• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Life is Unfair.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Purple

Hi guys!
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
10,383
Location
Duluth, Georgia
The world we live in is infested with sin (or for people who don't care for christianic terms, the world is filled with wrong-doing)

Because of this, should it be acceptable to make rules of fairity when those rules will clearly be broken? Why have these rules morally become acceptable? Doesn't this just destroy our animalistic traits? Is this okay? If we are animals, with no moral string attaching us from killing one another, how powerful do you think we are in the food chain without our modern technologies?
 

Sucumbio

Smash Chachacha
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,447
Location
wahwahweewah
Rules are in place to keep the majority of people in check. Though its true most any human can turn to "evil" or wrong-doing... the presence (and reward if you view freedom as earned for obeying laws) of laws works towards keeping society functioning. You seem to be asking what life would be like if it were anarchy, and well... it'd suck, lol. We'd be subject to the whims of anyone that could take advantage of us.

As for why these rules have become "morally acceptable" are you asking why Laws of the Land are viewed as morally "correct?" This is partly why I believe morality in general is subjective vs. objective... lets take a fundamental "law" which is also viewed as morally "correct."

Thou shalt not kill.

Now this biblical commandment is technically expanded and re-worded in American Law to include/exclude definitions of killing. Ergo premeditated murder is a no no, but killing for one's country in battle is okay. This law can be viewed morally as correct, because we are able to reason in our minds the outcome of being killed. It'd be bad, and bad is not good, and not good is immoral. Simple logic but it's really not any more complicated than that. What -can- complicate this particular example, is the fact that people tend to already "know" that murder is wrong, even before they've learned the Law that says its wrong. How is this? Is it a natural phenomenon? That would suggest morals are objective... I tend to think that with few exceptions morals are subjective, but with morals such as with murder, there is some objective reality at play. In other words, the world over, you may find variations on the definitions of "right" and "wrong" (some tribes in Africa think it's ok to engage in sex acts with children, but they don't view it as sexual, it's ritualistic) but you should also find cross-the-board similarities when considering specific moral situations like murder.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
The world we live in is infested with sin (or for people who don't care for christianic terms, the world is filled with wrong-doing)

Because of this, should it be acceptable to make rules of fairity when those rules will clearly be broken? Why have these rules morally become acceptable? Doesn't this just destroy our animalistic traits? Is this okay? If we were to be animals, with no moral string attaching us from killing one another, how powerful do you think we would be in the food chain?
Are you trying to suggest all animals kill their own species? I just want to make sure.

-blazed
 

Purple

Hi guys!
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
10,383
Location
Duluth, Georgia
Rules are in place to keep the majority of people in check. Though its true most any human can turn to "evil" or wrong-doing... the presence (and reward if you view freedom as earned for obeying laws) of laws works towards keeping society functioning. You seem to be asking what life would be like if it were anarchy, and well... it'd suck, lol. We'd be subject to the whims of anyone that could take advantage of us.

As for why these rules have become "morally acceptable" are you asking why Laws of the Land are viewed as morally "correct?" This is partly why I believe morality in general is subjective vs. objective... lets take a fundamental "law" which is also viewed as morally "correct."

Thou shalt not kill.

Now this biblical commandment is technically expanded and re-worded in American Law to include/exclude definitions of killing. Ergo premeditated murder is a no no, but killing for one's country in battle is okay. This law can be viewed morally as correct, because we are able to reason in our minds the outcome of being killed. It'd be bad, and bad is not good, and not good is immoral. Simple logic but it's really not any more complicated than that. What -can- complicate this particular example, is the fact that people tend to already "know" that murder is wrong, even before they've learned the Law that says its wrong. How is this? Is it a natural phenomenon? That would suggest morals are objective... I tend to think that with few exceptions morals are subjective, but with morals such as with murder, there is some objective reality at play. In other words, the world over, you may find variations on the definitions of "right" and "wrong" (some tribes in Africa think it's ok to engage in sex acts with children, but they don't view it as sexual, it's ritualistic) but you should also find cross-the-board similarities when considering specific moral situations like murder.
The emotional backdraw of taking a life is a defect, it means we are weak, not that the killing is wrong. Being fearful of going to the dentist doesn't make going to the dentist wrong, it's just the inexperience and misunderstanding of the act.
 

Purple

Hi guys!
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
10,383
Location
Duluth, Georgia
I would consider us animals, just like everyone else. I see that animals have a form of law that we have studied and done research on, however their law is much more gruesome than ours (allowed murder, some animals kill their children if they aren't strong enough, etc. etc.)

