Love is unethical

[midwestyankee]

Because it fits to this thread.



Why can it not be?

Child pornography is rated as bad, although it doesn't do anything. It is rated so, because a child was most likely abused to create it. So I think it's valid that entities are rated not only by the properties they inherently own, but also by those things, they allow or are a result of.



Let's use money instead - is the concept of money a good one? Does mankind need money? Should they need it?


Or let's try it this way:
Is a human being ever evil, a villain?

You would say now:"Only his actions can be rated as evil or good, he can't be, he is just an entity."

I say:"You can rate him, if you know what he has done or will do or might be able to do or what his purpose in life is."

So if I don't play by your rules will you take your ball and go home?

Pornography is not inherently unethical. The actions of some people in creating the pornography may have been unethical and possibly also illegal if it involved filming underage actors. But in and of itself pornography can not be either ethical or unethical. Only actions can contain ethos.

Mankind does need money in order to maintain an orderly society. Without it we would have vicious fights over the necessities of life because people can no longer be truly self-sufficient. Money, in fact, facilitates ethical behavior.

You can't know what someone will do in the future so you can't possibly declare that someone is unethical based on future actions.

There is a story that Gandhi once stole a small object. Does that mean that his entire life was unethical?

 

[YourCaptor]

animals or in general?
Care to elaborate?

What about the desire to eat humans?

In general, to survive. In desperate situations, most cultures would even condone eating other humans.

Anyway the point here is that it just is, you can't be without it. maybe like with eating people, we shouldn't over indulge in it, but when the time comes, when you need love, then I think its more unethical to stop it.

Love, from an outside point of view, is really rather amazing. It promotes extreme feats of caring. Crushing everything that's in the way just to keep one person smiling. I think its especially beautiful when you consider that most of our love is really extended to the weak, we turn our drive of self preservation onto another.

 

[Primalex]

So if I don't play by your rules will you take your ball and go home?

Depends on the rules.

Pornography is not inherently unethical.

This was not the question. The question was if child pornography is inherently unethical.

Mankind does need money in order to maintain an orderly society. Without it we would have vicious fights over the necessities of life because people can no longer be truly self-sufficient. Money, in fact, facilitates ethical behavior.

We have vicious fights over money. With money people can't be truly self-sufficient, because they are required to get it. Money, in fact, facilitates unethical behavior.

You can't know what someone will do in the future so you can't possibly declare that someone is unethical based on future actions.

And so you can't declare that someone is an abusive asshole because you don't know if this is still true or will be true in the future.

There is a story that Gandhi once stole a small object. Does that mean that his entire life was unethical?

If Hitler saved a cat from a tree, does that mean he was a good guy?

 

[Netzach]

Gandhi did a lot more of question than steal a trinket. It's good to examine your heroes adequately.

And little dejected pissed off ten year old Hitler is nothing we can really suss out as a genocidal dictator in advance. A lot of people dug his ideas, or else he'd just be a guy writing pamphlets.

 

[midwestyankee]

Depends on the rules.



This was not the question. The question was if child pornography is inherently unethical.



We have vicious fights over money. With money people can't be truly self-sufficient, because they are required to get it. Money, in fact, facilitates unethical behavior.



And so you can't declare that someone is an abusive asshole because you don't know if this is still true or will be true in the future.



If Hitler saved a cat from a tree, does that mean he was a good guy?

In other words, you seem to have learned how to participate in an online discussion from Bloved. Good work.

 

[Primalex]

In other words, you seem to have learned how to participate in an online discussion from Bloved. Good work.

Oh, please, it's okay if you want to run home now, but don't blame me.


A simple yes or no:
Is child pornography inherently unethical?

Stop dodging the question.

 

[midwestyankee]

Oh, please, it's okay if you want to run home now, but don't blame me.


A simple yes or no:
Is child pornography inherently unethical?

Stop dodging the question.

That's not the question that you actually asked. You may think that you did, but your writing was so unclear that I had to simplify the matter. Though if you had actually read my reply you wouldn't have needed to ask again. Is there an English translation for this:

Child pornography is rated as bad, although it doesn't do anything. It is rated so, because a child was most likely abused to create it. So I think it's valid that entities are rated not only by the properties they inherently own, but also by those things, they allow or are a result of.​

Ethics is the study of the quality of actions. Since child pornography - in and of itself - "doesn't do anything" as you put it, it cannot be either ethical or unethical. The act of making child pornography, on the other hand, is grossly unethical.

But because you got your knickers in a twist over some girl who decided to go fuck someone else, you can't wrap your head around the distinction.

 

[Primalex]

Ethics is the study of the quality of actions.

I can do the word definition game, too:

"Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, the noble and the ignoble, right and wrong, justice, and virtue." - Wikipedia

Nowhere is said that it's based upon "actions" only.

Since child pornography - in and of itself - "doesn't do anything" as you put it, it cannot be either ethical or unethical.

So your answer is:
"Child pornography is not unethical."

You could have written this earlier.

But because you got your knickers in a twist over some girl who decided to go fuck someone else, you can't wrap your head around the distinction.

Uhm, what?

 

[Felix_Jones]

Love is the victory of horny over smart.

 

[Felix_Jones]

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
money, I am become as a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And
though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries,
and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could
remove mountains, and have not money, I am nothing. And though I
bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to
be burned, and have not money, it profiteth me nothing. Money
suffereth long, and is kind; money envieth not; money vaunteth not
itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not her
own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in
iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth
all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. . . . And now
abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these
is money.

I Corinthians xiii (adapted)

 

[midwestyankee]

I can do the word definition game, too:

"Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, the noble and the ignoble, right and wrong, justice, and virtue." - Wikipedia

Nowhere is said that it's based upon "actions" only.



