Pissed off Instructors

[Szczepankiewicz]

Now you're cookin' with gas.

someone perceives as right or wrong is never really right or wrong.

That statement is not correct. Even blind pigs find an acorn on occaision.

[Lizard]

I just realised the confusion. Great sage understands what I am trying to say. I was refering to moral right and wrong, not mathematical right and wrong. But in that last post you misunderstood. Great sage meant that when someone perceives something to be right or wrong it isn't really because right and wrong don't really exist. The ability of pigs to locate sufficient nutrition has nothing to do with the discussion.

[Thai Bri]

Someone nick his car, then we'll all hear him ranting how "wrong" that is.

Speaking as a BA (Hons) in Philosphy, I think I'm qualified to call it bollocks.

You'll be saying we don't exist next. Which "we" don't, because you don't, even though I do. But an I without a you doesn't make a we, so we don't. But I do. Rigt?

[Lizard]

"Someone nick his car, then we'll all hear him ranting how "wrong" that is."

You're right I would consider it "wrong" because it harms me. But the guy who took it might consider it to be "right" because it benefits him. Morality is still just something that we invent. I did an RE exam today. I think I got an "A". One of the questions was: "How might religeous worshippers help to prevent war" crap question. I put: "Telling people that war is wrong, setting a good example, refusing to fight, helping in diplomacy, helping to prevent misunderstandings." As Thai Bri might say, it was bloody wanking bollocks.

[Szczepankiewicz]

Indeed it is bloody wanking bollocks.

In nature their are neither rewards or punishments, only consequences. --Ingersol

If I am unable to explain to you how 'mistraining other peoples students' is a mistake, an instance of poor judgement and broken trust I have little confidence that I can explain anything at all to your satisfaction.

If you look at it from the philosophical sense nothing exists as nothing can be proven. If a philosopher actually found the truth it would put a lot of people out of work.

There may not be any absolute right or wrongs. But there is a relative one. I cannot prove such a system exists any more than you can disprove it.

[Great Sage]

This thread has really gone to shietz now that Szichoafahflakiewicz is speaking in a philosophical manner...

[Szczepankiewicz]

It went to shite right around your first post you bloody wanking bolloker!

[Great Sage]

That's more like you...

[Alex]

If a philosopher actually found the truth it would put a lot of people out of work.

If a philosopher found the truth, he would observe it, and perhaps hypothesize about it, but I doubt he would actually do anything with it. I'm not worried about philosophers putting anyone out of work, LOL.


-Alex

[Thai Bri]

Thats bang on.

[platinum_angel]

lol i see that shiz got beat in a debate........*thinks about it then laughs*

i know what lizard is talkking about lets say like in the past the nazis thought it was right to kill jews and others for no reason. but then again in todays society we would definently think it is wrong. its all about people perception of right and wrong. but then i agree with shiz because it is abvious wrong to kill people just because of their race.

i think lizard agrees with you shiz to some degree. but he is just stating the philosophy.

[Szczepankiewicz]

Where is it that Spanky got beat?

Oh yeah, when I agreed with Lizard that there never was, isn't, and never will be right and wrong beyond your personal opinion.

Yeah, I admit it, I got beat like a transvestive on St. Patrick's Day....

[platinum_angel]

i mean the debate between you and great sage

[Lizard]

I don't believe that it is "obviously wrong" to kill people. It depends on how it affects me, if it means that I now have one less enemy then I might consider it to be "right", if it means I get killed then I will consider it to be "wrong".

The Idea of group morality is that: it is best if everyone thinks that helping each other is right, then we all benefit, but that's not always the way it works because there will always be people (like me) who ignore the group morality and follow thier own ideas of right and wrong. The group tries to evolve group morality because everyone benefits but at the same time the individuals want to evolve individual morality to gain a personal advantage. Eventualy the group becomes selfish and is replaced by a competing group with better group morality. The cycle is continued. Now we live in a global community, at the moment we have a group morality but we are beggining to become more individual, the only difference is that: 1) it will take longer and 2) We won't be replaced by a competing group (the end of group morality is in sight).

[Szczepankiewicz]

Great Sage 'won' because he convinced me and the forum that he was not wrong for teaching deadly street secrets to someone else's students?