[Ixa]

Ethics and morals are merely religious prejudices collected by the masses over time. The most convenient ones remain, whilst the others are dispelled with. The former are dogmatically pushed into everyone's faces at all times under such banners as "Human Rights" and other such imaginary, mystical nonsense.

I do not have any moral or ethical code. I dismiss them as mystical and imaginary. I get a good laugh our of "Animal Rights" activists. I get a good laugh out of "humanitarianism". I get a good laugh out of "champions" of "equality". These people are bigots, forcing their beliefs on everyone, without at any time attempting to prove a thing. (There has been some people throughout the course of history, but each of them failed miserably.) We should accept them, they say, just "because". (I could show you their exact reasoning, but it is laughably circular.) That is their reasoning. If they could present us with sufficient evidence in favour of their ethics, perhaps their bigotry and dogmatics would be rational. And so "Bioethics" is bigotry. "Animal rights" is bigotry. "Humanitarianism" is bigotry. "Human rights" is bigotry. "Christianity" is bigotry.

It becomes a greater laugh when, in the case of equality concerning the races and the sexes, Science points to the contradictory position of egalitarianism -- i.e. that we are not equal at all. (I am not saying that one race or sex is "better" than another -- just that the evidence indicates a certain degree of inequality.) Even if we suppose that morals and ethics are true, we still cannot logically treat unequals as if they are equal. What would be next? Treating cats as dogs? It is the same thing.

At the moment, unlike the vulgar masses of mankind, I am endeavour to deduce "right" from "wrong" from purely self-evident premises, with pure logic. I am beginning to believe that this cannot be done, and I have read the principal works of every distinguished philosopher, from Plato to Wittgenstein. Until we can discern right from wrong by means of the process logical deduction, it is irrational to accept such conceptions as "human rights", or such ethical codes as "humanitarianism". Men of wisdom need evidence. Where evidence is insufficient, belief is irrational.

[Generalissimo Talonius]

I agree : I have no code of ethics, just what I believe to be common sense. And who gave people all these rights anyway ? God ( *snicker snicker )?! I tell you, there is only one thing governing human behaviour : the Lex Talonis, the Law of the Claw . The strong are meant to crush the weak. It's only natural. Human/Animal " Rights" and "Equality" are all bunk when looked at in this light .

[CasX]

Have you read the UN declaration of undeniable rights of humanity?

Seems fine to me, not religious or bigoted at all

You both seem rather bigoted yourselves.

[Generalissimo Talonius]

And the only reason the UN can set those rules is because it is a rather powerful organization ( or was : rather it still is is debatable ), so you sort of prove my point : the people in power set the rules. If the UN were to dissolve, that "unalieanable" declaration would be pointless.

[CasX]

No, it's not just there because it is written down on paper. If the UN dissolved, human rights would still live on in people's hearts and minds.

[Generalissimo Talonius]

Have you ever read George Orwell's 1984 ? I think his book is a good example of how people's "hearts and minds" can easily be changed and how easily the rights disappear. It's nothing that a lil indoctrination can't cure .

[Adrien]

If the UN dissolved, human rights would still live on in people's hearts and minds.

Well, the ancestor of "Human Rights" is in our constitution.

[Umoja]

I am religious but a follow a situation based form of ethics. I wouldn't want to be killed so I don't kill others. I wouldn't want to be lied to, so I don't lie. But if for example, someone tried to kill me, I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself from them, or if it came to a situation where the truth could cause me or others harm, I would lie.

[sokath]

And yet, Supernius, you argue that masturbation and other forms of "sexual deviations" are immoral... what gives?

S./

[redstar2000]

Anyone who has been around small children is aware that one of the earliest concepts that they are able to articulate is the concept of "fairness".

Almost as soon as they can speak, they learn to speak the phrase "that's not fair."

I suggest that this is the "biological root" of all our ideas regarding "human rights", "animal rights", etc. We seem to have a "built-in" or "hard-wired" concept of equity.

Of course, this can be and often is horribly distorted and perverted by social-cultural factors...and religion is one of the worst offenders in this regard.

But that deep impulse is, I think, sound...ultimately it promotes "fitness" (in a Darwinian sense) and justice (in an ethical sense).

But we have a long way to go.

[Umoja]

Even so, Religious values can't influence people very much. Some Catholic 'friends' of ours will say "Don't have sex before marriage?" when we clearly have no reason not to (although the flipside could be this was done to stop the spread of disease).

[Demosthenes]

Well I cant pretend to be nearly as well read as this superwhateverhisname is. I'm just a dumb hick from the mid-west. Morals and ethics DO mean something. They mean what we choose to make them mean. If we agree with men like those two we choose to make ethics meaningless. If we disagree and rebut, in whatever simple way we are able to then ethics do have meaning. I do agree completely that they are so misused and abused that it becomes easy to chuck em all as opportunism by those in power.
That said, if I have a situation where it would make my life much easier to kill someone than not too, and I dont, then that is the mark of an ethical man. If on the other hand I pretend to use ethics as a reason to kill him I am decidedly unethical.
As for religion, well I wont defend it. It has been misused and abused so much that I dont blame anyone for hating it. The thing I hate to see is the complete loss of faith that is so prevalent in the loss of religion. (I'm talking about the "Its the message not the messenger thing) People like superwhathisname and the nazi guy prove all the more why the rest of us need faith, because men like them cant possibly fathom it. You'll not catch me quoting the bible nor endorsing any paticular religion, but I will voice my concern at the lack of spirituality that men like those two exhibit when they read this and only see only weakness and can't understand that it is instead compassion.

[Boondock Saint]

Well, here we go, ethics ... one of my favorite topics.

Human Rights.

They only exist if man says they exist.

'God' given rights.

Exist because man says 'God' exists and he says we have rights.

There are no human rights, its a load of crap. This idea that man is equal is crap. Man is not equal.

Here is an example.

A tall man standing 6-5. He is well built and seems to be a natural athlete.

A short man standing 5-5. He is poorly built and seems to be nearly as round as he is tall.

These men are not equal. Place them in an athletic contest and find out just how equal they are ... the fat man is likely to die of a heart attack while the athletic man laughs.

The same can go for intelligence.

An intelligent man as compared to a relatively thick headed man. One can figure out quantum physics with no problem while the other has problems with simple equations. These men are not equal ... it is obvious that one is far superior to the other.

So ... why do we say all men are born equal? Surely you don't beleive that all that a man is is based upon nurture? Surely nature must play a part as well no?

There are intelligent folk, athletic folk, funny folk, folk with good voices, musical folk, angry folk, diligent folk and so on ... but ... some are more useful then others ...

Hell, there are some people who arent actually good at anything other then taking up space!

So ... what the hell is this equality crap about?

SOCIETY!!! Thats what its about ...

Damned if all men are equal in truth ... but by LAW if we are to have a society that is stable we need rights to be afforded to all ... and since we are affording rights to all then why not make the rights equal to all?

All men are not equal ... but by LAW all men MUST be equal ... otherwise the stability of the region will suffer ...

Afterall ... even a 'lesser' human can pick up a pitchfork (or something more modern) and revolt against the 'superior' humans ...

And, like it or not ... the 'lesser' humans will outnumber the 'superior' humans for all time ...

[uglygoat]

your examples could also point towards variation in the species boon, something we'd all agree is good for the continuation of the species. i need only point to the 'astute' observations made by our european friends about 'inbreed american hillbillies'... anyhoo, along this vein, the variation helps distribute traits, which in turn amount to certian skills held by different individuals that are necisary for 'human kinds' continued existence. in short, each individual, no matter how fat, stupid, etc brings something valuable to the table, even if it's just taking up space. we rely on the efforts of many individuals to live as we do and to continue to do so.

that is if the status quo is acceptable.

i think a good starting point for ethics is universal concern and respect for human life, and human rights, are a good start.

[Boondock Saint]

Well t1 far be it from me to disagree with you but ...

I dont believe that everyone brings something to the table ... the idea that difference or variety being a good thing is fine ...

For example ...

A wood cutter
A fisherman
A clerk
A farmer

These four men all have skills that can be put to use ... true.

But there are ten humans for each those mentioned who suck at all four skills and suck at any thing else ... in fact ... other then menial labor they arent good for much ... and there is only so much menial labor to go around ...

Honestly ... I dont know what my point was ...

Oh right ... humans are not equal ... some rock, some suck ...

But the law shouldnt distinguish between those who rock and those who suck ... they should all be treated equal by law ... lord knows society wont be fair to them ... at least the law should be ...

[Proctor]

I have to say that the last line of your post there Boondock answers a lot of my questions on the issue. Thank you.

On the original issue, I would like to think that all men are created equal, but then some bastard came along and discovered genetics...

[Vassili Zaitsev]

And yet, Supernius, you argue that masturbation and other forms of "sexual deviations" are immoral... what gives?

S./

Thats right Sokath, *sniffs* I smell some hypocrisy in the air.

[Catria]

Supernius,

Between humans there are many more similiarities than differences...we are closer to each other than you imply. Most differences occur through cultural and geographic happenstance...not through some innate superiority. If you're born a poor farmer in the Congo, your opportunies and chances to be *superior* are limited. "Equality" in the humanitarian sense is really just a term to define "enjoying the same rights"...it's not meant to be literal. Everyone knows there's no such thing as total equality because no two people are exactly the same and no two life circumstances are exactly the same. But focusing on the differences only leaves us divided and in conflict.


Human rights tend to focus on the similarities, not he differences, because this the only chance of narrowing the inequality gap. Of course the whole thing is imperfect, subjective and open to exploitation and Orwellian twists, but what else do we have? It's futile to take the attitude *human rights and humanitarianism is laughable* because this just leaves us with an empty void in a dog-eat-dog world. Working out our ethics through reason and consensus is our only hope of improving the lot of humanity. I agree we have to get rid of static, staganting religious morality which cannot shift when reason demands it, but what are you suggesting...? Abandon all attempts at an ethical standard because we have no proof of absolute morality?

What will that do for us?

[Il Porko]

I've something to say to anybody who thinks 'pre logic' can be applied to any situation. What is logic???

Anything you define is coloured by your perspective on life. This life perspective (or world view), can differ from every person, but affects how each of us look at the world around us. Removing this 'perceptual bias' is impossibel as it is genetically part of who we are, and is learned during the course of one's life. So much for the Vulcans.

As for there been no morality or ethics: somebody remarked that the 'Jews deserved it' as they 'were enemies of Germany'. (Sorry about briniging up thisd sort of rubbish).... That is a way of thinking, it's an opinion. If you had no code of ethics or morality, you'd never have an opinion... If you dislike somebody today, you'll dislike them tomorrow (probably).... if you had no morality or codes, then your decisions would be inconsistent.

[einstein]

some men can be smart being scientists but in the day where rocks where used as weapons they wouldn't of been so useful as the thickheaded men who would kill for their culture and even fat men can be useful through cannablism every man is good at something or is good for something eg getting eatten so there you go