I probably wrote my statement incorrectly. Apologies, however I do feel we are animals.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
Rules are in place to keep the majority of people in check. Though its true most any human can turn to "evil" or wrong-doing... the presence (and reward if you view freedom as earned for obeying laws) of laws works towards keeping society functioning. You seem to be asking what life would be like if it were anarchy, and well... it'd suck, lol. We'd be subject to the whims of anyone that could take advantage of us.

As for why these rules have become "morally acceptable" are you asking why Laws of the Land are viewed as morally "correct?" This is partly why I believe morality in general is subjective vs. objective... lets take a fundamental "law" which is also viewed as morally "correct."

Thou shalt not kill.

Now this biblical commandment is technically expanded and re-worded in American Law to include/exclude definitions of killing. Ergo premeditated murder is a no no, but killing for one's country in battle is okay. This law can be viewed morally as correct, because we are able to reason in our minds the outcome of being killed. It'd be bad, and bad is not good, and not good is immoral. Simple logic but it's really not any more complicated than that. What -can- complicate this particular example, is the fact that people tend to already "know" that murder is wrong, even before they've learned the Law that says its wrong. How is this? Is it a natural phenomenon? That would suggest morals are objective... I tend to think that with few exceptions morals are subjective, but with morals such as with murder, there is some objective reality at play. In other words, the world over, you may find variations on the definitions of "right" and "wrong" (some tribes in Africa think it's ok to engage in sex acts with children, but they don't view it as sexual, it's ritualistic) but you should also find cross-the-board similarities when considering specific moral situations like murder.
I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Do you believe that morality is subjective or objective?

Also, you say that people tend to know that things like murder and pedophilia are wrong even before society tells them it is. What is the basis for this?
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
I would consider us animals, just like everyone else. I see that animals have a form of law that we have studied and done research on, however their law is much more gruesome than ours (allowed murder, some animals kill their children if they aren't strong enough, etc. etc.)

I probably wrote my statement incorrectly. Apologies, however I do feel we are animals.
Would it be ok to ask you to restate the entire debate proposition?

At this point I'm becoming confused as to what exactly leads you to the conclusion that "life is unfair"... is it that we have different laws than most of the rest of the animal kingdom?

-blazed
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Here is a paragraph from a recent essay I did, it basically argues that humans are superior to animals.

"Before we continue, this assumption must be briefly defended. The existence of levels of perfections is evidenced by the existence of various levels of superiority. These various levels of superiority are evidenced by the fact that there three are general types of beings: those which are purely means to an end, those which are created as means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, and that which is purely an end in itself. Beings which lack the capacity to commit moral goods and evils are purely means to ends; their goal is to contribute to an ecosystem or a natural cycle, and their individual goals or purposes cannot be altered by them themselves, only those who govern them. Humans, like all other beings, were created for a specific purpose, so they are a means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, for their moral capacities allow them to alter their desires and what they contribute towards - a capacity they would not posses if they were not intended to flourish as ends in themselves. Despite this capacity, humans cannot alter what true human flourishing is, only their ideal of it, so in a second way they are also means to an end. Finally, God, being self-necessary in nature, is purely an end in Himself. What is evidenced here is that certain beings relate to other beings in varying manners, suggesting there are degrees of superiority and perfection; for if all beings were equal all beings would be ends in themselves, requiring them all to have the same fundamental nature, which is not the case."
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
Here is a paragraph from a recent essay I did, it basically argues that humans are superior to animals.

"Humans, like all other beings, were created for a specific purpose"
I think I know what you mean to say here... but can I just ask when you say "beings" do you NOT mean animals? Are animals NOT beings? Is it because they were not "created for a specific purpose"?

-blazed
 

Sucumbio

Smash Chachacha
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,447
Location
wahwahweewah
The emotional backdraw of taking a life is a defect, it means we are weak, not that the killing is wrong. Being fearful of going to the dentist doesn't make going to the dentist wrong, it's just the inexperience and misunderstanding of the act.
I don't agree. I think that our ability to -reason- that killing is wrong speaks to our strengths as a species. By not resorting to basic animal instincts, we're able to preserve our species as a whole, though I can see the argument that this may lead to overpopulation (which it has in some areas of the world.) And being fearful of breaking a law isn't what makes it wrong to break that law, but it does keep us in check when considering not everyone thinks the same way when it comes to laws. For instance stealing. Someone in a desperate situation may steal food to survive, and may even feel guilty, but the fear of going to prison for it won't be why they feel guilty, it's because they have a moral code that says "stealing is wrong."

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Do you believe that morality is subjective or objective?

