BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson) wrote:
>I hear that you are personally "sick" of being told what is right. I am
>sorry that you are unwilling to contribute at this time toward
>discussions which might help understand the terms
The terms are easily understood. What's their specific content (Brett's
morality,
my morality, the morality of the "moral majority" *ick*) varies highly.
Discussion
of this content has little to do with understanding of the terms themselves.
>moral
>reason
>judgement
>(as you say, you will reject all definitions of morality with a force of
No, he rejects all attempts from you to define what he should consider a part of his own private morality. And so do I. I don't think anyone here rejects an attempt to define the semantic meaning of the *term* morality.
>willfulness... you will use the term "judgement" to define what is
>"judged to be wrong" but refuse to believe there is a single, or "true",
>basis for such judgement... and you will say that violation may be
>deemed to have occurred "with good reason" but, similarly, refuse to
>define [or even discuss] an unquestionable foundation for such
>reasoning).
No such foundation could possibly be "unquestionable".
>Defining "morality" as "right action" doesn't place me in a position to
>judge what is right and wrong-- *truth* judges what is right and wrong
>(as in, it is right for a ball to roll downhill/ such that, an "immoral"
>ball is one which uses force to do what is un-natural... ie. roll
>uphill).
That's not *truth*. _If_ it's possible for a ball to roll uphill, it's not *truth* that all balls roll downhill. Neither is it necessarily *truth* that it should be immoral for a ball to roll uphill. The owerwhelming majority of mammals are quadrupedal, you (presumably, unless you always crawl) use force to stand up and walk on two legs. Is that immoral?
Morality shouldn't be based on statistics of what's "normal". It should be
based on allowing the most freedom possible to everyone, while minimizing
harm
to everyone, roughly speaking. It's not *true* in any way, it's defined to
be what it is. All talk of "absolute morals" and things that are always
wrong
or always right, in all times, in all circumstances, because of some kind of
"built-in" morality of the universe, is in my opinion complete bollocks.
>My family were middle to upper class citizens who were monogamous, hard
>working, self-sacrificing, productive, and creative. They didn't
>instill in me the need to excuse behavior which is self-destructive.
Like fantasizing? Come on.. if that's what they taught you they couldn't possibly have been anywhere near "creative". Or perhaps they didn't want _you_ to be creative?
>I am willing to discuss "fantasy" further.
The concept of fantasy as harmful perversion is your own, and I don't think you're likely to find converts.. but, by all means, try.
>ps. I am also sorry you do not personally like the me/ you style of
>responding... please take your dislikes offlist or conform to the types
>of standards this style of forum evolves
Why should he do that? If you invent a new way to respond, which he (and I, and probably others as well) find very strange and confusing, shouldn't we tell you so? Is this part of your form of "morality"? If so, why? It's certainly not common netiquette, which you seem to imply..
He's conforming to the standards. You weren't. That doesn't necessarily
imply
that you're wrong and he's right, but since you yourself seem to think that
"non-standard" implies or equals "immoral", perhaps you should think twice
before risking being "immoral"..
-Engan