The Harry Potter movie opened yesterday! Watch me do my Harry Potter movie dance!
*does Harry Potter movie dance*
Yaaay!
11.17.2001
posted by Anonymous @ 4:28:00 PM
In response to Dyanne, why are moral actions done without reward in mind? What makes these actions moral? Are you saying that actions undertaken to gain a reward are immoral? I would contend that every action we undertake has some sort of reward involved, even if the reward is just the personal satisfaction of having done a "good thing."
There's an old saying that is appropriate for this discussion:
If it has female genitalia, rape it.
(Note to Sensitive/Gullible/Easily Influenced People: That was satire. Don't take it seriously.)
There's an old saying that is appropriate for this discussion:
If it has female genitalia, rape it.
(Note to Sensitive/Gullible/Easily Influenced People: That was satire. Don't take it seriously.)
posted by Anonymous @ 4:21:00 PM
My moral system: I am right. You are wrong.
Any questions?
Any questions?
posted by Anonymous @ 4:10:00 PM
11.16.2001
*cheers for Joe's point*
posted by dyts @ 10:25:00 PM
Yeah, Tara's already given that argument a good whack. So I don't have to. However, here's another angle on it. What if the rape was performed as a public event? With lots of people standing around, whistling, clapping, and so forth. Would you say it would be demeaning if the person never found out about it? Yes? Then why? It has to do with respect for others, doesn't it? If one doesn't uphold one's usual moral attitudes "just because no one's looking," one can't be said to have any morals at all. Duh. Again, if you consider the perpetrator depraved, why? Doesn't that imply that the act in itself is depraved? Seeing as we know nothing about this person except that he performs this act?
posted by dyts @ 5:26:00 PM
Natalie,
I love you and everything, but i see just a *couple* contradictions in your argument. Okay, first
"I don't believe in morality." and then "I also believe that human beings have an obligation", etc. Those are rather contradictory statements. You believe that people have duties, then they do and that's morality. IF there is no morality, then there can't be things that are "right" so there aren't duties. Then, "There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the act of rape itself...". Okay, if there is nothing wrong with rape, then why is it "a lousy thing to do". Lousy suggests that there is at least something wrong with rape, because lousy things are not good things. It seems that you have a conflict here between what you want to think and what you do think. If you can clarify it, please do, but as it stands i don't see that you've presented a logically flawless argument.
I love you and everything, but i see just a *couple* contradictions in your argument. Okay, first
"I don't believe in morality." and then "I also believe that human beings have an obligation", etc. Those are rather contradictory statements. You believe that people have duties, then they do and that's morality. IF there is no morality, then there can't be things that are "right" so there aren't duties. Then, "There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the act of rape itself...". Okay, if there is nothing wrong with rape, then why is it "a lousy thing to do". Lousy suggests that there is at least something wrong with rape, because lousy things are not good things. It seems that you have a conflict here between what you want to think and what you do think. If you can clarify it, please do, but as it stands i don't see that you've presented a logically flawless argument.
posted by Jane @ 3:17:00 PM
11.15.2001
The answer to Tara's question about rape seems fair obvious to me, lads and lassies. It's entirely possible for someone to do immoral things without obvious repercussions or anyone knowing about it. Absolutely ridiculous that anyone should think a basic principle like "respecting other people's bodies" doesn't apply just because nobody's looking. If one only follows pretensions to morality/societal mores because of one's concern for other people's opinions/reactions to one's actions, that isn't morality at all. In fact, to extend this argument, I would say that the most moral actions are those done without any expectation of reward or public knowledge. And I would honestly bludgeon someone who disagrees with me on this.
posted by dyts @ 7:36:00 PM
On another subject, fish are great, cummon. they are possibly the most low matienence pets in the world, or at least my fish. True some people, like Jennifer, devote large amounts of time to fish care. She even has ( or had) a special tank for sick fish so they wouldn't get the other fish sick. How funny! But my cat ate one of mine.
posted by Jane @ 7:17:00 PM
Hey guys, I can see you all yawning with boredom when you read the bivalve blog. Liar, and you have your demonic face on too... Ignore that. So, for my own enjoyment, possibly coupled with yours, I am going to introduce a new topic for debate. This topic is courtesy of GPaul, which you will certainly be able to tell. But, i found it so interesting that i decided it needed to be continued and expanded as an idea.
So, the question: If a person is raped, when they are unconscious, has something immoral been done? Stipulations: completely "safe" sex (though this is of course only possible in the theoretical) was practiced, they victim never learns about this incident, nor does any other person, and they suffer no physical damage from it, also, the rapist did not cause this unconscious state.
It's interesting, if you think about it. Please do (think about it that is), be it would be dispiriting to see a whole bunch of "oh, how horrible" or "that terrible because it just is". That's NOT the point. The point is, if it is immoral to commit rape in this situation, why. And, here's the kicker, we are working from a basically utilitarian moral standpoint. So don't talk about it just being wrong because god said, because utilitarianism doesn't give a damn. Any takers?
So, the question: If a person is raped, when they are unconscious, has something immoral been done? Stipulations: completely "safe" sex (though this is of course only possible in the theoretical) was practiced, they victim never learns about this incident, nor does any other person, and they suffer no physical damage from it, also, the rapist did not cause this unconscious state.
It's interesting, if you think about it. Please do (think about it that is), be it would be dispiriting to see a whole bunch of "oh, how horrible" or "that terrible because it just is". That's NOT the point. The point is, if it is immoral to commit rape in this situation, why. And, here's the kicker, we are working from a basically utilitarian moral standpoint. So don't talk about it just being wrong because god said, because utilitarianism doesn't give a damn. Any takers?
posted by Jane @ 7:16:00 PM
Pet fish are boring.
posted by Diane @ 5:38:00 PM
11.11.2001
Doctors do have a duty to their patients, Jess. But, Natalie, they also have a duty to their own moral codes. I don't think there is really anything you can do if your doctor refuses to prescribe a certain medication; he has the freedom to prescribe or to not prescribe a medication based upon his own judgement, moral or medical. It's not against the law for him to refuse and unless the medication is absolutely necessary for your survival, it's not really unethical or against the Hippocratic oath. This conflict has an easy resolution: for every doctor out there who refuses to prescribe a certain medication (and the only type of medication that is really in question here is abortion-like medication) there are twice as many who are ready and willing to. Just find a different doctor. Easier said than done perhaps, especially when the window for taking the medication is small, but still very simple.
posted by Anonymous @ 8:13:00 PM