![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[this post is in response to a comment made by]
[KingNixon in my recent post]
[discussing marriage and monogamy]
the difference
which I don't think
the dictionary adequately addressed
is the source not the application
of the standards.
When you say murder is wrong,
I can not blindly agree
it would depend on
the definition of
murder.
if you simply left
it at killing another person
I would argue that
there are many instances
where it is not only
permissible but a moral
imperative to kill a
person, assuming all other
options have been exhausted.
If you define it as
the unlawful killing
of another person
you run into trouble
under the definition of
lawful..
who's laws apply?
it is all an
unending shade of
gray where words
are concerned perhaps
that's why I love them so.
And the reason you
can so easily identify
murder as being wrong
where you have a harder
time identifying use of
napster as wrong is
simply the obvious
nature of the injury
to another person
when you kill someone
you can immediately see
the injury they have
suffered at your hands
when you steal music
via napster you are
not aware and are
easily shielded from
the damage if indeed any
caused by your actions.
I think napster
is a perfect example
by which I will explain
my difference of belief
between morals and ethics.
Morals are set in stone,
when you take something
which doesn't belong to you
without the owners permission
you are stealing
stealing is morally wrong.
When you use napster
you are stealing
the property of
another person
it is no different
than if I went into
your house and stole
your TV or your cd
collection.
the only difference
is perhaps that
the owner may not
notice and or
be measurably
damaged by the theft.
but I could argue
that you have
insurance so
when I steal your
tv, you aren't
measurably damaged
by that theft either.
from a moral
perspective
there is no logical
argument that
using napster is
anything but wrong.
From an
ethical perspective
everything changes
Robin hood
stole from corrupt
and wicked people
and redistributed [in theory]
those resources justly to those in need
What ethically
justifies Robin Hoods theft
as it still qualifies as theft
anyway you look at it.
was that his actions
were done in the
search of
and for the cause of
justice.
Although
I could hardly apply
the example of Robin Hood
to someone's use of Napster.
One could say
that the record companies
are greedy bloated
companies who are
robbing us blind
and we are extracting
our own personal justice
by obtaining some free music
that is an ethical
choice and a
justification for
a moral wrong
People
spend too much time
justifying their immoral
and even their unethical
actions trying to make
what they have done either
no longer a wrong action
or a less wrong action.
This concept is
a fallacy
I am Jewish
my god forbids me
from eating cheeseburgers.
I love cheeseburgers
I eat cheeseburgers
is what I am doing
by my own moral beliefs
wrong
yes
can I live with
not being morally perfect
yes
In the old testament
god gives reasons
for the laws that
you might understand
god's will better.
Christians
and certain sects
of Jews have used
these explanations to justify
their actions and claim
a particular religious law
doesn't exist.
in the old testament
it states the following.
thou shall not eat swine.
that's pretty clear
don't eat pork, now
later it explains that
pork is an unclean meat
and that eating it can make you ill.
This is true, pork has
to be cooked to a higher
temperature than beef
in order to kill all of the
harmful bacteria.
I have heard people
argue not only that
because we can now
cook pork properly
that it is safe to eat
pork (which is true)
but that
because god's reason
is no longer valid
that the law does not apply anymore
This is the equivalent of
responding to a sign reading
"Public Health Hazard - Do not pee in the pool"
and figuring that
because we add chlorine to the pool
which sanitizes the water
that it is ok to pee in the pool.
You can not pee in the pool
it is wrong
someone may not get
sick because of the chlorine
but
it is still wrong
to pee in the pool
Someone [gina] recently
asked me to paraphrase
her words
"what made you so cynical or do you just like playing devils advocate"
and I thought I would
take a moment here
to address her concerns,
if you are more curious,
I am replying to her comment
in my post titled "opiates of the mind etc.."
with relevant links to long posts
which describe many
of the reasons I am
a cynical bastard.
however in all honesty
I must also admit
that I enjoy playing devils advocate
you see
to describe my trip
in minimal words
its called
personal responsibility
and I don't mean this
in the clean up your
room, go to work kind of
responsibility although that
could be a part of it.
When I use the term
personal responsibility
I refer to the practice of
owning up to your own shit
and understanding that
in the end, everything that
sucks in your life
is your own damn fault.
I am not claiming
nor preaching that I
am the most responsible
person in a day to day sense
but I steadfastly maintain
that my destiny is of my own making
if I live in a dumpster
that's my fault
if I live in a palace
that's also my fault
that's the gist of it
and now I go
to bed
domire
perchance sognare
della faccia mi amore
and
to my love
who tonight sleeps under
different stars
I miss you and
with Godspeed shall
I ride my steely stallion
to be by your side
before you sleep again.
