Good point. I guess my whole thing is this. With most people, if you respect them, they respect you. By being "moral" in the typical sense of the word, you develop friendships and alliances that often help you against people that don't follow that way of thinking.Krappyappy wrote:
in my view, means do not need to be justified.Turquoise wrote:
So, essentially, in your view, the ends justify the means. The end result of an action nullifies any differences in intention?
There are probably many people in power that think in the same way, but thankfully, the people are often able to keep them in line.
you said that you are an atheist. let me ask you this - when all is said and done, who do we have to answer to? if a suicide bomber kills a million people tomorrow, what justification does he need? if there is no god and no afterlife, then he is dead and gone, as are his victims. all that's left is sadness, and then the world moves on.
the point of my original response, that there is no moral level, makes the same point. it could be a suicide bomber on a bus, or a pilot dropping his bomb. maybe they meant to kill children, maybe not. but when the little girl is dead from the blast or an errant piece of shrapnel, does that make a difference to her mother?
For example, if you make it known that you are a powerful leader, but you have a strong sense of honor, you are usually able to gather friends that help you against people like extremists. We've basically fucked up the honor angle in Iraq, but we've managed to keep from being as "barbaric" as the terrorists.
Intentions may not matter to you, but I can assure you that they do matter to the international community.
I'm also a conflict theorist, but I believe war is just one of the more regrettable conflicts we indulge in. There are plenty of challenges before us, like closing the poverty gap in the world. The conflicts of interests in international trade are sure to keep us evolving without having to engage in so much war as well.Krappyappy wrote:
i disagree, i think we must be this way. there aren't any animals which can present a challenge to us, so if we didn't kill each other, we would stagnate. remember that it is death that drives evolution, and forces life to improve and adapt. this is a whole other topic which was discussed on these forums a long time ago, but was lost when the boards reset.Turquoise wrote:
I agree that we have a long way to go, but why should we give up on trying to socially evolve past blowing up brown people? We don't have to be this way....
For the most part, I agree, but.... I believe there is a more evolved rational self-interest that can be created by society. It essentially involves what is commonly known as the golden rule. It may not be practiced consistently, but encouraging society to at least try to follow it is beneficial to us as a species in my opinion.Krappyappy wrote:
i guess you would call me a naturalist. i am amoral. there are no morals in nature. when a lion eats an antelope, it's just the way things are, there is no good or evil about it. i believe that the human world works the same way, underneath the surface.Turquoise wrote:
On a side note, you seem completely unconcerned about any sense of morality. I'm curious... What defines your ethics? Situation only?....
Admittedly, my own ethics are heavily dependent on situation, but I try to keep some ideals here and there....
Surely, you wouldn't want the entire world to completely descend into the amoral chaos that much of Africa currently suffers in. Cultural ethics like secular humanism are essential to the higher functions of society.
