Remember one rule: treat every other person the way you want to be treated.
Slight correction: Act in a way that is not harmful to the rest of society.
This requires a bit more consideration, but summarizes most of morality more accurately in my opinion.
Morality is personal; it has nothing to do with society, other than the fact that personal morals affect how people interact with each other.
To that end, if everyone treated everyone else the way they wanted to be treated, there would be no societal harm. If you disagree, please provide some sort of example.
I'm getting pretty fed up with people excusing fucked up behavior by claiming, 'waaah, but morals are hard!'
Being hard is not even remotely the same as being universal. The earlier poster was correct.
The classic example is the person who knows best. Because then there's no issue with them imposing their moral views on you. They are treating you exactly like they would want to be treated, if they were as much a bitter clinger or whatever as you. And it's infamous how little the people who know best agree with each other.
You're talking about either liars, who are amoral, or sociopaths, who I already exempted.
"I treat my shareholders the way I would want to be treated. I extract the maximum amount of revenue from my customers while giving them as little value as possible so as to keep my margins as high as possible and stay just on this side of 'legal' so as to give my shareholders the maximum return for their investment"...
oops, Now I'm now treating my customers the way I would want to be treated as a customer... What to do?
Stop smoking crack?
Are you seriously trying to say that there's no way to run a profitable business and still be morally just? There is - it's called 'not being a greedy fuck who cares more about money than people,' and it's actually really, really easy to do... if you're not a greedy fuck, anyway. There's nothing moral about putting profits over people; not to mention, you've failed to apply the rule to all parties involved - if the shareholders weren't so greedy, the company wouldn't be compelled to be so greedy, and the customers would get a decent product for a decent price.
For examples, see how Sam Walton ran his retail business, or check into Henry Ford's policies regarding employee treatment.
"Do unto others" is much too simple, but I think it's intended to suggest care/avoid harm and equity/justice.
I actually came up with a second cardinal rule that pretty much shores (sp?) up the shortcomings of the first, but for the life of me can't remember how it goes... I'll call that a consequence of rarely being put into morally questionable circumstances.
All well and good, but you still haven't answered the fundamental question: would you want some other nation and their government to invade your homeland and blow it 3/4 of the way to shit?
Side note: I get the feeling, had those Iraqi people who wanted us to invade actually known what the repercussions would be (loss of life, introduction of terrorism, destruction of infrastructure, etc.), they would have kept their mouths shut.
How good can a company be if they offer you a job solely on your so-called resume?
No interview, no verification..
I suspect they are grossly misusing the term "job offer."
I concur; they're probably referring to those mass-spam-emails that go something like "I was looking at your [systems administration focused] resume, and thought you would be a perfect fit for the insurance salesman/financial advisor at some random company that remains nameless."
you want to be a morally just person? Remember one rule: treat every other person the way you want to be treated.
That logic can be used to argue both sides of almost anything, from making kids eat their veggies to invading Iraq (if you convince yourself you'll be greeted as a liberator).
Um, no. Think about it; we'll use your Iraq example, since eating vegetables is more of a health issue than a moral one.
Does anyone want someone else to come into their home and level it? Of course not, thus, it is an immoral action. It's when people start making up addendums and exceptions to the Golden Rule (like, "Well, I wouldn't want to be invaded, but those people probably want us to invade them!") that the waters get unnecessarily muddy.
Generally they are people who have a high level of moral integrity.
Morals are not universal.
Oh, the fuck they aren't.
I'm getting pretty fed up with people excusing fucked up behavior by claiming, 'waaah, but morals are hard!'
No, they fucking aren't; you want to be a morally just person? Remember one rule: treat every other person the way you want to be treated. Excluding true sociopaths who are chemically unable to parse the concept, yes, morality really is that simple.
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.
I don't see what most of the points you raised in response to my comment have to do with the points you raised in the comment I responded to.
Why would I argue with myself?
Maybe it's because you quoted my entire post and your response doesn't fit the literary flow ("...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays." makes absolutely no sense as a response to "Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.")
I've never heard of any special training required for using the HUD systems already available in a variety of cars today.
Point? You're not actually trying to compare the highly advanced HUD system in a war-fighting aircraft with the simplistic speedometer display in a Cadillac, are you? Seriously, dude, you need to include context in your posts if you want to be understood.
So, would you be okay with a version of Google Glass that had a verifiable car mode or not?
Interesting idea; how would this 'car mode' be verifiable to a third party? It would also have to have some sort of timed lockout, so you couldn't just switch from facebook to car mode once the cop pulls you over.
Personally I don't think it's a great idea, because the view is somewhere in the top-left of your FOV, whereas driving requires your attention to be focused more direct center; hence the reason for in-dash HUD systems - they put the info close to where you need to be looking anyway.
