Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 04:45:50 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Discussion about ethics and morality, split from "Should miners collude to steal funds from wallet confiscated by US government?"  (Read 1686 times)
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:27:45 PM
 #21


Actually as sick as it is, raping the enemy's womens was considered morally right in a lot of historic armys (because it would weaken the enemy).

So it was considered scientifically correct (after Aristotle) to claim the earth was flat. But some bright individuals used reason and experiments to falsify claims of Earth being flat.

Coming back to your example: some idiots in the past used term ''morality'' to justify rapes. Note, some people now-a-days use term ''law'' to justify rapes (if they have lawful authority they escape prosecution). As far as morality goes rape is not okay and never was okay. Had you been deriving laws and regulations from morality, rapes would have been punishable with no exceptions.

Unfortunately laws and regulations are derived from ethics (ethics of the ruling class, ethics of the voting majority, whatever ethics).



By the way, you still need to answer these:

You are already mixing in your own opinion and bias. - No I am not, I am maybe more aware of how the term ''morality'' was misused over centuries
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans? - You can empirically prove it is you (not anybody else) who controls your body; therefore you own yourself, not people who call themselves priests or governments
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not) - We could, so what?

Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants? - What with animals and plants? Will a hungry tiger have moral issues before eating you? Why should you have morals before eating a tiger?
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive? - Yeah, what about it? Who is ''we''?

Btw: It's a fallacy to say that there shouldn't be any exceptions, because those exceptions listed in the example are bad.

Give me good exceptions.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513529150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513529150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513529150
Reply with quote  #2

1513529150
Report to moderator
1513529150
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513529150

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513529150
Reply with quote  #2

1513529150
Report to moderator
kik1977
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 587


Wherever I may roam


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:28:35 PM
 #22

Morality is also universal (independent of time and space and independent of person using this particular concept). Examples:
If someone says ''it is wrong to initiate violence, e.g. to rape), then this statement is true:
- independent of time; this statement was true 1000 years ago, is true now and will be true in a million years from now
- independent of space; this statement is true in North America, in Portugal and even on Mars
- independent of person; this statement is true when you say it, when I say it and even when the pope says it
Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided. Even in WW2 Japanese soldiers did that. Therefore your claim of "independent of time" is false. Your claim of "independent of space" is laughable unless you apply it to a modern human teleported to those location. As for "independent of person", I would argue that the only reason the statement is true is because everyone is raised in a environment that heavily believe in the said moral values. Therefore that statement is pointless.

Loozik, I'm soory but I have to disagree too on this! Even today morality is a concept extreeeemely different from person to person but expecially from country to country. I travel (for work) in many different countries and many of them are muslim countries (I am in one of those right now) and what is considered moral for them is "slightly" different from our (western) concept and vice-versa. In some remote villages, is moral if a brother kills his sister if she leaves her husband. Not to mention that she can be easily 12yo and her husband 60yo.

It's also different in time, what was moral 2000 years ago it's fortunately not moral today. Or take the bible which gives a good example of what was considered moral in ancient times...one would be horrified today!

Don't you agree? Or maybe I misunderstood your point...

We are like butterflies who flutter for a day and think it is forever
Birdy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:30:18 PM
 #23

Grue, a person can choose to ignore moral guidelines, just like one can choose to ignore mathematical truths. The end result in both cases is regrettable yet avoidable, but doesn't nullify mathematics or universal morality.

You can say there was a moral guideline, they've ignored. But in the end you did only made that up.
(well there might be one, for whatever afterlife is going to be, but that's impossible to prove or disprove. It could also require you to dance one time a day or to wear only green for all we know)
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:33:10 PM
 #24

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.

Qu1ck$1Lv3r
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:40:22 PM
 #25

Ethics is the larger subject within which morality is contained.

 Ethics and morality are two separate abstractions. They neither have intersections nor one is contained in another.



I see.  Now look in the mirror because your head is the shape of a pretzel as a result of whatever contorted logic that lead you to say that Ethics and Morality are entirely independent of one another.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:48:39 PM
 #26

Even today morality is a concept extreeeemely different from person to person but expecially from country to country.

There were a few very precious words in human history.

One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

One such word is ''morality''. Over the course of time evil people started using this word to justify their crimes:
- priests started labeling their crimes moral - what's moral in religion?!
- soldiers started to label their crimes moral - what's moral in war?!

Statists elevated the term ''ethics'' by introducing it in government controlled schools and by artificially incorporating ''morality'' in it. Ethics failed miserably.

