Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Calrid]

How do you judge the implicit state of a rule, or don't you. What makes say one post good and the other morally dubious?

In short how do you moderate yourself?

[Theophane]

By adhering to your own ethical principles. You can, of course, decide what those principles should be.

[Calrid]

Can I what if I am not allowed to because I am being forced to adhere to principles that are nonsensical at best and arbitrary at worst? What then?

[Theophane]

I have to ask ... what are these nonsensical arbitrary principles?

[Calrid]

I have to ask ... what are these nonsensical arbitrary principles?

Any rule that isn't reflected upon is arbitrary including the law in your country, forum rules, the morals and rules you live by and so on.

[Theophane]

Are you an anarchist, Calrid?

[Calrid]

Are you an anarchist, Calrid?

No more of hedonist, I fundamentally disagree with anarchism because I don't think people are good enough to make it work. I'm also completely against economic forms of anarchism like libertarianism too, for the same reasons x 1000000 because bankers and financial institutions in general have some of the most pyschopaths of any other profession, interestingly you are born a psychopath it is caused somewhat by certain areas of the brain that deal with empathy being flooded with seratonin in the womb.

So you don't believe rules should be reflected on, you can answer that you know.

[Theophane]

I admit I don't know what you mean by "reflected on."

[Calrid]

I admit I don't know what you mean by "reflected on."

Put through the mill, applied and amended and considered. I prefer people to think about the spirit of the law too, rather than as I say arbitrarily just apply it without considering it. For example 1st degree murder is minimum 15 years to life in this country, but if someone murdered someone who was going to murder thousands of people one would hope this would be taken into consideration when sentence was passed, meaning they got off with a lighter sentence even than the minimum. Let's say that person he killed/murdered was Hitler or some German big wig, and he was a civillian German citizen acting under his own discretion, how would an English court find him and a German court. Questions like that.

[Theophane]

Well ... no one will ever be able to kill Hitler as he is already dead. But if a hypothetical person were to murder someone who planned to kill a lot of people, thereby saving many lives ... it would still be murder. But a military uniform seems to grant its wearer carte blanche to kill as many people (enemy combatants, presumably) as he sees fit. Medals are awarded on the basis of how many lives have been snuffed out. It's the extreme opposite of what would happen to a civilian who went on a killing-spree. Instead of being cited for bravery, a civilian would probably face multiple life-sentences in prison, served consecutively. Pretty messed up, but that's the world in which we live.

[Calrid]

Well ... no one will ever be able to kill Hitler as he is already dead. But if a hypothetical person were to murder someone who planned to kill a lot of people, thereby saving many lives ... it would still be murder. But a military uniform seems to grant its wearer carte blanche to kill as many people (enemy combatants, presumably) as he sees fit. Medals are awarded on the basis of how many lives have been snuffed out. It's the extreme opposite of what would happen to a civilian who went on a killing-spree. Instead of being cited for bravery, a civilian would probably face multiple life-sentences in prison, served consecutively. Pretty messed up, but that's the world in which we live.

yeah that wasn't my point about Hitlerbut thanks for pointing that out.

I quite agree how is murder and killing in the name of any different from other forms of murder, state sanctioned murder is stilll murder, especially in this day and age. And I quite agree again about civillians somehow civillians can't murder but soldiers can, it's just messed up. As the Bible says state sanctioned murder is not actually murder. **** me really, and then jesus opines, and you're still claiming state sanctioned murder is not murder? Are you retarded? The Jews are ok they always believed that state sanctioned murder was not murder lo tsirak as they put it. But the Christians, God help them if all their hypocrisy was lined up at the latter day they would burn in hell for all eternity. If of course God exists.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-an ... -rule,222/


I think this about sums it up and am well aware no one will read it, but for once in you Jesus life, read something, you're on the last legs of your humanity as it is. Stop being indolent.