And if there was such a thing, how would it be less distracting to have some information in a certain point of your field of view versus information that is specifically designed to be in same the field of view as the road you're driving on?
See, man, this is why you need context: because up to this point, I was pretty sure you were making the opposite argument... now I'm not really sure where ya stand.
Here's what gets me about the Boston incident: We know the government has basically been intercepting and monitoring all domestic communications since at least 2006, right? And we also know that the Russian government warned our government that these Tsarnesev (not going to bother looking up the spelling) brothers were coming here and up to no good, right?
So, the government is monitoring the communications of these guys who came to this country to blow shit up... and they never came across any information that would have allowed them to prevent the attack? I don't buy that shit for a second - you can't honestly tell me that in the, what, 3-4 years these assholes were here, they never, ever, not even once, said something over an electronic communications line that would warrant further scrutiny. Especially considering the warning we received from the Ruskies.
Kinda like how certain people are always talking about progress, while ignoring the fact that progress alone is not necessarily a good thing: one can progress towards certain doom, after all.
There's no incentive to vote outside the big two other
If there was no incentive, nobody would; the fact that people do vote outside the duopoly disproves your hypothesis.
For example, I vote for non-duopolist parties because I'm not a follower douchebag more concerned with making sure that other guy doesn't get elected; I vote my principles. If you're not going to do that, if your only reason for voting is keeping "the other guy" out, then do the rest of your nation a favor and stay the fuck home on election day: you're part of the problem.
Whereas right now, it's a certainty that if you don't support the lesser evil today, it'll hand an advantage to the greater evil.
But you still support evil, which makes you an evil piece of shit in my eyes. Seriously, dude, if you know both of the major candidates are going to fuck you over, one way or the other, why the hell would you still vote for either of them? It's gotta be either masochism or idiocy, because otherwise I, for the life of me, cannot come up with one logical reason to do so.
Really, every version of Outlook, ever? So, when adding my gmail account for the first time, You really need to try and download every one of the 5,000+ emails I've gotten over the past decade before letting me choose how far back to sync?
I wonder if the insistence on a 2-party system is a result of the bastardized misunderstanding of the Constitution's requirement for a bi-cameral (made of 2 houses) legislature.
Then I decide it doesn't matter, what we should be focusing on is not the reason why people are stupid fucks, but rather on getting the aforementioned stupid fucks to stop being so bloody stupid.
Still trying to get this meme to catch on: The only wasted vote is the one that goes to a D or an R.
Americans and us dangerous foreigners, expect no sympathy. One does not have to believe in Karma to know that you deserve the domestic spying.
By that same line of thinking, one could also say that you deserve to be spied upon and drone-striked, due to your blanket, wholly uninformed generalizations about Americans.
I wouldn't say that, because I'm not an egocentric dick... but someone could, and it would be just as invalid and moronic as your hypothesis.
You're a fool if you don't realise that the cultural belief in "American exceptionalism" has been the enabler for the NSA and the "Military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower spoke of.
Not a fool, but it's the fault of mass individual ignorance, not some cultural belief, that gives rise to and allows such behavior to persist. It would be irresponsible and wrong to blanket fault on every single American, when it's obvious that not all of us buy into such nonsense; not to mention, "stupid, complacent sheep" is not a descriptor exclusive to Americans - every culture has them.
Or, put more succinctly, "Most generalizations are false, including this one."
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.
The only problem is what your choice is between John Jackson, and Jack Johnson or Kang and Kodos or a turd sandwich and a giant douche.
All depending on which animated series you prefer.:)
No, the problem is that so many people are incorrectly convinced that choosing to vote for a political candidate is a binary decision, when the reality is that there are almost as many choices in who you elect as there are tributaries to the Mississippi.
Americans and us dangerous foreigners, expect no sympathy. One does not have to believe in Karma to know that you deserve the domestic spying.
By that same line of thinking, one could also say that you deserve to be spied upon and drone-striked, due to your blanket, wholly uninformed generalizations about Americans.
I wouldn't say that, because I'm not an egocentric dick... but someone could, and it would be just as invalid and moronic as your hypothesis.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember one rule: treat every other person the way you want to be treated.
Slight correction: Act in a way that is not harmful to the rest of society.
This requires a bit more consideration, but summarizes most of morality more accurately in my opinion.
Morality is personal; it has nothing to do with society, other than the fact that personal morals affect how people interact with each other.
To that end, if everyone treated everyone else the way they wanted to be treated, there would be no societal harm. If you disagree, please provide some sort of example.
Morals are not universal.
Oh, the fuck they aren't.
I'm getting pretty fed up with people excusing fucked up behavior by claiming, 'waaah, but morals are hard!'