I have a problem with you saying morality differs across humans. Rather the term is misunderstood. Morality has always been universal (it shouldn't be different depending on location or persons, just like math or physics shouldn't be different). It's ethics that differs; look at the number of the so called ''ethic theories'' - each theory is different. Each justifies the so called state.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:50:06 PM
 #27

I see.  Now look in the mirror because your head is the shape of a pretzel as a result of whatever contorted logic that lead you to say that Ethics and Morality are entirely independent of one another.

Come on! What kind of argument is this?
Birdy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:52:13 PM
 #28


Actually as sick as it is, raping the enemy's womens was considered morally right in a lot of historic armys (because it would weaken the enemy).

So it was considered scientifically correct (after Aristotle) to claim the earth was flat. But some bright individuals used reason and experiments to falsify claims of Earth being flat.

Coming back to your example: some idiots in the past used term ''morality'' to justify rapes. Note, some people now-a-days use term ''law'' to justify rapes (if they have lawful authority they escape prosecution). As far as morality goes rape is not okay and never was okay. Had you been deriving laws and regulations from morality, rapes would have been punishable with no exceptions.

Unfortunately laws and regulations are derived from ethics (ethics of the ruling class, ethics of the voting majority, whatever ethics).
You can watch the earth from space and confirm that it's not flat.
You cannot see someone stealing and confirm it's morally wrong, you can only feel/think that way.


Quote
Why do you assume there is such thing as property for humans? - You can empirically prove it is you (not anybody else) who controls your body; therefore you own yourself, not people who call themselves priests or governments
So if I manage to control your body (e.g. due to hypnosis), it will be mine?

Quote
We could have a society in which nobody owned stuff, it is possible. (I'm not trying to argue if that's a good idea or not) - We could, so what?
Why do you only include humans? What about animals? What about plants? - What with animals and plants? Will a hungry tiger have moral issues before eating you? Why should you have morals before eating a tiger?
So if somebody else doesn't have moral issues, you are free to throw away yours?
That's terrible.

Quote
What about the violence we have to do in order to eat and survive? - Yeah, what about it? Who is ''we''?
"We" is everyone. Nobody can survive without harming something (or letting someone else do it for us), at least until we manage to create non-living food supplies for all humans.


Quote
Btw: It's a fallacy to say that there shouldn't be any exceptions, because those exceptions listed in the example are bad.

Give me good exceptions.
Stealing something, if you are starving. (and it doesn't lead to the other person starving instead)
Qu1ck$1Lv3r
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:55:38 PM
 #29

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.



Where did  you get your definition of the word Ethics?
Birdy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:56:53 PM
 #30

Even today morality is a concept extreeeemely different from person to person but expecially from country to country.

There were a few very precious words in human history.

One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

One such word is ''morality''. Over the course of time evil people started using this word to justify their crimes:
- priests started labeling their crimes moral - what's moral in religion?!
- soldiers started to label their crimes moral - what's moral in war?!

Statists elevated the term ''ethics'' by introducing it in government controlled schools and by artificially incorporating ''morality'' in it. Ethics failed miserably.

I have a problem with you saying morality differs across humans. Rather the term is misunderstood. Morality has always been universal (it shouldn't be different depending on location or persons, just like math or physics shouldn't be different). It's ethics that differs; look at the number of the so called ''ethic theories'' - each theory is different. Each justifies the so called state.

Ah, now I see where you are coming from.
You need an universal true morality in order to have a working anarchy.
If people actually have different opinions on morality, anarchy is way more likely to lead to lesser nice events.

Too bad it doesn't work that way. Just because you want it to be true, doesn't make it true.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 08:59:42 PM
 #31

It's also different in time, what was moral 2000 years ago it's fortunately not moral today. Or take the bible which gives a good example of what was considered moral in ancient times...one would be horrified today!

If you consider something moral does not make it moral just by you considering it this way.

Some crimes may be ethical (reflecting the will of the so called society) but no crime was ever moral, although many crimes were and still are falsely considered to be moral.

Devising ethics allowed to codify crimes in state regulations and in religious codes and labeling them as moral.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:06:40 PM
 #32

Actually it was pretty common for women to be raped when any settlement was raided.

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.



Where did  you get your definition of the word Ethics?

From my head, after having studied how it works. You know, a crime cannot be simply codified - the sheeple would object. First you need to brainwash sheeple with ethics. Ethics is good, right? It is the science, right? First you call a crime ''good'', then you call it ''ethical'', then you codify it. This is how your ethics work. If ethics is not enough, you call  / consider the crime moral. The sheeple will buy it.

