What is morality, anyway?

Post by **fbmf** » Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:12 pm

Kaelik wrote:Ant for honorary moderator.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
So let it be written...
[/TGFBS]

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:00 am

Ant wrote:
Chamomile wrote:Ant, what is your opinion on teen promiscuity?
Those whose role is reproduction should be as promiscuous as possible for as long as possible; for the good of the colony. If your queen is of a species that survives to teen years, she should not deliberately slow production at that time; for the good of the colony.

shouldn't you be milking an aphid?

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:44 am

Thread over, Ant wins at the internet.

Ikeren · Post by **Ikeren** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:09 pm

I haven't read page 2 of this thread yet, but;

I'm a philosophy/political science double major in my 5th year; Ethics and IR are my fields of specialty. I went through the background and read the original report plus methodology, and it's bullshit. Basically "They don't have my moral perspective, therefore they don't have a consistent moral perspective." Interestingly, the sort of ethical theory that the youth do most consistently express is an expressivist (emotivist) theory, which in history of ethics is a response to absolutist ethics, which are most often the kind embedded in western social upbringing.

Thus, it's not "oh god, them childrens got no ethics" which is fascinating, but the fact that they're unconsciouslly making one of the same moves that ethical philosophers have been making when realizing the problem with naturalist/absolutist/intuitionist ethical theories.

So anyways, I really want to say; good on all you guys that recognized this article as bullshit. Also, to whoever said modern ethics is full of really shitty, dumb debates; you are absolutely correct. Academics have petty, irrelevant, stupid debates, and the public has shitty, confused, emotion based stupid debates.

Sometimes I want to set my degree on fire.

Edit: I've now read page two. Apologies for making an on-topic post.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:28 pm

And all I can think is "what would Ant say?"

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:08 am

Ikeren wrote: Edit: I've now read page two. Apologies for making an on-topic post.

Oh good - I was going to highly recommend you read page 2 for all of the Ant-ics, but now that you have, you can see that some good came of this thread.

Ikeren · Post by **Ikeren** » Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:22 pm

Indeed, this thread is a good producing entity.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:17 am

Ikeren wrote:Indeed, this thread is a good producing entity.

And that's just what Ant would want.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:29 am

Darth Rabbitt wrote:
Ikeren wrote:Indeed, this thread is a good producing entity.
And that's just what Ant would want.

Is it? We should ask Ant.

Sounds like a thread title to me...

Shadow Balls · Post by **Shadow Balls** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:54 pm

Koumei wrote:If I drew a picture of shadzar, would the drawing have a higher IQ than the real thing?

That depends. Is your name Relm?

Vnonymous · Post by **Vnonymous** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:50 am

Morality is a solved problem. Go and read "The Genealogy of Morals" and you'll know everything there is to know about morality and what to do about it. It is that easy.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:20 am

If it was that easy, everyone would just do that.

Vnonymous · Post by **Vnonymous** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:55 am

No, they wouldn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Gen ... f_Morality

And if you read it, you'll understand why.