Slashdot Mirror

Well, the winners write history, that's one sure thing. But the industrial revolution wasn't exactly an unconditional blessing, then or now.

Secondly, none of those thing were choices then and they are not now. They're usually candy-wrapped economic coercion in a state that Guy Debord calls Augmented Survival: http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/2.htm.

So, it's preferable to go down this road to deliver universal plenty, but given our unreasoned, current economic orthodoxies, that's unlikely to happen.

So Ron Paul was right after all. If we just BUTT OUT of the world militarily and politically, ...and stop pulling tigers tails everywhere we find them, ...and stop leaving our military everywhere ...and stop promising to be in Iraq for another 100 years... and stop building military bases and a US Embassy bigger than the VATICAN... then maybe with a few years gone by after all that... maybe then we could trade and have commerce and live peaceably in the world.

ahh but WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE, profitable for government that it is, there will be no chance of that...

American Dollars are less than worthless right now- "Barclays Capital has advised clients to batten down the hatches for a worldwide financial storm, warning that the US Federal Reserve has allowed the inflation genie out of the bottle and let its credibility fall "below zero". - Telegraph.co.uk

Not all moral systems have the same moral code you have.

Yes, I know. Why not? Your answer, then, although you were too scared to come out and say it, is that morality is relative. If this is the case, then no action can be defined as wrong. Maybe that's why you didn't want to just answer the question. Note that I am not saying that it isn't possible.

My point was actually, not that the alternative to moral absolutism is relativism. It's a common mistake to think that "not P" equals the opposite of P. Fortunately, "not P" actually means "anything other than P". It's a tough concept, I know.

My preferred alternative to moral absolutism is actually moral subjectivism, not moral relativism, but I know you've been brainwashed to think everybody's a relativist if they aren't an absolutist. I think ethics are entirely subjective, based on circumstance, and require balancing equity with social awareness. A relativist as typically defined is one who thinks that if one society thinks a thing is good then it's good for that society, which innately promotes non-interference. On the contrary, if I think you're doing something immoral, I think I should be allowed to subjectively press a charge of social harm and come up with subjective systems for moral analysis. We can do a lot better than we are now.

In fact, the particular subjectivism I think makes the most sense is actually moral situationalism. One example of writing that encompasses this ethical system is Clerence Darrow's Crime and Criminals. I really don't mind you calling it relativism, either, if you mean by definition not absolutism. If you think I'm scared of you calling it that, then I'm really not. See, in this forum, I get the chance to say whatever I want in response, so I really have nothing to fear from you.

Moral systems do not have to be absolute.

If they are not, then you can not label an action as wrong.

I can if I want to.

It just is moral in a different code.

I can think my moral code and system of ethics is good for everybody and not be an absolutist. You see, instead of defining particular actions to be bad, I define particular circumstances and actions together to be more full information with which to make a decision.

This is to what I object.

Feel free to object all you want. That doesn't mean you're correct.

I intuitively know that some things (not necessarily things our society targets) are wrong, period. What I want to do is find a repeatable test for why, or proof that I am simply wrong.

So, it's subjective to your own intuition. That's a great step forward in your own understanding if you can grasp that.

That's a HUGE assumption you've been making in your entire thread while at the same time you accuse others of assumptions they don't have.

Um, no it is not. I have stated very clearly many times that I DO NOT KNOW if morality is absolute or relative, or from where morality originates. Therefore, I can NOT be pushing the assumption that it is absolute, although I have admitted many times that I intuitively believe this to be the case.

I'm not impressed by the semantics here. You believe it to be the case, but you're "not assuming" that it is. You contradict yourself already. By saying that you don't know if it's absolute, you've retreated from treating your belief as a fact. Once it's not an established fact, then it is by definition an assumption -- you're assuming it to be the case. Assumptions don't necessarily mean that you hold them as facts. Assumptions can be hypothetical. Your use of the hypothetical as a retreat doesn't nullify my statement that it's an assumption.

I have stated that I cannot prove this, so how is that my pushing an assumption?

Religious people often think that repeating things they cannot prove so that

The Society of the Spectacle indeed...

A bold statement, Mr. Know-it-all. But I have to say I found The Society of the Spectacle a rather interesting piece of philosophy. I read the first statements out of pure curiosity and was pretty much drawn to read a few chapters that evening.

Beware from judging each and everything by your opinion, it may be subjective. I recommend Guy Debord at least the "spectacle" and with a grain of salt, but still.

[...] The reigning economic system is a vicious circle of isolation. Its technologies are based on isolation, and they contribute to that same isolation. From cars to television, the goods that the spectacular system chooses to produce also serve it as weapons for constantly reinforcing the conditions that engender "lonely crowds." With ever-increasing concreteness the spectacle recreates its own presuppositions.

The spectacle is capital accumulated to the point that it becomes image.

If that contains not at least a small truth, I don't know what to say...

BTW, how does one go about testing the rightness of an ethical standard? Or is it an arbitrary individual choice? If the latter, is there any good reason why anyone should regard Saddam or Bush or Clinton as 'immoral'?

Depends on your own personal philosophy. If you're religious, then it's easy, you've probably got some standard set for you based on your religions teachings. If you're not religious you still have options. Some people are Ethical Relativist which means that they believe ethics are not absolute, but are determined by your societies standards. Of course this gives you many different ethical standards ranging from those of the Amish to those of the Nazis. I personally prefer the standard that Buddhists use (yes, I realize I was talking about non-religious views) which bases wrongness of an action on whether or not it harms any life (Saddam, Bush and Clinton would all be guilty). There are plenty of books on ethics out there if you're really interested in some good (i.e. not from /.) thoughts on it..

BTW, adding the multiple databases would be a very important update. Also, though the geiger counter design makes it a great prop for détournement, if it was all put into a nice little PDA case it would make a great product.