wazua Mon, Aug 25, 2025
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

2 Pages<12
On morality and ethics
tycho
#21 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:15:17 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
@Wakanyugi, let me start by restating what you've said.

1. The greatest desirable state of being is that of self government

2. That there exists a means of attaining such a state and that a good and moral means excludes coercion

3. Some try to 'truncate' the means by coercion and extreme measures and this constitutes terror, which is immoral

4. That @tycho uses coercive and extreme means and that tycho is a terrorist

Given that we already have agreement on the singularity of the multiple, and apparently contradictory, then we must ask whether seeing and understanding this doesn't in fact, confer autonomy, and the experience and action executed to enable one to see this unity and multiplicity is in fact the moral and good means of attaining autonomy.

While on the other hand coercion must do away with any possibility for self autonomy.

So in this case moral relativism doesn't apply. The moral law then applies in the manner of 'doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you' or 'love your neighbor as thy self'.

The freedom fighter, in his truncation of the moral way ends up negating it. Albert Camus has a clear argument on this when he shows 'metaphysical rebellion' as the force behind terror in the revolutionary.

And in extension even the ISIL for example, show the marks of metaphysical rebellion even despite using religious language and belief. The allied forces against ISIL are also therefore also immoral in equal measure in that they too are metaphysical rebels.

I'm trying to show now the practical implications of how this kind of thinking can be applied now when terror is around us. By translating the 'moral' as in this context, to all our activities irrespective of cultural and physical variety terror can be truly 'overcome'.

As for @tycho being a terrorist, or others, I will say that's the initial state of Man; something to be overcome.
tycho
#22 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:26:07 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Muriel, my task is to show that relativism without union is in fact, contradictory.

For relativity there must be two or more distinct entities, and there must be a relation which means 'sharing' of properties. Different entities can only share what's common.

If there's nothing common then sharing is impossible and distinction can't be made. Therefore relativity without union is in fact, contradictory.
Muriel
#23 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:54:02 PM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
tycho wrote:
Muriel, my task is to show that relativism without union is in fact, contradictory.

For relativity there must be two or more distinct entities, and there must be a relation which means 'sharing' of properties. Different entities can only share what's common.

If there's nothing common then sharing is impossible and distinction can't be made. Therefore relativity without union is in fact, contradictory.


I'm defeated.
tycho
#24 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:09:37 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Muriel wrote:
tycho wrote:
Muriel, my task is to show that relativism without union is in fact, contradictory.

For relativity there must be two or more distinct entities, and there must be a relation which means 'sharing' of properties. Different entities can only share what's common.

If there's nothing common then sharing is impossible and distinction can't be made. Therefore relativity without union is in fact, contradictory.


I'm defeated.


No. We are more enlightened.
Wakanyugi
#25 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:06:15 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
tycho wrote:
@Wakanyugi, let me start by restating what you've said.

1. The greatest desirable state of being is that of self government

2. That there exists a means of attaining such a state and that a good and moral means excludes coercion

3. Some try to 'truncate' the means by coercion and extreme measures and this constitutes terror, which is immoral

4. That @tycho uses coercive and extreme means and that tycho is a terrorist

Given that we already have agreement on the singularity of the multiple, and apparently contradictory, then we must ask whether seeing and understanding this doesn't in fact, confer autonomy, and the experience and action executed to enable one to see this unity and multiplicity is in fact the moral and good means of attaining autonomy.

While on the other hand coercion must do away with any possibility for self autonomy.

So in this case moral relativism doesn't apply. The moral law then applies in the manner of 'doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you' or 'love your neighbor as thy self'.

The freedom fighter, in his truncation of the moral way ends up negating it. Albert Camus has a clear argument on this when he shows 'metaphysical rebellion' as the force behind terror in the revolutionary.

And in extension even the ISIL for example, show the marks of metaphysical rebellion even despite using religious language and belief. The allied forces against ISIL are also therefore also immoral in equal measure in that they too are metaphysical rebels.

I'm trying to show now the practical implications of how this kind of thinking can be applied now when terror is around us. By translating the 'moral' as in this context, to all our activities irrespective of cultural and physical variety terror can be truly 'overcome'.

As for @tycho being a terrorist, or others, I will say that's the initial state of Man; something to be overcome.


Tycho:

That you take this stuff seriously is quite clear from many of your posts. But you must not become so serious as to forget to relax. That was my earlier point.

