Self - all that matters

[SingleCellOrganism]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

 

[MaggieD]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

I guess it makes sense if you're a Single Cell Organism...

 

[Gardener]

I never receive any disagreement when I state so definitively that solipsism is really the only way to go.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

I never receive any disagreement when I state so definitively that solipsism is really the only way to go.

Ahh, but solipsism ignores the probability that others exist, so you are only deluding yourself!

With relativism you get to acknowledge others exist, and still screw them over because its "right for you".

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?!

Would you like to be killed and/or have your property stolen? It's fairly common sensical to understand that social morality consists largely of not doing to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. Why do you need a god to tell you not to steal?

 

[Gardener]

Ahh, but solipsism ignores the probability that others exist, so you are only deluding yourself!

With relativism you get to acknowledge others exist, and still screw them over because its "right for you".

I see these words on the screen and am comforted that I made them so.

 

[MaggieD]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

This is a great definition of a psychopath.

psychopath ( ) n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

I see these words on the screen and am comforted that I made them so.

You wrote this to yourself.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

Would you like to be killed and/or have your property stolen? It's fairly common sensical to understand that social morality consists largely of not doing to other people what you wouldn't want done to you. Why do you need a god to tell you not to steal?

People concerned with self and self-preservation don't think about such things. Those are the pondering of a mind concerned with justice and philosophy.

As much as I would lament having my property stolen, as I wouldn't steal others, there certainly are a plethora (of el guapos) of others with no concern for absolute morality that can make these justifications; and they would be right.

I agree, it's a psychotic philosophy, but that is essentially what is being taught in the subtleties of our western culture.

 

[rathi]

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive

Completely and utterly wrong. Survival mechanisms rarely rely on strength not to mention that evolution is driven by numerous other factors. Peacocks for instance, having a higher chance of mating with a larger tail, even when that tail makes them more vulnerable to predators.

2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me

True.

3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Maybe for you, not for me. I recognize that my view of morality is personal not universal, that doesn't mean I won't do my best to live up to it.

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Look around you: are thieves and murderers the most successful members of society or are they at the very bottom?

 

[tacomancer]

Even if you are only looking out for yourself, a huge part of the probability of long term survival is environmental factors. Those include danger (people not murdering or stealing from you), opportunity (a good chance to get a job, easy to obtain food), and influence (changing your environment to be in your best interest). Because of the environment and how it affects your life, opportunities, etc, it a perfectly valid self interest strategy to be a good person.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I agree, it's a psychotic philosophy, but that is essentially what is being taught in the subtleties of our western culture.

Oh, really? Where? Give us an example.

 

[scourge99]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

Lets suppose you are correct (which you aren't) that there is some absolute moral standard. How does that fix the situation we are in today? It doesn't. In fact some of the major atrocities of history have been committed in the name of some proclaimed absolute morality.

We still run into the problem of:
1) figuring out which of the nay claims to absolute morality is correct.
2) convincing, compelling, forcing, etc, people that they should follow that morality.

Humans will act like humans whether they believe in any particular god(s) or not and whether absolute morals exist or not.

In short, the "is"/"ought" problem remains open. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

 

[majora$$hole]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

my sargent alway said "if you aint cheating you aint trying".

 

[lizzie]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

That only works if you are living in a vacuum. Fortunately for mankind, we have emotions and construct emotional ties, which in turn help us to empathize with others, and hopefully help us become more loving and giving human beings. Taken at face value, though, excluding group behavior and denying the emotional ties we have by nature, your original premise is correct.

 

[scourge99]

Taken at face value, though, excluding group behavior and denying the emotional ties we have by nature, your original premise is correct.

Even working from the vacuum of strict, cold logic there are objective reasons why killing and stealing are bad/wrong.

 

[Panache]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

This assumes that we value only our own situation, and do not value anyone else's situation.

Why not assume that we value other people's situations? Or assume that we hold no value for our own?

 

[Goshin]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

All I can say is, I'd hate to go thru life with that as my guiding philosophy... I think I'd be one miserable sumbeech if I did.

 

[MaggieD]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

Human beings would not have evolved successfully had we not been hardwired to live in "packs," if you will. Pack living precludes survival of the fittest and INcludes looking out after each other. Even the animal kingdom doesn't live by survival of the fittest within the herd or pack unit. "Survival of the fittest" mentality applies to predators.

 

[Cold Highway]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive

Deffine strong

2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me

Somewhat true, murder and theft are wrong no matter what the justifcation.

3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Whats best for me may not work for others but I respect what they believe as long as they dont try to kill me or use the gun of the government in order to change.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Since there is no right or wrong, other than right and wrong for YOU, can it also be argued that murder/stealing etc. are not wrong?

Follow the logic:

1. Survival of the fittest has proven that only the "strong" and adaptable survive
2. Morality is relative, what is wrong for you might be right for me
3. We have finite lives, sacrificing for some nebulous "morality" that nobody agrees on is a waste of time

Ergo - lie, steal, cheat; anything that improves your own situation is the "strong surviving"

Some moralists/absolutists would disagree with this, but hey, its all relative anyway!

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman

 

[reefedjib]

Human beings would not have evolved successfully had we not been hardwired to live in "packs," if you will. Pack living precludes survival of the fittest and INcludes looking out after each other. Even the animal kingdom doesn't live by survival of the fittest within the herd or pack unit. "Survival of the fittest" mentality applies to predators.

This is key, in my opinion. Survival in packs/societies require cooperative behaviors and non-violent competition. There are societal rules such as do not lie, cheat or steal, or murder. Survival of the fittest requires a fitness evaluation and this evaluation in a society is radically different than when you are on your own.

I think the universe follows nondualism, related to solipsism. All experience is personal and subjective, including your experience of yourself.

 

[scourge99]

All experience is personal and subjective, including your experience of yourself.

How do societies function and agree upon norms if everything is subjective and personal?

 

[reefedjib]

How do societies function and agree upon norms if everything is subjective and personal?

They establish rules/laws. It is possible to derive natural rights from relative morality.

 

[scourge99]

They establish rules/laws. It is possible to derive natural rights from relative morality.

But if all experience is subjective and personal then how is it that two people, let alone a society of people, all come to an understanding on what those rules/laws are?

There must be some objectivity otherwise there is no explanation for how agreement occurs.