Being hard is not even remotely the same as being universal. The earlier poster was correct.
The classic example is the person who knows best. Because then there's no issue with them imposing their moral views on you. They are treating you exactly like they would want to be treated, if they were as much a bitter clinger or whatever as you. And it's infamous how little the people who know best agree with each other.
You're talking about either liars, who are amoral, or sociopaths, who I already exempted.
FWIW, nobody knows what's best for me but me.
"I treat my shareholders the way I would want to be treated. I extract the maximum amount of revenue from my customers while giving them as little value as possible so as to keep my margins as high as possible and stay just on this side of 'legal' so as to give my shareholders the maximum return for their investment"...
oops, Now I'm now treating my customers the way I would want to be treated as a customer... What to do?
Stop smoking crack?
Are you seriously trying to say that there's no way to run a profitable business and still be morally just? There is - it's called 'not being a greedy fuck who cares more about money than people,' and it's actually really, really easy to do... if you're not a greedy fuck, anyway. There's nothing moral about putting profits over people; not to mention, you've failed to apply the rule to all parties involved - if the shareholders weren't so greedy, the company wouldn't be compelled to be so greedy, and the customers would get a decent product for a decent price.
For examples, see how Sam Walton ran his retail business, or check into Henry Ford's policies regarding employee treatment.
"Do unto others" is much too simple, but I think it's intended to suggest care/avoid harm and equity/justice.
I actually came up with a second cardinal rule that pretty much shores (sp?) up the shortcomings of the first, but for the life of me can't remember how it goes... I'll call that a consequence of rarely being put into morally questionable circumstances.
If it does come to mind I'll let you know.
All well and good, but you still haven't answered the fundamental question: would you want some other nation and their government to invade your homeland and blow it 3/4 of the way to shit?
Side note: I get the feeling, had those Iraqi people who wanted us to invade actually known what the repercussions would be (loss of life, introduction of terrorism, destruction of infrastructure, etc.), they would have kept their mouths shut.
How good can a company be if they offer you a job solely on your so-called resume?
No interview, no verification..
I suspect they are grossly misusing the term "job offer."
I concur; they're probably referring to those mass-spam-emails that go something like "I was looking at your [systems administration focused] resume, and thought you would be a perfect fit for the insurance salesman/financial advisor at some random company that remains nameless."
I get no less than 3 of those a day myself.
That logic can be used to argue both sides of almost anything, from making kids eat their veggies to invading Iraq (if you convince yourself you'll be greeted as a liberator).
Um, no. Think about it; we'll use your Iraq example, since eating vegetables is more of a health issue than a moral one.
Does anyone want someone else to come into their home and level it? Of course not, thus, it is an immoral action. It's when people start making up addendums and exceptions to the Golden Rule (like, "Well, I wouldn't want to be invaded, but those people probably want us to invade them!") that the waters get unnecessarily muddy.
Yup.
Generally they are people who have a high level of moral integrity.
Morals are not universal.
Oh, the fuck they aren't.
I'm getting pretty fed up with people excusing fucked up behavior by claiming, 'waaah, but morals are hard!'
No, they fucking aren't; you want to be a morally just person? Remember one rule: treat every other person the way you want to be treated. Excluding true sociopaths who are chemically unable to parse the concept, yes, morality really is that simple.
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.
I don't see what most of the points you raised in response to my comment have to do with the points you raised in the comment I responded to.
Why would I argue with myself?
Maybe it's because you quoted my entire post and your response doesn't fit the literary flow ("...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays." makes absolutely no sense as a response to "Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.")
I've never heard of any special training required for using the HUD systems already available in a variety of cars today.
Point? You're not actually trying to compare the highly advanced HUD system in a war-fighting aircraft with the simplistic speedometer display in a Cadillac, are you? Seriously, dude, you need to include context in your posts if you want to be understood.
So, would you be okay with a version of Google Glass that had a verifiable car mode or not?
Interesting idea; how would this 'car mode' be verifiable to a third party? It would also have to have some sort of timed lockout, so you couldn't just switch from facebook to car mode once the cop pulls you over.
Personally I don't think it's a great idea, because the view is somewhere in the top-left of your FOV, whereas driving requires your attention to be focused more direct center; hence the reason for in-dash HUD systems - they put the info close to where you need to be looking anyway.
And if there was such a thing, how would it be less distracting to have some information in a certain point of your field of view versus information that is specifically designed to be in same the field of view as the road you're driving on?
See, man, this is why you need context: because up to this point, I was pretty sure you were making the opposite argument... now I'm not really sure where ya stand.
Indeed; Been a while since I've seen that particular Treehouse of Horror.
