Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
As for cynicism comment, it was meant in regards for the opinion that thinking that humans are bastards is cynical and "edgy" attitude
But yes, I do think there is a luck element involved. If I had grown up in a country with concentration camps, I have absolutely no idea what my opinion of them would be, because I daresay I'd be a vastly different person from who I am today.
As for cynicism, "Humans Are Bastards" usually seems cynical, though in your case it doesn't seem that way. As with one or two other tropers that spring to mind, in your case it rather suggests high expectations.
Thing is, this one can either believe that people can stay decent and true to themselves no matter what. That they can remain honourable and kind no matter what life throws at them.
Or believe that circumstances can break everyone. That what we are is merely a fluke of luck.
This one chooses the first option.
I think it's likely that there are many people who will never cease to be honourable and kind, but that's because their circumstances made them that way. So they could have turned out bad, but now they never will.
The actions we take are a consequence of our being acted upon. If you apply the same input, same conditions... you'll always get the same output. Nothing more than a chemical reaction, we are.
But even on a less obnoxiously fine level than that, just remember that none of us works with a blank slate. Even a newborn baby's mind is a mess of pre-packaged programs... some of which are instantly active while others finalise and activate later in life.
To believe yourself higher than that is a program in and of itself... The truth of the matter is that everything is founded on those core instincts, which form the massive underlying base of everything we are and do. The full sum of human "uniqueness" from one individual to next is but a decorative sprinkle on top by comparison. Irrelevant, pretty little nothings which we can get away with precisely because they are without significant consequence.
But yet people would deny this.
And as to why, the answer is obvious: Pride. A quite important factor in self-perpetuation. One is generally more willing to self-perpetuate if one believes the self to be special and in full requirement of perpetuation. And so, you will notice, we all in our own ways are pre-programmed to believe ourselves special and unique. A thing we ironically all have in common...
So here's the thing. Either humans are amoral (not immoral! Incapable of morality) set of reactions just like all the other animals, who cannot know better...Or one is going to be idealistic enough to believe that people are capable of knowing better - and thus think that they are bastards.
It is to take judgement and consideration.... processes which, to be done fairly and objectively may take time and effort.... and to rush them through with nary a second thought.
It is to insist that every shape in life need fit either through a square or round hole... and if they don't fit easy, the only answer is to pull the hammer out and apply force. Then those who want to stick the star through the square hole start fighting with those who want to stick the star through the round hole... and honestly, it is all very VERY stupid.
So far as I see it, there is no right or wrong. There are actions and consequences... many, complex and intertwined.... things we see only the surface of and for which no two views are the same. And while most want to avoid the pain by trying to simplify the tangled web into square / round holing, I prefer to... y'know.... think things through. I see a star shape, and I put it where I think a star shape would look nice...
Did the wasp choose to be stingless?
Not that it matters a great deal, anyway; a good person is not higher in my esteem than a stingless wasp for being equally harmless, but for their thoughts and emotions.
>Free will is entirely illusionary, and even trying to define it would drive you round in circles.
>The actions we take are a consequence of our being acted upon. If you apply the same input, same conditions... you'll always get the same output. Nothing more than a chemical reaction, we are.
Literally any process can be made to sound stupid and arbitrary if you reduce it to the chemical processes responsible. Thankfully, that is not the only way to view the world.
Free will is the ability to make choices. To weigh up two or more options and select the one preferred. The fact that your circumstances and personality will ultimately determine which one it is that you prefer does not change this.
>Either humans are amoral (not immoral! Incapable of morality) set of reactions just like all the other animals, who cannot know better...Or one is going to be idealistic enough to believe that people are capable of knowing better - and thus think that they are bastards.
I disagree. This is a false dichotomy. We can know better, by learning. Who is superior - the person who happens to prefer that which is right, or the person who instinctively prefers that which is wrong but, due to circumstances and experiences, has come to regard that which is right as worthwhile, in spite of the gratification which doing the wrong thing would offer? That our moral decisions are the product of our experiences does not invalidate them.
Either way, it is unnecessary to think anyone a bastard for something which they haven't personally done.
>Morality is simplification... generalisation.... a bottleneck for choices.
Only if your morality is overly limiting and is not equipped to handle diverse situations.
Morality enables one to make decisions consistently. There is nothing admirable about inaction or randomness.
Don't go assuming consistency is always desirable. Goals change, routes change, and even a single route to a single goal can turn several times in several directions.
Inaction and randomness are neutral, by and by. They're neither especially likely to move away from a goal nor towards it, but rather stay put. Maintaining that neutrality when one would normally have a strong bias one way or other is definitely admirable.
If not, I don't see how you can possibly make such statements with such confidence.
And yes, flexibility is good, as is keeping an open mind. But that's not the same as just doing whatever without regard for the consequences, or doing nothing whatsoever.
I don't have to be acquainted with every possible snowflake to know that they all have six sides. We're talking definition, practically. Generalisation and simplification are what morality are... without which it is not morality at all, but merely consideration and judgement. It is morality itself that has no regard for consequences.
A moral person might not kill because "it is wrong" (a meaningless statement) where an amoral person would not kill in that particular circumstance because the consequences of doing so would inevitably be less desirable than the sum benefits of doing so. One just makes the situation fit a pre-made judgement, while the other shapes their judgement around the situation in as much detail as one can muster.
More importantly.... you can tell the moral person apart from the amoral person by asking if they would do something... the moral person has already made their mind up without knowing the details of the situation, and could give a straight answer... while an amoral person will more likely answer that there is insufficient information to know what they would or wouldn't do.
Nobody is absolutely moral nor amoral ... We need to simplify things in order to actually progress through existence, afterall.... But the gross oversimplification that plagues most does nobody any favours.
Your definition of morality excludes anything which I would consider particularly useful, so to debate it with you would be pure semantics.
But I don't really see how we can have a discussion of morality if you are to presume that all instances of the terms "moral", "right" and "wrong" are derived from generalisations and simplifications, as that is not what I mean when I use those terms.
Also, do you use a different name on the TV Tropes forum? You don't have to say which if you don't want to, I just wondered. You remind me of somebody.
Now I've seen everything.
Or a Norwegian Tongpu? STOP BEING CONFUSING.
Secondly... I can't imagine many definitions of "morality" other than my own that aren't entirely redundant.
Hm... Is it redundant to define morality as any code of behaviour by which a person determines the courses of action which will best further that which they desire above all else?
If you want to see the thread in question... where I first showed up... just stick my name in the search-bar. It is quite amusing, all in all.
Found the thread. Looks like Myr didn't learn from the notedscholar incident.
This is is different from an over generalization in that I can genuinely say that there is no human alive today that has met standards which would be good enough for me to call them good enough.