Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (85,031 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Super Sayan Nappa

Morals

Recommended Posts

Super Sayan Nappa

Morals today. And individualism today.

 

Yes, morals and individualism can rarely get in same sentence without pulling the trigger on the other one. How much assumed values, or better to say inherited ones, are shaping our self being today? Even though such question set would be no less valid if asked 100 years ago, nowadays the gaps are very transparent, in both society and cultural context. And immoral behavior is this infamous deviance. And again I ask, how determining is moral pack of values to our lives? And how is it justified to be put above the individualism? By the way, what moral cares about individualism?

Note: Laws are one, morals are not. Confusing them is a fault.

 

My opinion, even though I believe my presentation was enough suggestive for reader to figure it, is that moral is a type of shiny, gold on surface shackles that in allegorical sense gives us an imperative to wear them. And many people will happily wear these shiny bracelets.

Edited by Super Sayan Nappa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

I think I remember a debate on this topic about a year or two ago. I guess no one is interested in this subject anymore.

 

I am a utilitarianist\consequentialist but I am aware of its flaws in practice. There is one retort that I got from someone when I was advocating for consequentialist principles that gave me pause. It was on the topic of abortion. I was making the case that if we killed everyone in their sleep painlessly there would still be something to lose: the potential for future positive experiences. Why is it that a consequentialist shouldn't apply the same logic to a fetus? Is the woman's discomfort really more important than the future potential of the fetus?

 

I would still side with the woman, but not necessarily for rational reasons, even if it turns out to be that by consequentialist principles, the fetus is more important. I experience more empathy towards women facing that choice than for an unborn child. I guess I don't have strong feelings towards children, potential or otherwise, but thinking about this from a personal perspective, I would put my girlfriend\wife's freedom above everyone else's, so to be consistent, I would have to want the same thing for all women.

 

It seems to me that the consequentialist argument in regards to abortion could go either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

If it could be determined that a fetus was going to grow up to have an incredible impact on the world, then you could make a consequentialist argument that that individual woman should be prevented from having an abortion. There is no consequentialist argument to be made for banning abortion generally though because the kid might grow up to do great things. By that logic simply using contraception or choosing not to have kids is immoral. Consequentialism generally doesn't mean you can engage in any brutality as long as its connected to some general societal good. That's a slippery slope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

But even then it seems kinda wrong to me even if I am a consequentialist. Let's say that woman was my girlfriend and I desperately tried to convince her to keep it. I wouldn't feel comfortable at all doing that even if I knew that the child was most likely going to be healthy and have a good life. But a lot of guys here (where I live) would think that abortion would be wrong for them for pretty much those reasons. That the fetus has so much potential and I can't really argue that they are wrong in any given case.

 

If that's a bias for them I think I have the opposite bias. I would have more empathy for the woman facing that choice precisely because I couldn't deny a girlfriend or wife the right to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArmyRaidFail404

I could. I mean, right now I couldn't as the decision to abort generally is dependent on the woman's ability to cater for the child - for lack of a better phrase. In a perfect society (which in a philosophical sense should always be considered) there should absolutely be no reason to perform an abortion. Not because of morals but because there is no gain in it. The decision SHOULD be made before the act of child-birthing is even conceived of, but sadly that is not the society which we currently live in.

 

Either way on the topic of morals I would bring up Egoism (namely my own esoteric form of egoism). In this scenario you should treat the foetus and the woman as completely seperate egos. The fetus is not a part of the woman's body no matter how much you claim it is. Just as much as the food in my stomach is fundamentally foreign to me, so too should an entirely different life form that you play host to be to you. As such it is murder - intentional murder. You get nothing out of it apart from not having to go through the pain of child-birthing. Meanwhile you just killed your kid. Even under the most basic form of understanding you can't escape that fact, if even if you claim it's not fully grown yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That presupposes that the ego of a child exists when it is in utero. This is not self evident and is clearly open to critique. One could equally argue that the ego does not exist until birth, or until a child is feasible (as at that point is ceases to be a surrogate being). Or even at the mirror stage of infancy, as the concept of ego is do closely intertwined with self awareness. Or not at all, because it's a psychoanalytical concept with no bearing on empirical fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Switch

I'm just finishing my first semester in philosophy, and to be honest the most interesting of all the ethics we had was virtue ethics. Virtue ethics gets criticized constantly, but recently since the 90s (yes that is recent lol) it has sort of made a comeback. It's still not as big as the others, but i just found it much more refreshing since we all know about utilitarianism and deontology. The virtue of moral importance is a learned trait (from childhood) or so-called internalized action pattern. In Aristotle's doctrine of virtue ethics, virtue is what a human must achieve for a good life, and virtue consists of different qualities that must be adapted to society. Examples of these attributes are: courage, wisdom, honesty, justice, goodness. The usual critique is that virtue ethics can't guide you for what you should do in specific or certain situations.

 

Rosalind Hursthouse is one of the newer virtue ethicists and she gave her take on the whole abortion discussion from a virtue ethics pov.

 

Basically, she says that there are some non-factors in this whole debate such as: Not the status of the fetus, Not women's right to self-determination. (These factors are not relegated to Hursthouse's problem.)

 

Factors: Correct Basis / Intent, Consequences for the Child (Life worth living?) / Mother. What conditions for pregnancy (eg rape.). Parent-child relationship. Emotional response.

 

This is very shortened and basic version of her argument, i recommend reading it https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PPP504/Hursthouse%20Rosalind%2C%20Virtue%20theory%20and%20abortion.pdf

She also responds to the critique from relativists.

Edited by Switch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

I don't know if rape really changes anything about the pro-life arguments. People like Ben Shapiro seem to concede that a pregnancy that is the result of rape is OK to terminate but at the same time he thinks that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is pretty much always immoral. I think he makes an exception for rape cases because he's somewhat afraid of being called a monster or something. But rape really doesn't change anything as long as the mother is competent to raise the child. I mean if the fetus is more important to you since conception then rape really doesn't change much if anything at all.

 

 

That presupposes that the ego of a child exists when it is in utero. This is not self evident and is clearly open to critique. One could equally argue that the ego does not exist until birth, or until a child is feasible (as at that point is ceases to be a surrogate being). Or even at the mirror stage of infancy, as the concept of ego is do closely intertwined with self awareness. Or not at all, because it's a psychoanalytical concept with no bearing on empirical fact.

Insofar as the pro-life arguments aren't religious in nature, I don't think they necessarily presuppose the existence of a subjective experience for the fetus, certainly not one that's very human like. The pro-life argument could be reduced to the mere avoidance of pain that the fetus is supposedly experiencing. Although if you admit that you're kinda pushed into an utilitarian argument which weighs the suffering of the fetus against the suffering or discomfort of an unwanted pregnancy experienced by the woman. Pro-lifers tend not to follow that line of logic all the way through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Pain is a result of the central nervous system, so an argument of that nature isn't "pro-life" as long as a termination takes place before the formation of the CNS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

Which begs the question, what are the non-religious arguments on the pro-life side? If pain isn't the main issue then what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Beats me. I'm sure the eco-primitivists or other such oddballs have some kind of argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye
On 1/24/2018 at 7:17 PM, Dealux said:

Which begs the question, what are the non-religious arguments on the pro-life side? If pain isn't the main issue then what is?

 

Are you guys retarded? here is all of the "argument" you need. 

 

Sex - baby - foster child - person later experiences happiness and success - children and family.

 

Jack Nicholson and Steve Jobs were almost aborted and their mothers were heavily advised to abort them but did not. Having mistake-sex and then decide to not give the child a chance in life and you guys are talking about morals? 😂😂

 

I'm not expecting morals to make a come-back. I thought we were bad when we were 14 but this generation today believe in fighting in groups and using weapons like knives and knuckle dusters (experienced and see my fair share) , not to forget that a 14 year old can look like an 18 year old. A child today is warned too many times and usually without any consequence after they break the first 4 warnings. Teenagers today are alot weaker and are not being properly advised, instead they deal with the humiliation of being bullied because their parents taught them to be a fa**ot and do not know how to react in a street fight or taunting. Children today are listening to a bunch of black rap sh*t with 50 swear words and talking about pussy, they dress up with no class etc etc so no morals are long gone. Anarchy is present in the US , piece of sh*t Robert De Niro is making a fine example to the children watching that show . Well done America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

What if a woman comes up to you and asks you to have sex with her for the sole purpose of having a baby, wouldn't refusing her also be immoral by your own logic? There is a potential baby there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Anyone who looks back at points in time like the 50s- when segregation was still rigourously enforced; women still effectively subservient; sexual harassment and violence normalised and racism against ethnic minorities institutional and concludes they're somehow more "moral" has a fairly twisted view on the subject if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blaze

Because the foster system is definitely not in shambles and always results in "happiness and success".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye
1 hour ago, Blaze said:

Because the foster system is definitely not in shambles and always results in "happiness and success".

 

That is one of the most ignorant comments I've came across on this forum. Sivis has a cheek to say on his profile that he doesn't like people who are ignorant and he backs this up. Lol!

 

So with your comment, you've come to the conclusion that because the foster system is not 100% perfect that children should be aborted. Wow are you sure you're mentally sane?

 

Jack Nicholson if you are reading this, you should of been aborted because the foster system does not ALWAYS guarantee happiness and success. Wow just wow. Some more bright left wing intelligence!

2 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Anyone who looks back at points in time like the 50s- when segregation was still rigourously enforced; women still effectively subservient; sexual harassment and violence normalised and racism against ethnic minorities institutional and concludes they're somehow more "moral" has a fairly twisted view on the subject if you ask me.

 

The 1950s - when modern music was founded (Elvis) , the murder rate was astonishingly low , white people CARED for each other , the invention of the credit card which you use. You know I would like to take back these white-made inventions of people who do not appreciate it and come out with racist comments like "white privilege" and whatever else dribble they came up with 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Dealux said:

What if a woman comes up to you and asks you to have sex with her for the sole purpose of having a baby, wouldn't refusing her also be immoral by your own logic? There is a potential baby there as well.

 

My bad.

 

MY opinion is that abortion should be legal but strongly discouraged. It's clear I belong to the right-wing so with that I believe in preventing disasters. Children should be taught right from wrong, not given 5 warnings and then given barely any attention. But getting back on topic, I believe it should be legal in cases like rape, especially if the man is a predator;) 

Edited by Japseye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blaze

Tell me where I said that they should be aborted based on the inadequacies of the foster system? Tell me where Sivis backed that up at all? I never claimed the foster system hasn't done good but acting like it's a be all end all solution instead of abortion is pretty ignorant too. What would your stance be on pregnancy from rape, babies that would be born with drug addictions and or life threatening conditions/disabilities, cases where birth would be a risk to the mother?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye

So you're saying rather than the alternative of giving the child a chance in life, to experience happiness, wealth, success, love - we should just kill it and that's it? 

 

and no hahahaha, it's pretty far from ignorant. What you said was borderline with "well just kill it" , my strategy is to keep them ALIVE and you're saying that's an ignorant statement? I have to ask are you from California?

 

I'm about as right-wing as you can get and even I am aware of people that would keep, bathe, clothe and feed a child with a disability

 

Also if you didn't mean that then speak up. I'm not a f*cking mind reader. Horrible woman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay
8 hours ago, Japseye said:

 

Are you guys retarded? here is all of the "argument" you need. 

 

Sex - baby - foster child - person later experiences happiness and success - children and family.

