, since this is the code I often follow, any improvements would only be met with open arms. After all, anything to make everything better for everyone, right?

I have no desire to critique your philosophy. What I have a desire for is you to understand that your philosophy is not objectively better than any other. I ask what your knowledge base is because I don't want to spend a lot of time or energy discussing something as intellectually challenging and knowledge-dependent as philosophy with someone who doesn't even understand that very fact.

 

[Christ-Chan]

Το κουτί της Πανδώρας

Yeah, that's a pretty apt comparison! But I've still got Hope stuck in the jar - or is that just how we perceive Marvin?

 

[Hyperion]

Το κουτί της Πανδώρας

NOU

 

[Cwckifan]

I have no desire to critique your philosophy. What I have a desire for is you to understand that your philosophy is not objectively better than any other. I ask what your knowledge base is because I don't want to spend a lot of time or energy discussing something as intellectually challenging and knowledge-dependent as philosophy with someone who doesn't even understand that very fact.

I wasn't trying to prove it was 'better', but rather show that there is an objective basis for ethics. Think of it like this; my philosophy doesn't justify harming innocent beings, excessive punishment, or being held responsible for not helping problems you have nothing to do with. Something tells me that if you're the one being acted on, punished, chastised for a problem you didn't cause and had no obligation to help, or being told that you must sacrifice your scarce resources for the 'greater good' (effects on you be damned), you would find it quite useful

 

[Holdek]

My point wasn't really to prove that everyone agrees with what I'm saying, because nobody agrees with everything.It was to show that that my code--which is entirely based on objective realities, and absolutely no judgements or opinions of any kind

Kid, everything you have been saying is an opinion or arbitrary line-drawing. Every single part of it. You claim you have no hand in creating the problems of the meat industry, but you ignore that every individual consumer has a part to play. You constantly make assumptions about "well of course we can all agree on X and Y and Z". You act like the food you eat and the money you spend and the car you drive and the house you live in are magically disconnected from the greater world they impact simply because you want them to be and don't want to be held responsible for thinking about the really tough questions.

Honestly, can we just abandon this topic or lock the thread or something? I recognize that cwckifan is being pretty polite about his beliefs so I don't mean to call him immature, but I'm getting tired of arguing with someone who sounds like he just passed his Philosophy 101 course and now thinks he found the answer that Aristotle never could.

I think it's best forked off to a thread called "Ethics" in Deep Thoughts in General that cwckifan can create if he wants to engage in debate there with anyone who shares that desire. I can tell him, though, that starting out with "This is ethics therefore it's bulletproof" will be met with a lot of non-response or perhaps hostility. He's actually lucky he made this mistake in this community first; folks here have been patient and polite but on other forums posting something like this would result in a lot of SLADEROUS MOCKERY.

 

[Hyperion]

[youtube]Ctu8Pqgrn9g[/youtube]

 

[Cwckifan]

My point wasn't really to prove that everyone agrees with what I'm saying, because nobody agrees with everything.It was to show that that my code--which is entirely based on objective realities, and absolutely no judgements or opinions of any kind

Kid, everything you have been saying is an opinion or arbitrary line-drawing. Every single part of it. You claim you have no hand in creating the problems of the meat industry, but you ignore that every individual consumer has a part to play. You constantly make assumptions about "well of course we can all agree on X and Y and Z". You act like the food you eat and the money you spend and the car you drive and the house you live in are magically disconnected from the greater world they impact simply because you want them to be and don't want to be held responsible for thinking about the really tough questions.

Honestly, can we just abandon this topic or lock the thread or something? I recognize that cwckifan is being pretty polite about his beliefs so I don't mean to call him immature, but I'm getting tired of arguing with someone who sounds like he just passed his Philosophy 101 course and now thinks he found the answer that Aristotle never could.

I think it's best forked off to a thread called "Ethics" in Deep Thoughts in General that cwckifan can create if he wants to engage in DEBATE there with anyone who shares that desire. I can tell him, though, that starting out with, "This is ethics therefore it's bulletproof," will be met with a lot of non-response or perhaps hostility. He's actually lucky he made this mistake in this community first; folks here have been patient and polite but on other forums posting something like this would result in a lot of SLADEROUS MOCKERY.

And for everything you've said, you've not actually addressed anything I've said, beyond 'nope, sorry, uh-uh', with basically any real reasoning behind it. If you want to go to another thread, I will, but keep in mind that my assertions do have a solid basis

 

[Marvin]

I have no desire to critique your philosophy. What I have a desire for is you to understand that your philosophy is not objectively better than any other. I ask what your knowledge base is because I don't want to spend a lot of time or energy discussing something as intellectually challenging and knowledge-dependent as philosophy with someone who doesn't even understand that very fact.

I wasn't trying to prove it was 'better', but rather show that there is an objective basis for ethics. Think of it like this; my philosophy doesn't justify harming innocent beings, excessive punishment, or being held responsible for not helping problems you have nothing to do with. Something tells me that if you're the one being acted on, punished, chastised for a problem you didn't cause and had no obligation to help, or being told that you must sacrifice your scarce resources for the 'greater good' (effects on you be damned), you would find it quite useful

But that's the thing. There isn't an objective basis for ethics. Your philosophy might meet your requirements, but not everyone has the same goals.