A Discussion on Ethics Options

[DoomedOne]

Due to the flame war I started in the Coffee Shop (more like a flame execution) by merely discussing my day, I think it's clear something of this magnitude should be given it's own topic, so here it is.

I'll give some rules:

No flaming and no disrespect. All standard forum rules hold here. This is a thread for people's personal discussions on ethics and justification for their actions. I know people can feel very strongly about these sorts of things but no one has the right to insult or attack people instead of their ideas. Also, for those being attacked, remember don't mistake an attack on your ideas as an attack on you.

So this was spawned due to this idea: Is there any justification in stealing?

[DoomedOne]

I see ethics as a paradigm, not as a choice between right and wrong but as a choice between shame and pride in some cases, or punishment and reward, or life and death. Life has presented me with no evidence that right and wrong actually exist, and that ethics in themselves are social paradigms. I mean, that's what makes it so hard to disect classism in India. According to Hinduism, you are born into a certain class because karma has placed you there, but that sort of contradicts the age old theorem that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Take the upper classes in India, the way they treat people, it's pretty clear they aren't higher beings, and they certainly are building up a lot of bad karma.

So, occasionally people like Meher Baba and Gandhi come along, part of the Hindu and Indian culture, part of that society, proclaiming the flaws in the ethical systems within that society, and it seems pretty clear once someone from within speaks out about it, everyone else is allowed to then criticize that society.

And now, let's look at the law. The law is supposedly a way to bridge higher ethical choices between what's right and wrong into a simple crime=punishment dichotomy. They take the thinking out of it, and in that sense I think people who follow the law as the highest ethical judge are immature people. Look at how the law is processed. The legislative branch members of this government, throughout the last 20 years have proven time and time again their only accomplishments, their only multipartisan decisions are ones that increase their pay and their incumbancy, and they are the ones writing these laws. The fact is the only way to get any real progress done and put in writing in this country to jerry mander the congress, rig the election, control the media and stuff a million dollars down the throat of anyone with power who protests. And even then, half the country or more will disagree with the progress. So what is the law but the half-assed result of bribes, corruption, deceit and crooked politics. What is the constitution but an outdated edit to the Articles of Confederation, and an edit made in the persuit of power. How many brave men have spilt blood fighting against blind loyalty to bad laws? People who blindly follow the law are merely Dogmatists in the religion of Patriotism. And I don't mean to offend dogmatists, but dogmatism is a stunt in real moral growth.

In ten years I will believe in very different morals than I do right now, and it's because I allow my ethics to build themselves based on practice, based on understanding, based on growing my perspective and enduring real experience. I understand what I can accomplish and what I can't. I could say I have the rigid ethical statement that anything done in favor of the preservation and prosperity of life in it's most natural, sustainable form is good and anything that means progress in the opposite is bad, but what I learned is trying to justify any actions usually ends up as a cover for something greedy. I have found I have a very strong conscience, and so I'll accept that I'm honoured user, and that I was a honoured user when I made the choice to be a meat-eater. Despite that I know people don't deserve to suffer, and that if I stand still and allow injustice to occur then I am part of that injustice, and that words without actions are useless... I could go on with these little things I've learned based on my own experiences forever, but I'd rather just finish hoping I've made a point somewhere.

As far as stealing goes, well I couldn't care less about what the law says. I couldn't care less if it was from an immoral company, or a company that has done something or put money into something that I consider unjust. I wouldn't call it ethical, especially if I have nothing to lose by not stealing, there's just no way you could convince me stealing is wrong no matter what.

[Dantrag]

I see ethics as a paradigm, not as a choice between right and wrong but as a choice between shame and pride in some cases, or punishment and reward, or life and death. Life has presented me with no evidence that right and wrong actually exist, and that ethics in themselves are social paradigms. I mean, that's what makes it so hard to disect classism in India. According to Hinduism, you are born into a certain class because karma has placed you there, but that sort of contradicts the age old theorem that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Take the upper classes in India, the way they treat people, it's pretty clear they aren't higher beings, and they certainly are building up a lot of bad karma.