As to relativism, I thought we laid this one to rest. I restate:

The illusion of 'non-unity' which we all subscribe to makes it almost impossible to have absolutes. If you are a rational person you surely have to admit that any absolute remains so only as long it is not disproven or superseded. In a Universe of 'all that is' anything and everything is possible. This is my principle argument for relativism.

I defined morality as the setting of boundaries. You don't have to agree with this but let as agree that morality is about classes of belief and behavior. Say: good, bad, and neutral. A good typology but, my point, not an absolute. Every one of my moral positions has been overthrown or severely shaken at some point, something that I suspect will happen to any human being with time.

Were you to ask me to state my strongest moral position it would be in the desired autonomy of all human beings. 'Terrorism' or the attempt to take away this right through coercion, would therefore rank as an act of great immorality. But even this is a relative position.

We are all guilty of 'terrorism.' Just read any sample of posts on Wazua, the majority are of people like you and I trying to coerce people into a certain point of view or behavior.

Strange because, I suspect, we would hate it if we ever got our way. But that is a fight for another day.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
tycho
#26 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:20:16 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Wakanyugi wrote:
tycho wrote:
@Wakanyugi, let me start by restating what you've said.

1. The greatest desirable state of being is that of self government

2. That there exists a means of attaining such a state and that a good and moral means excludes coercion

3. Some try to 'truncate' the means by coercion and extreme measures and this constitutes terror, which is immoral

4. That @tycho uses coercive and extreme means and that tycho is a terrorist

Given that we already have agreement on the singularity of the multiple, and apparently contradictory, then we must ask whether seeing and understanding this doesn't in fact, confer autonomy, and the experience and action executed to enable one to see this unity and multiplicity is in fact the moral and good means of attaining autonomy.

While on the other hand coercion must do away with any possibility for self autonomy.

So in this case moral relativism doesn't apply. The moral law then applies in the manner of 'doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you' or 'love your neighbor as thy self'.

The freedom fighter, in his truncation of the moral way ends up negating it. Albert Camus has a clear argument on this when he shows 'metaphysical rebellion' as the force behind terror in the revolutionary.

And in extension even the ISIL for example, show the marks of metaphysical rebellion even despite using religious language and belief. The allied forces against ISIL are also therefore also immoral in equal measure in that they too are metaphysical rebels.

I'm trying to show now the practical implications of how this kind of thinking can be applied now when terror is around us. By translating the 'moral' as in this context, to all our activities irrespective of cultural and physical variety terror can be truly 'overcome'.

As for @tycho being a terrorist, or others, I will say that's the initial state of Man; something to be overcome.


Tycho:

That you take this stuff seriously is quite clear from many of your posts. But you must not become so serious as to forget to relax. That was my earlier point.

As to relativism, I thought we laid this one to rest. I restate:

The illusion of 'non-unity' which we all subscribe to makes it almost impossible to have absolutes. If you are a rational person you surely have to admit that any absolute remains so only as long it is not disproven or superseded. In a Universe of 'all that is' anything and everything is possible. This is my principle argument for relativism.

I defined morality as the setting of boundaries. You don't have to agree with this but let as agree that morality is about classes of belief and behavior. Say: good, bad, and neutral. A good typology but, my point, not an absolute. Every one of my moral positions has been overthrown or severely shaken at some point, something that I suspect will happen to any human being with time.

Were you to ask me to state my strongest moral position it would be in the desired autonomy of all human beings. 'Terrorism' or the attempt to take away this right through coercion, would therefore rank as an act of great immorality. But even this is a relative position.

We are all guilty of 'terrorism.' Just read any sample of posts on Wazua, the majority are of people like you and I trying to coerce people into a certain point of view or behavior.

Strange because, I suspect, we would hate it if we ever got our way. But that is a fight for another day.


Let me say this, I initiated this conversation to generate understanding not coerce anyone.

Classes don't define themselves and if they are related then they must have an absolute even if they range to infinity. And this can't be disproven.

Nowadays am always relaxed even when posting or sleeping.

Wakanyugi
#27 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:08:47 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
tycho wrote:


Let me say this, I initiated this conversation to generate understanding not coerce anyone.

Classes don't define themselves and if they are related then they must have an absolute even if they range to infinity. And this can't be disproven.

Nowadays am always relaxed even when posting or sleeping.



Relax Tycho. I only accused you of intellectual terrorism. And I am not the only one, as many Wazuans who have protested the way you tax our poor mental faculties clearly shows.

I see you are still tenaciously clinging to your flimsy intellectual absolute, which makes me wonder why?