 

~~~~~~ snip it, snip it good ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking as a 'tard I'd like to point out that you are falling into the 'Positivism'* trap, ie. always looking on the bright side of life. For every successful outcome there are surely an equal number of unsuccessful or even evil outcomes. But these pale into nothing compared to the number of mediocre outcomes.  So what you are essentially championing is the mediocre, which the regular, human thing to do.

 

*Positivism in the sense of being optimistic, not Logical Positivism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye

I remember a photo on Facebook with about 20 people and some of their cards read , "Thank you for not aborting me" and "Thank you for sending me to my foster parents"

 

The bottom line is kill or keep alive, there is no other "debate" to it, as much as these communist fanatics wish there was. I thought the left was all about empathy, keeping people alive. Only when it comes to the non-whites, eh?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
32 minutes ago, Japseye said:

white people CARED for each other 

 

white-made inventions

You're really not helping yourself avoid any accusations of white supremacy here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye

Sivis, I suggest asking me if I'm a white supremacist rather than making accusations. I can also make accusations without any backed-up evidence. Can you tell me where the harmony is between liberal and right-wing American whites? Are your media lying? Are the politicians lying? oh I'm a white supremacist I forgot... really original argument skills you got there. You managed to avoid what I said on Chicago and abortion and now you're targeting me as a WS hahahah , Jesus help this boy please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Do you know who feels the need to refer to skin colour and ethnic heritage every other post? Often in the most forced, ridiculous ways? Ethnic supremacists and trolls. Neither of which are welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short Stay

I suppose now is as good a time as any to assemble my thoughts on abortion.

 

If I were a woman I'd want to choose whether to terminate or not. I'd not take it lightly. My feelings would probably be somewhere about 60% concern for myself and 40% concern for the potential child, so I'd maybe win out. I'd tell myself that there will always be another chance to have a child in the future.  This would be especially true if I was too young or in a bad position to start a family. I do not believe that humanity begin at conception, even if life does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus

Morality is today as it always was - dependent on convenience, and held together only by the law and the implied threat of force towards those who do not conform to societal norms.

The abortion issue is therefore irrelevant, as there is no inherent sanctity of life. If there was, the same compassion extended to the unborn would be extended to a forty-something unemployed man living off welfare, or the scores of people who hang themselves in prison, but that's not the case, is it? It ultimately does not matter if tens of thousands of babies are aborted, because life itself is transient and cheap - and all people at heart know this.

 

Now, I am not saying this out of a sense of nihilism, or for shock value. It is just what I consider a fact of life, and not just human life. What we call "morality" is really just human logic for the rules which hold together our social dynamics. If the ant or the bee could reason as we do, they would likely devise similar words and thoughts for why they collect the pollen or conquer other colonies. Humans are animals like any other, and all our behaviour - however lofty we believe it to be - ultimately stems from our animal instinct.

Systems of morality will always exist, because human hierarchy will always exist. This is a very good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealux

You could very well make the case for the sanctity of life without assuming that all human lives are equally valuable. That's not a requirement at all.

 

Insofar as all of us value well being and want to avoid suffering, we could develop something like a universal set of ethics. The fact that there are no absolute morals (i.e. the universe couldn't care less what you do) is not relevant at all to this discussion. Nihilism is unsustainable. If you truly believed that life was completely worthless and devoid of meaning you would have done yourself a favor and killed yourself a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye
3 hours ago, Dealux said:

You could very well make the case for the sanctity of life without assuming that all human lives are equally valuable.

 

We are not equal and I do not see the reality of that. The mentality of the Californian liberal is that ALL blacks do not have "white privilege" so they cannot experience success.. despite Obama beating white men for the most important role within the United States, if not the world.. twice, but yeah??.......

 

Even groups like BLM do not believe that we are equal, well they SAY we are but they forget that they also say that whenever a black man is shot by a police officer, it is racially motivated, meaning that the white police officer is of more importance, even though the NYPD hire and currently have black police officers in their ranks lmao....

 

11 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Do you know who feels the need to refer to skin colour and ethnic heritage every other post? Often in the most forced, ridiculous ways? Ethnic supremacists and trolls. Neither of which are welcome here.

Do you know who feels the need to refer to white privilege and racism? you. You've ignored my other arguments because you know I'm correct and instead you've created a sh*t show largely based on race (whenever I comment) , I'm right and I could go there but you'll ban me because you can't handle words , which is why I'm not debating you on the other thread because of the nonsense you come up with "using leftist as a slur" lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Japseye

I have a cousin who is like you Sivis, a social justice warrior but he's at university in London. This liberal attitude is common, refer to people as stupid or racist immediately, I guess that shoots freedom of speech and the right of an opinion in the ass a little bit? 

 

From the left there is alot of talk about "being the same" and I've came to the conclusion that seeing as different opinions aren't allowed or usually shot down in flames , the only way they can be the "same" is the ideology of communism. I've noticed some similar signs such as the need of everything being free such as education, transport etc etc (many examples)

 

The vast majority of liberals are incredibly one sided, hypocritical and in general full of sh*t. I notice the 2 face sh*t with my cousin just like I do with you. It's very easy with you guys because you have a bad time remembering what you have previously said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typhus
6 hours ago, Dealux said:

You could very well make the case for the sanctity of life without assuming that all human lives are equally valuable. That's not a requirement at all.

 

Insofar as all of us value well being and want to avoid suffering, we could develop something like a universal set of ethics. The fact that there are no absolute morals (i.e. the universe couldn't care less what you do) is not relevant at all to this discussion. Nihilism is unsustainable. If you truly believed that life was completely worthless and devoid of meaning you would have done yourself a favor and killed yourself a long time ago.

If you took Nihilism from my post, you have completely misunderstood my position. My feelings on the matter could more appropriately be compared to animism, as I believe what we call "morality" is not unique to humans, and is rather a key to the survival of all social beasts.

Indeed, human concepts of compassion pre-date our own species, and can be seen as far back as the sabre-toothed Tiger. Our lives are meaningless, but our ideas of morality will survive us, and were already present before we evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.