[KingNixon in my recent post]
[discussing marriage and monogamy]
the difference
which I don't think
the dictionary adequately addressed
is the source not the application
of the standards.
When you say murder is wrong,
I can not blindly agree
it would depend on
the definition of
murder.
if you simply left
it at killing another person
I would argue that
there are many instances
where it is not only
permissible but a moral
imperative to kill a
person, assuming all other
options have been exhausted.
If you define it as
the unlawful killing
of another person
you run into trouble
under the definition of
lawful..
who's laws apply?
it is all an
unending shade of
gray where words
are concerned perhaps
that's why I love them so.
And the reason you
can so easily identify
murder as being wrong
where you have a harder
time identifying use of
napster as wrong is
simply the obvious
nature of the injury
to another person
when you kill someone
you can immediately see
the injury they have
suffered at your hands
when you steal music
via napster you are
not aware and are
easily shielded from
the damage if indeed any
caused by your actions.
I think napster
is a perfect example
by which I will explain
my difference of belief
between morals and ethics.
Morals are set in stone,
when you take something
which doesn't belong to you
without the owners permission
you are stealing
stealing is morally wrong.
When you use napster
you are stealing
the property of
another person
it is no different
than if I went into
your house and stole
your TV or your cd
collection.
the only difference
is perhaps that
the owner may not
notice and or
be measurably
damaged by the theft.
but I could argue
that you have
insurance so
when I steal your
tv, you aren't
measurably damaged
by that theft either.
from a moral
perspective
there is no logical
argument that
using napster is
anything but wrong.
From an
ethical perspective
everything changes
Robin hood
stole from corrupt
and wicked people
and redistributed [in theory]
those resources justly to those in need
What ethically
justifies Robin Hoods theft
as it still qualifies as theft
anyway you look at it.
was that his actions
were done in the
search of
and for the cause of
justice.
Although
I could hardly apply
the example of Robin Hood
to someone's use of Napster.
One could say
that the record companies
are greedy bloated
companies who are
robbing us blind
and we are extracting
our own personal justice
by obtaining some free music
that is an ethical
choice and a
justification for
a moral wrong
People
spend too much time
justifying their immoral
and even their unethical
actions trying to make
what they have done either
no longer a wrong action
or a less wrong action.
This concept is
a fallacy
I am Jewish
my god forbids me
from eating cheeseburgers.
I love cheeseburgers
I eat cheeseburgers
is what I am doing
by my own moral beliefs
wrong
yes
can I live with
not being morally perfect
yes
In the old testament
god gives reasons
for the laws that
you might understand
god's will better.
Christians
and certain sects
of Jews have used
these explanations to justify
their actions and claim
a particular religious law
doesn't exist.
in the old testament
it states the following.
thou shall not eat swine.
that's pretty clear
don't eat pork, now
later it explains that
pork is an unclean meat
and that eating it can make you ill.
This is true, pork has
to be cooked to a higher
temperature than beef
in order to kill all of the
harmful bacteria.
I have heard people
argue not only that
because we can now
cook pork properly
that it is safe to eat
pork (which is true)
but that
because god's reason
is no longer valid
that the law does not apply anymore
This is the equivalent of
responding to a sign reading
"Public Health Hazard - Do not pee in the pool"
and figuring that
because we add chlorine to the pool
which sanitizes the water
that it is ok to pee in the pool.
You can not pee in the pool
it is wrong
someone may not get
sick because of the chlorine
but
it is still wrong
to pee in the pool
Someone [gina] recently
asked me to paraphrase
her words
"what made you so cynical or do you just like playing devils advocate"
and I thought I would
take a moment here
to address her concerns,
if you are more curious,
I am replying to her comment
in my post titled "opiates of the mind etc.."
with relevant links to long posts
which describe many
of the reasons I am
a cynical bastard.
however in all honesty
I must also admit
that I enjoy playing devils advocate
you see
to describe my trip
in minimal words
its called
personal responsibility
and I don't mean this
in the clean up your
room, go to work kind of
responsibility although that
could be a part of it.
When I use the term
personal responsibility
I refer to the practice of
owning up to your own shit
and understanding that
in the end, everything that
sucks in your life
is your own damn fault.
I am not claiming
nor preaching that I
am the most responsible
person in a day to day sense
but I steadfastly maintain
that my destiny is of my own making
if I live in a dumpster
that's my fault
if I live in a palace
that's also my fault
that's the gist of it
and now I go
to bed
domire
perchance sognare
della faccia mi amore
and
to my love
who tonight sleeps under
different stars
I miss you and
with Godspeed shall
I ride my steely stallion
to be by your side
before you sleep again.