So your answer is:
"Child pornography is not unethical."

You could have written this earlier.



Uhm, what?

You're going to have to dig deeper into Wikipedia, my friend, than the first paragraph. Though it would be far better to read original material. Read a little more and you'll see that the study is about actions and the consequences of actions. Things, in and of themselves, are essentially irrelevant.

I did not say that child pornography is not unethical. I said that you can't evaluate the ethics of child pornography apart from the acts that created it. You keep wanting to judge a thing by a measure that is irrelevant to things.

It's like you're trying to ask how far is a bowl of pudding.

 

[Primalex]

I did not say that child pornography is not unethical.

Running for president?

I said that you can't evaluate the ethics of child pornography apart from the acts that created it.

This sounds like child pornography would inherit the morality of the acts. Is this what you want to say?

You keep wanting to judge a thing by a measure that is irrelevant to things.

I don't think that it is irrelevant. That's the difference.

I understand the "A gun is not bad." point of view. I don't accept your reasoning though. Your argument (as far as I understood) is that a gun is not bad, because it's a thing. I say, a gun is not bad, because it didn't inherit anything bad and the acts associated with it are not necessarily or completely bad.

This is a huge difference. You completely deny the possibility of an unethical entity. I don't.

It's like you're trying to ask how far is a bowl of pudding.

No, I'm asking: What is the purpose of pudding? How was it made? What will happen with it? Is the pure existence of the pudding wrong and should it be eradicated in a "perfect world"?

 

[JMohegan]

Love is not consensual. You don't agree to love. You can't stop it.

Since I agree with this assertion, I don't consider love to be either ethical or unethical. I only feel personal ethical responsibility for that which I can control.

However, if you are arguing that love, or the capacity or tendency to love, is an unethical construct injected into human nature by whatever Being created the universe, then I can see your point to a certain extent. Love makes humans vulnerable, irrational, alternately euphoric and agonized, etc.

 

[miaction69]

Promises to Live By

I will hope for the best from you.

I will have faith in you.

I will believe you.

I will trust you.

I will respect you.

I will discuss with you.

I will listen to you.

I will teach you.

I will learn from you.

I will cherish you.

I will care for you.

I will heal you.

I will need you.

I will be there for you.

I will stand up for you.

I will understand you.

I will love you ...

... Always ...

---

excerpt from Ibid

nice
I can apply these to a few people....
what about being 'in love'
define pls???

 

[midwestyankee]

Running for president?



This sounds like child pornography would inherit the morality of the acts. Is this what you want to say?



I don't think that it is irrelevant. That's the difference.

I understand the "A gun is not bad." point of view. I don't accept your reasoning though. Your argument (as far as I understood) is that a gun is not bad, because it's a thing. I say, a gun is not bad, because it didn't inherit anything bad and the acts associated with it are not necessarily or completely bad.

This is a huge difference. You completely deny the possibility of an unethical entity. I don't.



No, I'm asking: What is the purpose of pudding? How was it made? What will happen with it? Is the pure existence of the pudding wrong and should it be eradicated in a "perfect world"?

How can a thing inherit? Inheritance is about passing property between individuals or organizations treated as individuals under the law. Unless, of course, you mean "inherit" in the genetic sense. In which case it still doesn't make any sense because things don't have DNA.

What you seem to be saying, though in a very confused way, is that certain kinds of things are somehow good or bad because of something that happened prior to their existence that is somehow related to them.

You say that a gun is neither good nor bad, or neither ethical nor unethical. But in your conception, a gun could easily be unethical if it was manufactured strictly for the purpose of killing people. Examples: automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades (a large gun, no?). Your example is in conflict with what you state you believe.

If purpose determines morality, who determines the purpose? Is there a single arbiter of this? If so, who is he or she and how did this person get elected?

 

[Primalex]

How can a thing inherit? Inheritance is about passing property between individuals or organizations treated as individuals under the law. Unless, of course, you mean "inherit" in the genetic sense. In which case it still doesn't make any sense because things don't have DNA.

Damned, you just destroyed the last 20 years of software science.
http://www.cs.bu.edu/teaching/cpp/inheritance/intro/

The concept of inheritance is that a successor receives properties from its predecessor, when the successor is created. It has nothing to do with DNA or laws. DNA doesn't define inheritance, DNA and genes make biological inheritance work, but they don't define the term and especially they don't make the term invalid for anything outside the genetical scope.

Your word games are tiring.

You say that a gun is neither good nor bad, or neither ethical nor unethical. But in your conception, a gun could easily be unethical if it was manufactured strictly for the purpose of killing people. Examples: automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades (a large gun, no?). Your example is in conflict with what you state you believe.

Let's assume there is a conflict for a moment - is this a problem? Killing humans is ethical and unethical at the same time. There are zillions of people who believe it's okay to kill a criminal but not okay to kill a child. The need to make a distinction doesn't make my belief incorrect.

Now that we know that killing humans is not necessarily unethical, an item that has no other purpose than killing humans can't be automatically unethical either. Now.. if we would invent a weapon that only does unethical killing of humans - let's say a bio-weapon that kills everyone and only under 7 years of age - I wouldn't say that such a bio-weapon is ethical then.

If purpose determines morality, who determines the purpose?

Who determines whether it's okay to kill criminals or not?

 

[BLoved]

nice
I can apply these to a few people....
what about being 'in love'
define pls???

Falling in love

A process which transforms a stranger into one's beloved.

A recognition of qualities posessed by a stranger that identifies him/her as a kindred spirit.

A realization that what appears to be two distinct people is in fact two bodies sharing one heart.

An awareness that the happiness and well-being of another is becoming as important to you as your own.