Here's what gets me about the Boston incident: We know the government has basically been intercepting and monitoring all domestic communications since at least 2006, right? And we also know that the Russian government warned our government that these Tsarnesev (not going to bother looking up the spelling) brothers were coming here and up to no good, right?
So, the government is monitoring the communications of these guys who came to this country to blow shit up... and they never came across any information that would have allowed them to prevent the attack? I don't buy that shit for a second - you can't honestly tell me that in the, what, 3-4 years these assholes were here, they never, ever, not even once, said something over an electronic communications line that would warrant further scrutiny. Especially considering the warning we received from the Ruskies.
Something fishy about that.
It's a stable system, though.
Proof that "stable" != good, effective, or right.
Kinda like how certain people are always talking about progress, while ignoring the fact that progress alone is not necessarily a good thing: one can progress towards certain doom, after all.
There's no incentive to vote outside the big two other
If there was no incentive, nobody would; the fact that people do vote outside the duopoly disproves your hypothesis.
For example, I vote for non-duopolist parties because I'm not a follower douchebag more concerned with making sure that other guy doesn't get elected; I vote my principles. If you're not going to do that, if your only reason for voting is keeping "the other guy" out, then do the rest of your nation a favor and stay the fuck home on election day: you're part of the problem.
Whereas right now, it's a certainty that if you don't support the lesser evil today, it'll hand an advantage to the greater evil.
But you still support evil, which makes you an evil piece of shit in my eyes. Seriously, dude, if you know both of the major candidates are going to fuck you over, one way or the other, why the hell would you still vote for either of them? It's gotta be either masochism or idiocy, because otherwise I, for the life of me, cannot come up with one logical reason to do so.
Pft, lets see a fighter jockey parallel park a F-16.
I've known one or two of those guys, and considering their personality types, that's not something you actually want to say to them.
Because they will do it.
A third party? Sure, throw your vote away!
Exactly the sort of idiocy I'm referring to, thanks for providing an example.
How well does Lotus or Groupwise work on your mobile phone? BYOD is the reality of business email these days.
Lotus does have mobile clients that work just as well as their desktop one.
Of course, I fucking hate their desktop client, so...
Outlook... is... a royal PITA.
FTFY.
Really, every version of Outlook, ever? So, when adding my gmail account for the first time, You really need to try and download every one of the 5,000+ emails I've gotten over the past decade before letting me choose how far back to sync?
I wonder if the insistence on a 2-party system is a result of the bastardized misunderstanding of the Constitution's requirement for a bi-cameral (made of 2 houses) legislature.
Then I decide it doesn't matter, what we should be focusing on is not the reason why people are stupid fucks, but rather on getting the aforementioned stupid fucks to stop being so bloody stupid.
Still trying to get this meme to catch on: The only wasted vote is the one that goes to a D or an R.
Americans and us dangerous foreigners, expect no sympathy. One does not have to believe in Karma to know that you deserve the domestic spying.
By that same line of thinking, one could also say that you deserve to be spied upon and drone-striked, due to your blanket, wholly uninformed generalizations about Americans.
I wouldn't say that, because I'm not an egocentric dick... but someone could, and it would be just as invalid and moronic as your hypothesis.
You're a fool if you don't realise that the cultural belief in "American exceptionalism" has been the enabler for the NSA and the "Military Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower spoke of.
Not a fool, but it's the fault of mass individual ignorance, not some cultural belief, that gives rise to and allows such behavior to persist. It would be irresponsible and wrong to blanket fault on every single American, when it's obvious that not all of us buy into such nonsense; not to mention, "stupid, complacent sheep" is not a descriptor exclusive to Americans - every culture has them.
Or, put more succinctly, "Most generalizations are false, including this one."
Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!
Yea, this.
Thunderbird on my PCs, K9 Mail on my Android machines. Nary a problem to be found.
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.
That could be enough to swing many elections, thus you'll never see it done.
So long as the majority of people maintain that there are only 2 political parties to choose from, you will continue to be correct in this regard.
Oh, sure, it would more than* double their traffic!
* "more than," because double of nothing is still nothing.
The only problem is what your choice is between John Jackson, and Jack Johnson or Kang and Kodos or a turd sandwich and a giant douche.
All depending on which animated series you prefer. :)
No, the problem is that so many people are incorrectly convinced that choosing to vote for a political candidate is a binary decision, when the reality is that there are almost as many choices in who you elect as there are tributaries to the Mississippi.
Americans and us dangerous foreigners, expect no sympathy. One does not have to believe in Karma to know that you deserve the domestic spying.
By that same line of thinking, one could also say that you deserve to be spied upon and drone-striked, due to your blanket, wholly uninformed generalizations about Americans.
I wouldn't say that, because I'm not an egocentric dick... but someone could, and it would be just as invalid and moronic as your hypothesis.