Also, you say that people tend to know that things like murder and pedophilia are wrong even before society tells them it is. What is the basis for this?
I believe most moral judgments or decisions on moral dilemmas are Subjective, but I also believe that some basic moral truths are objective.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62437

There is evidence that we are "hard-wired" to know right from wrong. The difficulty is that MOST moral judgments you'd think are made by thought experiment, not by natural biology. But as the article suggests, the brain plays a key function in the interpretation of stimuli from which we'd derive moral judgments.

The article also suggests "that moral convictions aren't based on conscious principles, but on the brain trying to make its emotional judgment felt." This would follow that we're not only born knowing basic right and wrong, but that we don't need society to tell us these things, we already "know." That would make morality objective. I am not 100% convinced of the research's results, however. So I'm still in the subjective camp, but ever since experiments like this started coming to light, I've been leaning more towards the objective camp.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
I think I know what you mean to say here... but can I just ask when you say "beings" do you NOT mean animals? Are animals NOT beings? Is it because they were not "created for a specific purpose"?

-blazed
No beings are all things that exist.

The paragraph is just meant to show the different types of beings, and that there is a hierarchy of superiority among them. It says animals are means to ends, and that humans flourish as ends in themselves.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
No beings are all things that exist.

The paragraph is just meant to show the different types of beings, and that there is a hierarchy of superiority among them. It says animals are means to ends, and that humans flourish as ends in themselves.
Humans are animals.

Put down Rand and pick up a science book.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Part of our essence is indeed animal, but we have something beyond that as well, which I have used natural observation to conclude.

My conclusion is grounded in nature, it is just as empirical or scientific as saying that lions are social creatures which establish dominance hierarchies in their prides.

And who/what the hell is Rand?
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
You evidenced nothing. There was not a single shred of scientific or observational fact in that essay.

What you did do is go on to state wild assumptions about humans and their relationship to animals and god, without backing it up or providing any explanation whatsoever.

This is the problem with virtually all of your posts. I stated in another thread that you start off by assuming the very thing you're trying to prove, and then go off on a mad rant about how your premise is true because of ____ without connecting any of it together in a coherent fashion.


And who/what the hell is Rand?
If you took the whole "god" part out of that essay you wrote I'd think you ripped it from a chapter of Objectivism.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Animals cannot alter what they contribute to on their own accord, they cannot escape the ecosystems they are in- Fact evidenced through natural observation.

Humans can alter what they contribute to, and are governed by no ecosystem- Fact evidenced by natural observation.

And no I thought up the paragraph myself.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
What sort of migration? Do you mean how salmon migrate every year to breed?

Or how wilderbeast cross the Serenghetti?

That's not escaping an ecosystem, that's a systematic movement to contribute to a greater cycle.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
Using dictionary terms and not Dre-terms, yes, they are escaping their immediate ecosystem.

But let's back up a bit. Exactly how do humans "alter what they contribute to" and how are they "governed by no ecosystem"?

What exactly does that mean?
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere

But let's back up a bit. Exactly how do humans "alter what they contribute to" and how are they "governed by no ecosystem"?
Ironically, anything that contributes to something alters it in some way. Animals alter ecosystems, plants alter ecosystems.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Using dictionary terms and not Dre-terms, yes, they are escaping their immediate ecosystem.


No they're not. They may be escaping their immediate geography, but the only reason why they do that, or can do that, is to systematically contribute to a greater system.

Take the slamon migrating for breeding. Not only is this important for the salmon's breeding, but the bears need the feast before going into hibernation.

The fact that they always do it systematically without fail proves my point that they cannot alter what they contribute to.

But let's back up a bit. Exactly how do humans "alter what they contribute to" and how are they "governed by no ecosystem"?

What exactly does that mean?
As I've showed above, all animals have a cycle to follow, and are not capable of escaping it. Humans, however, don't have anything to follow. We are not restricted by various ecossytems, we don't all migrate to a certain place to breed every year etc.

In fact, we are the only species on Earth that has the potential to ruin other ecosystems, as we have been doing with urbanisation for countless years.

We can alter how we contribute because we can alter how we affect the rest of the world. We can urabnise it in its entirety, then in the next 50 years try to undo that urbanisation. We can develop articificially formulated ecosystems, introduce new species into old ecosystems etc. The world is our oyster.

Animals can't change what they contribute, that's why without fail every year the salmon migrate. In fact, the only thing that could stop them from doing that is human intervention.

Think what you like of my argument, even if you continue to condescend me, what I've said about the difference between us and animals is true, it's empirically evidenced in natural observation.

And no Bob you're missing the point. Animals may 'alter' ecossytems and that they influence them, but they cannot alter what they alter, they will always make the same contribution.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
I see what you're saying Dre, and agree with you - to an extent.