So, occasionally people like Meher Baba and Gandhi come along, part of the Hindu and Indian culture, part of that society, proclaiming the flaws in the ethical systems within that society, and it seems pretty clear once someone from within speaks out about it, everyone else is allowed to then criticize that society.

And now, let's look at the law. The law is supposedly a way to bridge higher ethical choices between what's right and wrong into a simple crime=punishment dichotomy. They take the thinking out of it, and in that sense I think people who follow the law as the highest ethical judge are immature people. Look at how the law is processed. The legislative branch members of this government, throughout the last 20 years have proven time and time again their only accomplishments, their only multipartisan decisions are ones that increase their pay and their incumbancy, and they are the ones writing these laws. The fact is the only way to get any real progress done and put in writing in this country to jerry mander the congress, rig the election, control the media and stuff a million dollars down the throat of anyone with power who protests. And even then, half the country or more will disagree with the progress. So what is the law but the half-assed result of bribes, corruption, deceit and crooked politics. What is the constitution but an outdated edit to the Articles of Confederation, and an edit made in the persuit of power. How many brave men have spilt blood fighting against blind loyalty to bad laws? People who blindly follow the law are merely Dogmatists in the religion of Patriotism. And I don't mean to offend dogmatists, but dogmatism is a stunt in real moral growth.

In ten years I will believe in very different morals than I do right now, and it's because I allow my ethics to build themselves based on practice, based on understanding, based on growing my perspective and enduring real experience. I understand what I can accomplish and what I can't. I could say I have the rigid ethical statement that anything done in favor of the preservation and prosperity of life in it's most natural, sustainable form is good and anything that means progress in the opposite is bad, but what I learned is trying to justify any actions usually ends up as a cover for something greedy. I have found I have a very strong conscience, and so I'll accept that I'm honoured user, and that I was a honoured user when I made the choice to be a meat-eater. Despite that I know people don't deserve to suffer, and that if I stand still and allow injustice to occur then I am part of that injustice, and that words without actions are useless... I could go on with these little things I've learned based on my own experiences forever, but I'd rather just finish hoping I've made a point somewhere.

As far as stealing goes, well I couldn't care less about what the law says. I couldn't care less if it was from an immoral company, or a company that has done something or put money into something that I consider unjust. I wouldn't call it ethical, especially if I have nothing to lose by not stealing, there's just no way you could convince me stealing is wrong no matter what.

Pride vs. shame, punishment vs. reward, life vs. death. If you (a general you, not directed at anyone in particular, just used for the sake of argument) play by those rules, what do you live for? Yourself? Relativism is great and all, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, because if you believe in everything you pretty much don't believe in anything. (if that makes sense at all.)

Right and wrong is more than a social paradigm, as DoomedOne put it. It's common sense. We'll take stealing as an example. Or if you've never stolen anything, just pick something else you've done wrong.

Everyone thinks stealing is wrong, until they do it once or twice. Let me explain.

The first time you (again, general you) stole, did you feel bad about it? I'm going to guess the answer is yes. Then, as you continued stealing, you started feeling less and less guilt because you've pretty much desensitized your conscience. Which is where the perspective of, 'Right and wrong is relative to the individual' comes from. Relativism is a result of the decay of one's moral standing, not moral growth.

And it's the same way with those law makers you spoke of. I'm sure they felt like compassion the first time they screwed the general public over for personal gain. Then, as they continued to do it, they learned to ignore the feeling of guilt. They're no different than us, their actions just have larger consequences.

Just because people dissagreed with your thoughts on theft and moderators told you to stop talking about it doesn't mean there was a flame war, it means you were in what they considered the wrong.

Yeah, but I was being a jerk about it.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Jul 27 2006, 06:22 AM