We don't go out of our way to kill eachother at every opportunity, do we? If we did, the species would not survive.
Someone said that between black and white there are shades of pink. I suspect they meant grey instead of pink.
We don't go out of our way to kill eachother at every opportunity, do we? If we did, the species would not survive.
Someone said that between black and white there are shades of pink. I suspect they meant grey instead of pink.
Pray tell, Typh, what do you consider relevant?Originally Posted by Typhlosion2.0
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Ninjas and pirates and gold!
Vikings own all 3.
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Do you understand a word you're saying? Emotions are caused by reactions in the nervous system from stimuli. The whole reason human beings are able to distinguish morality, ethics, right and wrong is because of 'state of mind'. Our ethical views are influenced and molded by society, there will never be a definite good or evil in the world because what we view as righteousness differs with time and with each individual.
How absolutely ridiculous a thing to say.
The Vikings were pirates. And everybody knows ninjas thrash pirates.
Anyway, to shift back on topic (happens occasionally), Wendy's right: emotions play an important part in deciding morality. To take it further, these emotional responses are in turn shaped by society. For example, if society had decided killing was right, then you would not be angry or horrified if you saw someone murdered, as this response is caused by the sight of such a blatant disregard of society's foundations (unless, of course, the murder was particularly violent and bloody or something, but that's just complicating things beyond the level required at the moment). You could say morality comes from emotions, but then these emotions come from the moral standards imposed by society, which in turn was created and is controlled by people; therefore, by extension, morality comes from us.
Yay, I used a semicolon! ^-^
First of all, you're both right. Andfor the semicolon, Ed.
The list is about an inch long. That should give you a pretty good idea.
If it doesn't, here's the list:
1. Things that are not influenced by society or any of its by-products.
Well, that includes, uh, mathematics. That's it. Hmm...
I believe it also includes, umm.......
Ummm......
A little help here?
Oh, I know! Gravity!
What else? Well, most of physics (which, let's face it, is maths)... Uh...
Yeah, that's about it.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT TO ANYTHING!
Right...
This is a great definition of the subject, It's from a D&D3.5 Book called 'The Book of Vile Darkness';
Hmm... Basically, that text just shows up some of the more problematic aspects of morality, doesn't it? I like it
This would literally right up my alley. Good and evil do exsist and are very important. The laws dictating good and evil are there to prevent anarchy. If there was no good and no evil there would only be chaos, after all, you could do whatever you wanted and wouldn't be in the wrong.
Ed, as for what you said about the sponges, that would not be hate, that would the instinct to survive. Humans are called "sentient beings". This is because humans are the only beings capable of higher thought. Unlike other beings we recognize time, past, present, and future. Animals only recognize the present and that the seasons will change. We also are the only beings that have a sense of self. If you put a mirror in front of any kind of animal, the animal will run, become offensive, or ignore it. One time I had a dog that saw itself in a mirror. It ran from one side to the other for about half an hour trying to find it's reflextion which it thought was another dog.
Paired with The Editor.
Chimps know the reflection is of them.
True, there woud be chaos, hence the need for society to invent morality.
Actually, all the apes (and possibly a few baboons) can distinguish themselves in mirrors. I forget if Dolphins can too but I imagine so.
Does that apply to animls then? After all, nature for all it's chaotic interaction follows certain rules. If predators suddenly decided to stop killing animals because killing is bad and turned to a vegetarian diet, they'd die of malnutrition and eventually the herbivores eat up all their natural resources. Thus, under some perversion of nature, life extnguishes itself.The laws dictating good and evil are there to prevent anarchy. If there was no good and no evil there would only be chaos, after all, you could do whatever you wanted and wouldn't be in the wrong.
I believe it also includes, umm.......
Ummm......
A little help here?
Oh, I know! Gravity!I wonder then if Math and Gravity think they're irrelevant and life and morality really matter. In the end, I don't suppose it matters much. Without a sentient mind to process it, there's really no point to math or gravity is there? And without a certain code of behavior to maintain survival and replication, there are no minds to determine what's influenced by society or it's byproducts.Well, that includes, uh, mathematics. That's it. Hmm...
For better or worse, everything is as relevant as everything else on some level.
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Wait, what? "Without a sentient mind to process it, there's really no point to math or gravity"!? Are you insane!? Gravity holds things together and allowed the universe to form, while mathematics is the backbone to the physical world. If even one basic law of mathematics was different, the entire concept of reality would be changed dramatically.
So what? Really, who would care or take notice?
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
They are natural laws, just like good and evil. I didn't say they weren't there, just that sub-sentient beings lack understanding of them other than to follow these "laws".
Paired with The Editor.
Nidogod, those are exceptions. Why else would there be carnivorous animals? They also keep balence.
Paired with The Editor.
Good and evil aren't natural laws. Like we've said, it's a social construct.
Does that really make them any less relevant? It's arguable that we wouldn't even understand math or gravity if we didn't have social constructs.
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Throughout every society there are certain things that are universally encouraged or discourages. So no, not really.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