But still the crime is not moral (only considered moral). However the crime may perfectly be ethical.
Birdy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
 #33

As this questions one of the foundations of your belief in anarchy, I don't think we will get to an conclusion any time soon.
You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.
Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:11:31 PM
 #34

As this questions one of the foundations of your belief in anarchy, I don't think we will get to an conclusion any time soon.

I do not believe in anarchy, just like I do not believe in god or in unicorns. How did you get this from?


You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.

I am rather belief-free. prove me otherwise.


Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.

Hate religion? Me? Where did you get it from?
Birdy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:23:59 PM
 #35

As this questions one of the foundations of your belief in anarchy, I don't think we will get to an conclusion any time soon.

I do not believe in anarchy, just like I do not believe in god or in unicorns. How did you get this from?

Okey, then I've misinterpreted your defence of the word anarchy, it's unusual for non-anarchists to come up with that example and we have quite some anarchists in our Bitcoin community. Sorry my bad then.

Quote
One of such words is anarchy. It used to mean ''no violent ruler''. Evil people through propaganda changed the meaning into ''violent chaos''.

Quote
You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.

I am rather belief-free. prove me otherwise.
Well, I don't see anything proving your universal moral guideline.
I could as well say "it's morally wrong to wear green hats, that's an universal moral true forever, those who did wear green hats just chose to ignore it"
So this universal morality is a belief.
Maybe you have some scientific proof to help me out?
E.g. like video from space would help me in confirming the non-flat earth, if I though the earth was flat until then.

Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.
Quote
Hate religion? Me? Where did you get it from?

There (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306809.msg3315203#msg3315203):

Quote
Me and religion is like water and fire.
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:27:47 PM
 #36

I am rather belief-free. prove me otherwise.

You believe in a universal morality, through both time and space, that just happens to coincide with your own moral views.
What are the odds of that? Unless you think you have a special insight that others don't.

Personally of all of the various religious or ethical 'taglines' I think 'An it harm none, do as thou wilt' probably come closest to a neutral morality, but I don't expect everyone else to agree, or think that this is somehow right.
You simply cannot establish morality as a fact, there is no way it can be measured, observed, or proved.

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:35:42 PM
 #37

These rapes were immoral. These rapes were unlawful.

But these rapes were ethical and were legal.

----------------------------

This is the difference between morality and ethics. This is the difference between law and legality.
Your idea of morality being universal is rather flimsy when you label every counterexample as "immoral behavior". Also, laws don't exist or apply when vikings were raiding Britain/Ireland. "raiding" includes stealing, destruction, and raping women.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Loozik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Born to chew bubble gum and kick ass


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:46:36 PM
 #38

You will most likely fiercely defend your belief in the universal morality for the sake of that foundation.

Word ''belief'' implies something that cannot be proven as a valid concept. I only defend cases where I can prove something.


Well, I don't see anything proving your universal moral guideline.

My moral guideline? Morality is universal. It is the same for me and you, just like gravity is the same for you and me. And true - I made no attempt make my case with regard to guidelines. simply because we did not agree over definitions.


I could as well say "it's morally wrong to wear green hats, that's an universal moral true forever, those who did wear green hats just chose to ignore it"

This statement is an opinion; it is neither objective, nor verifiable nor falsifiable. You would not be able to prove it.


So this universal morality is a belief.

Your previous statement is an opinion. You should not form conclusions based on subjective by nature opinions, rather on objective facts and proofs.


Maybe you have some scientific proof to help me out?
E.g. like video from space would help me in confirming the non-flat earth, if I though the earth was flat until then.

Start with this audiobook: ''Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)'' http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx


Kinda ironic for someone who hates religion.

Religion is an abstraction (a thought in one's head); I am a rational human being - I do not hate abstractions. Do you hate abstractions (mathematics, logic, unicorns, gods, santa clauses)?
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 10, 2013, 09:57:27 PM
 #39

My moral guideline? Morality is universal. It is the same for me and you, just like gravity is the same for you and me.

This statement is an opinion; it is neither objective, nor verifiable nor falsifiable. You would not be able to prove it.

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
Birdy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
October 10, 2013, 10:02:29 PM
 #40

If there is a universal true morality, why do so much people act against it (and did way more in historical times)?

Quote
Maybe you have some scientific proof to help me out?
E.g. like video from space would help me in confirming the non-flat earth, if I though the earth was flat until then.

Start with this audiobook: ''Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)'' http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

Is there some shorter proof?
Or do I have to listen to hours of book content?
(*will skim over the pdf now*)

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!