To insist that something can't be disproven implies that you have plumbed and discounted all possibilities in the Universe over all of time, space and the zillion permutations of relationships between 'things and events.' Even Scientists admit that the so called immutable laws of physics may not apply in some parts of our strange Universe, for instance in black holes.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
tycho
#28 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:09:12 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Wakanyugi wrote:
tycho wrote:


Let me say this, I initiated this conversation to generate understanding not coerce anyone.

Classes don't define themselves and if they are related then they must have an absolute even if they range to infinity. And this can't be disproven.

Nowadays am always relaxed even when posting or sleeping.



Relax Tycho. I only accused you of intellectual terrorism. And I am not the only one, as many Wazuans who have protested the way you tax our poor mental faculties clearly shows.

I see you are still tenaciously clinging to your flimsy intellectual absolute, which makes me wonder why?

To insist that something can't be disproven implies that you have plumbed and discounted all possibilities in the Universe over all of time, space and the zillion permutations of relationships between 'things and events.' Even Scientists admit that the so called immutable laws of physics may not apply in some parts of our strange Universe, for instance in black holes.


You're telling me to relax and at the same time you're using emotional expressions like 'flimsy'. Could you be needing your advice more than I do?

I am not discounting the infinity of possibilities. All am saying is that if all these possibilities are in any way related then there must be a universal set which in this case is an absolute. Whether in a black hole or watering hole.

Do you know I can bet a fortune that you don't understand the meaning of 'relax'? Or 'relative'? or even 'flimsy'?

You're even projecting your 'terrorism' on me. That's not fair.
tycho
#29 Posted : Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:42:44 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Let me make understanding of this matter easier for you.

1. You're saying that you can have a relative who's not part of your (extended) family.

2.

tycho: is everything relative @Wakanyugi?

Wakanyugi: Yes. Everything is relative.

tycho: Is your response relative?

Wakanyugi: Yes. The statement that ALL is relative, is relative and not absolute. And it stands even in a black hole.

tycho: Ah! Then that's sufficient reason to relax.

Wakanyugi: 'relax' is also relative and not absolute.

tycho: Then relativism is an absolute?

Wakanyugi: No. relativism is only relative. And stop pestering me with your relatives. Because EVERYTHING is only relative. You terrorist! That's another relative.

Wakanyugi
#30 Posted : Friday, October 31, 2014 2:11:07 AM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
tycho wrote:
Let me make understanding of this matter easier for you.

1. You're saying that you can have a relative who's not part of your (extended) family.

2.

tycho: is everything relative @Wakanyugi?

Wakanyugi: Yes. Everything is relative.

tycho: Is your response relative?

Wakanyugi: Yes. The statement that ALL is relative, is relative and not absolute. And it stands even in a black hole.

tycho: Ah! Then that's sufficient reason to relax.

Wakanyugi: 'relax' is also relative and not absolute.

tycho: Then relativism is an absolute?

Wakanyugi: No. relativism is only relative. And stop pestering me with your relatives. Because EVERYTHING is only relative. You terrorist! That's another relative.




Applause Applause Applause

Well done Tycho. Your imitation of me is a great improvement on the original. I should get my girlfriend to read this.

As to my not understanding the words 'relative, laxative, relax, absolute' etc, I am always willing to be taught. After all this kizunguzungu is not of ours. (But I can tell you there is a Vodka in there somewhere).

Now why not have another shot, or three, roll a joint and rel...oops, sorry.
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
tycho
#31 Posted : Friday, October 31, 2014 3:46:38 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Wakanyugi wrote:
tycho wrote:
Let me make understanding of this matter easier for you.

1. You're saying that you can have a relative who's not part of your (extended) family.

2.

tycho: is everything relative @Wakanyugi?

Wakanyugi: Yes. Everything is relative.

tycho: Is your response relative?

Wakanyugi: Yes. The statement that ALL is relative, is relative and not absolute. And it stands even in a black hole.

tycho: Ah! Then that's sufficient reason to relax.

Wakanyugi: 'relax' is also relative and not absolute.

tycho: Then relativism is an absolute?

Wakanyugi: No. relativism is only relative. And stop pestering me with your relatives. Because EVERYTHING is only relative. You terrorist! That's another relative.




Applause Applause Applause

Well done Tycho. Your imitation of me is a great improvement on the original. I should get my girlfriend to read this.

As to my not understanding the words 'relative, laxative, relax, absolute' etc, I am always willing to be taught. After all this kizunguzungu is not of ours. (But I can tell you there is a Vodka in there somewhere).

Now why not have another shot, or three, roll a joint and rel...oops, sorry.


I am defeated.

Thanks for the light Muriel!
Muriel
#32 Posted : Friday, October 31, 2014 8:51:04 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
From the ashes of defeat, we will rebuild. Stronger.
tycho
#33 Posted : Friday, October 31, 2014 10:03:51 AM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Muriel wrote:
From the ashes of defeat, we will rebuild. Stronger.


Not everything should be rebuilt. There's something I should lose to gain, and I have lost it here.
Muriel
#34 Posted : Friday, October 31, 2014 10:37:35 AM
Rank: Member


Joined: 11/19/2009
Posts: 3,142
tycho wrote:
Muriel wrote:
From the ashes of defeat, we will rebuild. Stronger.


Not everything should be rebuilt. There's something I should lose to gain, and I have lost it here.


Yes.
Wakanyugi
#35 Posted : Friday, October 31, 2014 12:29:40 PM
Rank: Veteran


Joined: 7/3/2007
Posts: 1,635
tycho wrote:



I am defeated.


@tycho. It seems you are stubbornly determined to bathe in a pool of self enforced intellectual melancholy.

I'll let you get on with it. So this will be my last contribution to this thread.

Before I go, a small story:



The fleas on Planet dog have their religious leaders, historians and philosophers too.

They tell a myth of origin; how their ancestors arrived here from another planet, whose name no one recalls - that planet was destroyed because the fleas forgot to appease their deity, the great doG. How their ancestors spent many years lost in the wilderness, before the great doG had pity on them and showed them a new planet.

Their historians have recorded tales of disaster and survival; the last tsunami that nearly destroyed the whole race (the dog had taken a walk in the rain). Their philosophers discourse at length on the meaning of life, and whether there is intelligent life on other dogs.

Their religious leader, His Holiness Mullah Dot al Mokiri the Dog Father, preaches in the great hall, (the Dog ear), every Saturday. He foams at the mouth, warning all of coming dangers to Fleadom unless all fleas return to the worship of the true doG. Most fleas simply ignore him.

Yet, from all these words, the only meaningful ones have been expressed by someone that nobody seems to take seriously. Ras Flea spends most of his time in a half stoned stupor. Which is good, because when he is unstoned, no one can understand him anyway. His entire philosophy is summarised in words written on his dirty multi-coloured woollen cap, the only one he owns.

It says: “Relax, life is a terminal condition.’


"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
tycho
#36 Posted : Friday, October 31, 2014 1:48:38 PM
Rank: Elder


Joined: 7/1/2011
Posts: 8,804
Location: Nairobi
Wakanyugi wrote:
tycho wrote:



I am defeated.


@tycho. It seems you are stubbornly determined to bathe in a pool of self enforced intellectual melancholy.

I'll let you get on with it. So this will be my last contribution to this thread.

Before I go, a small story:



The fleas on Planet dog have their religious leaders, historians and philosophers too.

They tell a myth of origin; how their ancestors arrived here from another planet, whose name no one recalls - that planet was destroyed because the fleas forgot to appease their deity, the great doG. How their ancestors spent many years lost in the wilderness, before the great doG had pity on them and showed them a new planet.

Their historians have recorded tales of disaster and survival; the last tsunami that nearly destroyed the whole race (the dog had taken a walk in the rain). Their philosophers discourse at length on the meaning of life, and whether there is intelligent life on other dogs.

Their religious leader, His Holiness Mullah Dot al Mokiri the Dog Father, preaches in the great hall, (the Dog ear), every Saturday. He foams at the mouth, warning all of coming dangers to Fleadom unless all fleas return to the worship of the true doG. Most fleas simply ignore him.

Yet, from all these words, the only meaningful ones have been expressed by someone that nobody seems to take seriously. Ras Flea spends most of his time in a half stoned stupor. Which is good, because when he is unstoned, no one can understand him anyway. His entire philosophy is summarised in words written on his dirty multi-coloured woollen cap, the only one he owns.

It says: “Relax, life is a terminal condition.’




Why should defeat be melancholy? What you're saying is your own relative interpretation, and the story a reiteration of your position.

So if you think about it, you might see who this story applies to mostly- your own self contradiction. Otherwise had you believed in your 'relativism' you'd not have discounted other possibilities even in this context. Especially when you pick half of my quote. Or why do you think I added my gratitude for @Muriel's light?

It helped me see your mind. I set up a small trap and now you've sat on it squarely.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2025 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.