I would say that it's more of a continuum of organisms that can "alter what they alter" and those that can't. Different organisms respond to change in different ways. For example, there are a number of generalist species, humans being the most prominent, that adapt to changing environments and circumstances. A few include (stray) cats and dogs, raccoons, rats, bears, squirrels, pigeons, and cockroaches. These creatures have all adapted to humanized and urbanized environments that are vastly different from the kind of environments they evolved from. Raccoons in some areas used to 'alter' forest ecosystems, and now they 'alter' suburban and urban areas. Pigeons in modern-day metropolises didn't always eat fallen french fries and make homes on skyscrapers, but they do now.

On the other hand, there are some animals that cannot adapt (ie, break from their usual cycle) to new or changing conditions, like you said.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
The fact that they always do it systematically without fail proves my point that they cannot alter what they contribute to.
I don't believe so, the reason they do it systematically without fail is because doing so would be advantageous to them, and therefore, they have evolved to do so.

As I've showed above, all animals have a cycle to follow, and are not capable of escaping it. Humans, however, don't have anything to follow. We are not restricted by various ecossytems, we don't all migrate to a certain place to breed every year etc.
I think us humans are restricted by various ecosystems. Our farms are ecosystems, albeit ruined ones, and their productivity restricts our ability to expand our civilisation. We also rely on oceans for fish to catch, and their fish stocks restrict us.

In fact, we are the only species on Earth that has the potential to ruin other ecosystems, as we have been doing with urbanisation for countless years.
Don't agree with that. When the first cyanobacteria evolved that produced oxygen a large number of anaerobic bacteria went extinct. That is ruining other ecosystems.

We can alter how we contribute because we can alter how we affect the rest of the world. We can urabnise it in its entirety, then in the next 50 years try to undo that urbanisation. We can develop articificially formulated ecosystems, introduce new species into old ecosystems etc. The world is our oyster.
Well, it is and it isn't, if we trash the place, we trash ourselves; our food production will drop due to land degradation and other forms of environmental damage. This will have a nasty affect on society, and environmental damage will bite us back in other ways as well, air pollution and water pollution both hurt.

Animals can't change what they contribute, that's why without fail every year the salmon migrate. In fact, the only thing that could stop them from doing that is human intervention.
Or maybe... A change in climate, that rendered their breeding grounds unsuitable.

And no Bob you're missing the point. Animals may 'alter' ecossytems and that they influence them, but they cannot alter what they alter, they will always make the same contribution.
Evolution occurs to animals, and to us. As animals evolve, they can alter what they alter, as you say, because they change.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
I see what you're saying Dre, and agree with you - to an extent.

I would say that it's more of a continuum of organisms that can "alter what they alter" and those that can't. Different organisms respond to change in different ways. For example, there are a number of generalist species, humans being the most prominent, that adapt to changing environments and circumstances. A few include (stray) cats and dogs, raccoons, rats, bears, squirrels, pigeons, and cockroaches. These creatures have all adapted to humanized and urbanized environments that are vastly different from the kind of environments they evolved from. Raccoons in some areas used to 'alter' forest ecosystems, and now they 'alter' suburban and urban areas. Pigeons in modern-day metropolises didn't always eat fallen french fries and make homes on skyscrapers, but they do now.

On the other hand, there are some animals that cannot adapt (ie, break from their usual cycle) to new or changing conditions, like you said.
Due to time contraints, I'll just answer this post, considering it will probably cover Bob's as well.

Goldshadow what you're showing is adaption, which if evolution is true, doesn't refute my theory, because it is communal adaption.

Remeber I said animals can't alter what they contribute to, only what governs them can alter them, and that's exactly what's happening in what you've shown. The animals are forced to adapt due to a change in circumstances, they have been manipulated.

Human alteration of contribution is still different on a number of grounds. Firstly, it is individual, in that individuals alter contribution when they please, whereas animals are altered due to external factors, and secondly, it isn't necessary. Human alteration occurs simply because we can will on our own accord.

If animals were the same as us, individual animals would break free from their communities and ecosystems all the time, there would be no harmony in any ecosystem. They would alter their contribution when it isn't necessarily, but it is evident that external factors alter it when it becomes of necessity.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
Okay, I see what you're saying. While I don't necessarily agree with you on the idea that there would be "no harmony" if other animals had the same ability as humans, you are right in saying humans are the only species advanced enough to actively manipulate and change what they affect.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
But the point is it isn't necessarily about being more intelligent. I think you could have a race as intelligent, or even more intelligent as us, yet still have the restraints of animals.

Similarly, I think animals don't need to be as intelligent as us to be able to corurpt their natures, and the fact that they can't just proves my point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom