A. )If you were given an invisible cloak or you knew you could get away with the most tempting crimes, would you commit them? Tell us why.

B.) If you said no; What if this power was temporary (one day).

C.) If you still said no; If you knew you wouldn't feel guilty would you be tempted?



For example:
1. Robbing a bank
2. Getting some ready good expensive food for free.
3. Making things go your way in terms of your future, your current love obsession, your reputation etc.,

My answers:
A.) Yes. Why? I know my limits but my limits supercede the actual law. My hypothesis is most people do have limits but the actual law doesn't define those limits.

Why not. Moral is just an evolutionary thing to save others along with me.


EDIT: I think i wouldnt. But its not cause something called moral exist, its mostly cause of my upbringing. If i contradicted my own family and society teachings then wouldnt i just contradict myself living by them my whole life? Society punishes u with the idea of being a malfunction of the society as ur parents are losers for creating u.
Im pretty sure that most ppl would say they wouldnt do a crime cause the idea of "what is good in the world" would shatter, but its an idea of society and ur evolutionary bounded brain to save this thing called society.

But you admitted that morality doesn't exist and rather what makes you act properly is the gaze of the Other or rather the gaze of society.

Society saves itself by instilling its values into its constituents but only because it keeps a watchful eye. If it can't then I don't see what's holding you back?

1. Peeping/Stealing/Vigilante

Yes, because I find that I gain much more than society loses.

Like I said. There is no moral, but i didnt say that society and my parents didnt teach me it. So that means if i did the crime, and being such a moral brought up good kid i would probably question my own actions that i probably wouldnt do it in the first place. Cause i would think of my parents and that they are losers trying to teach me this and that, when i fully know in my logical brain that such stuff doesnt exist.

If you want to find the root of morality, look at it as it evolves from animal to civilization.

In such a sense, morality and law were pretty much intertwinted.

how about when you yourself have kids? You would have to teach your kids right from wrong, even though morality does not exist...dont you agree?
my personal belief is that only after you learned about morality, you find out it doesnt exist and only then you can/should come to the conclusion that you dont need it.

Why do people immediately associate invisibility with crime? It has the potential for good too.

For what is worth, optical camouflage technology is advancing quite well recently.

No, morality doesnt still exist. I can teach my children the opposite moral in a society. Thats how most mafia bosses teach their kids and thats the only sole reason they dont know whats wrong from right.

What kind of ****tard obeys the laws of morality?

Do whatever it takes to win, and don't let anything stop you.

I think there is some confusion. What I believe Manun is trying to stay is there is no universal structure that tells us what is right and what is wrong. I'm pretty sure Manun has read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals where Nietzsche proves that "morality" is really just a historical/cultural product. It's basically what a society thinks is right at a certain point in time.

So the real question is should I follow the values of my society?

Well there's also another question, "what's stopping me from not following the values of my society if morals don't exist?"

Well it's been suggested, it's because ethics and morality is really how society judges you not how you judge what's right from wrong. Hence the concept of guilt. Nietzsche was trying to prove otherwise, saying that it's better that the morality of the powerful is the best form because with guilt, according to him, Christianity is trying to instill its own values on society. Guilt is what you feel when you do something "wrong", but Nietzsche believes guilt is essentially a Christian construct meant to overthrow the morality of the those in power. What he calls slave morality.

I personally agree with Chinese Desert Fox, fu-k Christianity. I wanna kick some @$$.

so manun would feel 'guilt' b/c of his parents, that's why he wouldnt commit the crime even if he can get away with it wheareas you would commit the crime...b/c you would not feel guilt (I mean in a hypothetical situation lol)


but raping children/women/men, killing people who has not done harm to you, infecting the masses with diseases would be wrong in any society with any moral codes and the #3 on your list: Making things go your way in terms of your future, your current love obsession, your reputation etc....well for some people that might mean doing the things I listed.

It wouldn't make sense to do so in any case. Animals don't kill each other for sport.

Not just his parents but how the society would view his actions.



Well if you don't view someone as a human or essentially inferior to you then you have the capability of doing much harm to them. That's why you do your best to act proper around people you respect. Or why you feel really really dumb when you do something embarassing in front of a person you really really like. Where it wouldn't really matter if you did something stupid in front your cat. When you're around that person, the world doesn't seem to matter. If you viewed the Iraqis as essentially Americans, would you be ok with bombings the crap out of them? You may have not been ok with it even if they aren't Americans but if they were, you would certainly take more action towards preventing the war. Would Bush bomb Americans?

I still don't understand rapist mentality. If you really wanted to harm someone in that way, surely you wouldn't give a damn about them. Would you rob your parents? Would you beat a children with a baseball bat? It all depends on your opinion of someone. If it's high, then you are careful to act like a decent person around them.

I said and I am still right.

and in your other post you said:

Guilt may have been created for 'the people in power' but they are the group least likely to feel guilt and more likely to punish others for not living up to their standards, and making the people they view as inferior feel more guilt for not being able to afford luxuries, top-notch education for their children etc.
So what you said is wrong or what Nietzsche said is wrong.

yea how are those in power ever going to view.... lets say... people in third world countries as their equal w/o guilt? They should be feeling more guilt! not letting go of it.
those in power need to follow the codes of morality the most. If they dont, forget their morality being overthrown, they need to be overthrown.

Not at all. I may not like most people but that doesn't mean I view them as inferior. By inferior, I mean like really really inferior. Like Jews in Nazi Germany or Tutsis in Hutu Rwanda. Seriously, just imagine yourself raping someone, you would have to have a really big lack of concern for them.

Don't you ever feel awkward when you're making a class presentation or talking to crowd of people? That's what I'm talking about. That unease. How about when you see a homeless person. You ever feel guilt, if you pass them without giving them money? What if someone stares at you? That awkwardness.

Whereas if an animal stared at you, you wouldn't really care as much, or even notice in the first place. You don't place as much value on an animal as a human because animals can't judge you in ways you can comprehend. So you don't care. If you were talking to room full of cats, would you give a damn as much as people?


Not quite, it was a way of justifying the morality of the Christians who were weak. It worked seeing as Christianity was the new rage and things like democracy came about. People starting conceiving of "individual rights", whereas before absolute power was dominant.

well I dont see the homeless as inferior. and I have felt guilty when I pass a homeless person without giving money. When I used to live in NYC I used to talk to this homeless guy at grand central station and no I didnt care that people stared. I dont know what you're getting at.... are you saying am I supposed to want to stab him instead b/c he is homeless?

why are you bringing animals into this??
and there are some people care more about animals then they do about humans. They rather save animals then the poor.



Whatever, people who hide behind power and money are the weakest, regardless of whether they are christians or not.

that's the point! you are supposed to feel guilty because you don't see them as inferior. If you did, the guilt would not be there.

I'm bringing animals into this to contrast the feeling they produce compared to people. Animals don't produce the guilt people do when they stare at you.


If you say so. I'm only showing the genealogy of morality.

just b/c we would have guilt about such things doesnt mean everyone would...
and it's easy for people like me and you to guilty about these things when we have such comfortable lives and are able actually eat on a daily basis... but if we were put into situations where we were 'hungry' enough we would kill to eat.
But I guess my point is... when people kill b/c they are hungry/desperate is understandable but doing those things just for the hell of it b/c you have an invisable cloak or b/c you can would make you pathetic. and it would mean you obviously have a hunger for something and it's not being met...in which case 'morality' can probably help you.

Pathetic for who?
a,U?
b,God?
c,Society?
Seeing that
c, cant see it ur not pathetic infront of them.
a, sure isnt pathetic if he thinks hes not pathetic. U view urself after what u think is correct.
b,? Well seeing how hes helped my choices in my whole life i can c.........no point in that too. Even thought there might be a god, but i dont view him as a holy being but just universe with it natural movement.

I know! That's why stuff like the Holocaust still happens and will happen. What "moral code" do you suppose Nazis were following?



Please consider my other examples. Like when you're on a stage in front of people you don't know. Essentially you're the one being judged by the ethics of the community, thus the uncomfortable feeling and the guilt/awkward feeling.

You would still feel guilty once you got some food in your stomach. It's just that when you're hungry, you stop caring about things you normally would and all you care about is food.



There is no strict code of morality though. It's just a guideline, the main thing that keeps you in line is other people.

@manun well I dont believe in god.

and you're right, society cannot see you and you would get away with it.

So a.
b/c I personally would feel guilt for doing something that I consider to be 'wrong' especially b/c I'm not poor and I'm not that desperate for 'power' or whatever gain it is especially if it will involve killing someone.


you would stop feeling guilty once you get of the stage. or if you have the power of manipulation you can turn them into your followers, like Jesus did... ok LOL I'm going off topic.




thats fine by me as long as 'other people' consists of the majority and not just the 'powerful', the fortunate and the manipulative.

I'm too hungry to care about morality.
Someone feed me plsssssssssss
I'm dying...

No.

I don't agree that morality is simply a social construct.

^ Yes you do.
We've been through this.

Don't tell me what I think.
I still didn't think it was a social construct even if we took away the objectiveness of it. Personal morality comes before social morality.

its an evolutionary design! EVERYTHING IS

Is it something that has come to be out of nothing or did we always have a morality that evolved into something more complex?

Maybe morality is practicality.

Hell, if no laws stopped me, I'd do a $hitload of crazy stuff.

I think it was something like bacterias have right now with auto inducing mechanism.
When they realise there are alot of bacterias around some of them would prolifirate slower but they wont move away from the food source.

Small background what im talking about:
Bacterias releases something called auto inducer which is a substance other bacterias can sense with receptors knowing there are bacterias around. If there are alot of auto inducers then there are alot of bacterias, to stop competing with eachother some of them will proliferate (divide) slower to make it possible for the other to survive. Bacteria philosophy : As long as one survives. (the simpliest philosophy )

^ So you see original morality as a very basic system where survival of the species is the over-riding governance and certain behaviour would best serve this purpose?

Get away with robbing a bank? Of course! Who wouldn't?

But there's a line obviously; I wouldn't kill someone or physically harm someone.

“how come the only one who understands me is the damn relativist!”

don't make me find that thread

That was agreement on a small point.

somewhere in that thread you 180'd when you realized you were arguing in favour of relativism

What's wrong with morality being a social construct? A human is not human unless there other humans around.

I think i feel you haha.The feeling is sometimes powerful than the morality!!!
You should check this http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=71224

One of my points was slightly relativist. That's all.
@lovelytruth - Shut up already.

I feel it 2

Certain? All behaviour in their most simple system is somewhat related to survival, for urself or ur species.
But then i dont get the idea of protecting ur genes.... cause if u think about it we have 95% of the apes genome and why dont we save them? I think its 10-15% difference between the species and does a percentage of 3 really matter. It seems like evolution is just a simple thing where its really "I have to survive" as in genes. U have to have at least a high percentage with a little difference to be viewed as evolutionary correct to save.