OrionTheWolf
Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Maybe the average person, I agree. The problem here is that you believe your standard is a universal standard of ethics, and it is not.
Actually it is. There is only one standard for rational ethics, and it is a universal standard (it derives from Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative). You are probably making the same error that most people who have not actually studied ethics make: Assuming that because most people subscribe to what they term "personal ethics" that there is such a thing as "personal ethics."
Yeah I am familiar with Kant's work, and disagree with much of it. There are others that also disagree with it. To say there are no personal ethics, is to say that morality is a non-human construct. It is definately a human construct, which means the ideas must first come from a person.
quote:
There is no such thing as personal ethics. All ethics are universal, and anyone who claims they follow their own personal ethical code is actually telling you that they are an ammoral person who has created a rules system that allows them to do whatever they want to do and delude themselves into thinking they are ethical.
If all ethics are universal then they would be static and non evolving. They would also be applicable in all situations, which they are not, otherwise there would not be a division of ethics called applied ethics. Using the term amoral (notice just one m) also leads me to conclude you likely stay in the area of meta-ethics. Amoral is a lack of a moral belief structure, not the invention of a code that one follows to determine right and wrong.
quote:
quote:
Not meant as a strawman, so maybe you should think about the perception you give with your words, as that means as much as substance. If you were better than the average person at communication, you would know this.
Please don't attribute your poor reading and arguing skills to a failure on my part. I'm a professional writer, I know how to communicate. I may be talking over your head, but it's not my job to be aware of your ignorance. If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you should not argue with me. You should ask questions.
Not talking over my head at all, but possibly talking out of your ass. You sound good, but I see little substance, and a lot of theater. This also concludes me to believe your area of reading has been meta-ethics. So you do not own what you have created, that is interesting, and tells me a lot at least. I don't see much productive discussion occuring with you, but will see how things proceed.
quote:
quote:
Maybe you do know this, and just not wanting to own it. Maybe you do not accept the responsibility the impression your words may give, and if that is correct, then that can be considered unethical as well, using my standard of ethics.
Your standard of ethics? ::sigh::
Yeah I doubt you would understand a person having a different code of ethics than another, but it happens every day, through out many cultures. These code develop and evolve as more situations arrive so that the application of the code can be measured and determined whether it is good or bad.
quote:
quote:
Ahhh the intent argument. So what is the difference in intent between a female using a sexy tone on the phone, and being very friendly, or flirtatious in person? The genders do have a different set of social skills that they use (this is a general statement, not a blanket one).
How could I possibly answer that question? I can't read the minds of hypothetical people. I'm not even sure why you're asking, because I can't see how the answer would help you make your case at all.
Don't ask me how you can answer it, you are the one that said intent is what determined whether it was ethical or not. Since you stated it, I presumed you had some kind of test you applied to check whether something passed or failed your ethics test. You assume I am making a case, and instead I am asking questions to gain a measure of something.
quote:
quote:
It seems more like a personal issue you have with Aynne than with anything else.
I don't know Annye from Eve, I can hardly be said to have a personal problem with her.
Sure we do, we all know each other from our postings. Whether it is face to face or not, communication that is replied to creates an entity that we perceive. So you do know her from the words she uses. If you are a professional writer then you would know that word usage, sentence structure, and style can tell us much about a person.
quote:
quote:
If you consider it unethical, great, but your presentation has been that it should be universally unethical.
This statement belies such incredible lack of understanding of what ethics are that I actually feel sorry for you. Seriously, you have no idea what ethics are. Which is cool, that's the case with 99% of people. All ethics are universal or they are not ethics, they are aesthetics. Universality is one of the defining traits of ethics.
Do you actually believe that you are intellectually superior to everyone you have a disagreement with? I am trying to figure out whether this is a personality flaw of yours, or a debate tactic. Your all ethics is universal is a very poor argument, even by those that actually know what they are talking about have a difficult time debating it in a decent forum.
quote:
Seriously, go take a few college level courses on ethics. You'll see.
This comment here is rather humerous, but we will keep it as an inside joke for myself.
quote:
quote:
I suppose utilizing human behavior techniques in sales is unethical as well?
Yes. Duh.
By all means continue to show yourself to be a pompous ass. I doubt there is much productivity that will be found with you, I have heard it many times before, from students and those that read a few books and believe they know. I will continue to use casuistry to determine moral outcomes, and teach it.
Now continue on with your performance for the others. You will excuse me if I do not respond, since I usually remove from my perception those things that are a waste of time. I often recommend this to others as well.
Live well.
_____________________________
When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."
|
RE: Misogyny and BDSM - 
Profile
. I know, it probably wasn't as fulfilling as telling everyone at collar me how much we all suck and how stupid we are, but I'll take the sacrifice. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread