cardboard adolescent

what the **** country has threatened us or used force on us since pearl harbor? and if i recall correctly our response was to bomb the hell out of them.

Inuzuka Skysword

I am arguing that the wars we have fought since then have been just. I am just saying that in the wars the US does fight, we aren't doing it right. We aren't doing it to protect ourselves. We are doing it so that we can set up a new government or protect another country which our government has no responsibility for.

I am suggesting that the only goal of any just war is self-defense. Therefore, eliminating the threat is what should be done. The Vietnam war was for a completely different purpose and was a waste of time. That is a bad example.

bungalow

Well then you're just a hopeless idealist and equally unqualified to comment on how our generals should be fighting this war. This fight is existential for the insurgency, not us, therefore we can never win. It's a simple as that.

Also, as an aside, was the American Revolution not a just war?

Inuzuka Skysword

I never ever said I supported the Iraq war if that is what you are referring to. Most of these wars like the Vietnam War, Filipino-American War, etc. are all stupid and were a waste of time and men.

I think the American Revolution was just. It was an act of self-defense. While the British weren't attacking us and such, they did infringe on our right to life, and the government that ruled over us was leading us to destruction. War was rational.

It is a bad example because you are asking me to defend wars I completely disagree with in the first place. I never said that the present war was just. I just criticized our tactics.

There is no defined right or wrong if there is no goal. What would be considered right or wrong in this situation?

And what do you base your ethics on?

No, it isn't. That is why I was criticizing the popular philosophies of this time aka. post-modernism where you are to sacrifice your life for your fellow man, where humans are viewed as the dust of the earth, and etc.

One can feel happy following religion if he wants to, but the question is whether he is truly happy. I bold "he" because it comes down to the issue of identity. Do you feel happier when you are yourself or when you act not on your own principles, but the principles of others? Do you even have a self? If one looks at the present, one would say that one is not chained to his past actions and "the self" does not exist. However, when he dies his whole life becomes the past and that is when "the self" can be realized and a character accurately formed. While man lives in the present he can only experience the chemical function of happiness. When man looks to the past he can realize who he can form the most accurate picture of his character and that is when he defines himself as truly happy or not. This comes down to what I underlined, "truly happy." Of course, I could post another paragraph about this and I will if you please, but I will spare my effort for something that I find we might have common ground on.

Why? I mean, you saying it is depressing is not really refuting my point because I see no reasoning behind that statement.

No, I am not saying that at all. In fact, I find it to be quite the opposite. I realize that what really is, is the self. I realize that my life means something to myself. Your way of pursuing truth at the cost of the self is Nietzschian and we know what happened to him. He sacrificed his existence to the world. While you might say that he found some truth, I would say that he did not since he denied the first truth, the self.

The question comes down to whether man is to serve philosophy or philosophy to serve man. I cherish my existence and I will not sacrifice it.

When I mean beyond I mean that was is not part of "the self" is part of the objective reality. It was meant to be obvious.

Morality is based on reason. People will derive different moralities, but because there is an objective morality one will always be better. The idea is to find the best. We may not find it, but at least find the best you can find because it leads to more happiness.

I don't support subjective morality because there is always a "right" way to do something.

I will quote what you said:
When you say "what I gain from reality" you are concerned with your own interests first. That is selfishness. Then you go on to say that these selfish motives of yours are more important than anything you can get from your selfish goals (aka. selfish motives).

The Unfan

I wouldn't know because I actually have goals, however, that doesn't mean that someone without goals can't have morality.

What is good for society based on known information. Typically of the social variety.


What if someone derives happiness from defeatism? What if veiwing others as more important than yourself gives you a sense of humbleness which makes you happy?

But what is good to identify with? This seems like nothing more than opinion, and saying that everyone has the ability to identify with thatever they want and it doesn't matter is bordering on a nihilistic thought process. On the other hand saying there is an objectively good thing to identify with is outright opressive. This statement alone makes it sound like you're saying it is objectively bad to feel connected to religion or religious figures while saying it is subjectively acceptable. Which is it?

It seems like a confusingly misinformed philosophy.

THIS. You seem to be so anti-nihilism yet this is exactly what nihilism is. You're saying that objectivity revolves around subjectivity derived from self awareness, and that since nothing is more important than self that self is the best thing to edify. You, your opinions, and your goals are the basis of your world view, and anything that is against those things is obviously bad. For the nihilist it is about their subjective experience of a subjective world where they then formulate subjective opinions of what is happening. The only difference is that you have a large enough ego to call it objective.

and then Uh-huh. I follow.
What evidence is there of being an objective morality? If morality is derived from reason and reason changes from person to person than morality has to be subjective. Oh wait, you have proof? Let's check this out.
But different people get happiness from different things. If someone gets happiness from immorality this would prove you completely wrong.

I wouldn't say that I am 100% selfless.

But I think I do view this the opposite way that you do. I view reality as important because it affects everyone. Not just me. If we were capable of existing in our own seperate realities outside of each other than I would probably have an entirely different world view.

Inuzuka Skysword

Morality is a means to an end. The end is the goal. Every true morality in history is based on morality being a means to an end from Christian morals to the morals of altruism. The goal may not be a selfish one, but there is a goal whether it be transcending the human in us or personal happiness.

Why are these your ethics or rather "the ethics?"

You have to look at what happiness actually is. No one can derive happiness from something that destroys the self-esteem. Happiness isn't an abstract feeling that we cannot explain at all. Happiness is the human response to what is good. What makes one happy is good for the human psychologically and such. There is a mechanism in our brain that determines what is painful and what feels good. Why is it there? To protect us. Something that destroys us can not give us happiness.

I don't quite understand which idea you are attacking when you say, "What is good to identify with?" I will take a shot. The good is what is rational. What leads you to the goal of human happiness.

And that is nihilism? An idea which opens up the realm for human potential is the most anti-nihilist thought on the planet. Nihilism is an anti-hope idea and an idea that is based in hope can not be considered nihilism.

I am saying that one will never reach true happiness if he follows religion because that happiness will never be his. So it is objectively evil to follow religion.


THIS. You seem to be so anti-nihilism yet this is exactly what nihilism is. You're saying that objectivity revolves around subjectivity derived from self awareness, and that since nothing is more important than self that self is the best thing to edify. You, your opinions, and your goals are the basis of your world view, and anything that is against those things is obviously bad. For the nihilist it is about their subjective experience of a subjective world where they then formulate subjective opinions of what is happening. The only difference is that you have a large enough ego to call it objective.

I do have the ego to call it objective. That is what makes in anti-nihilistic. I don't view existence without hope. I view it with hope because I create my existence. In the midst of a meaningless world I have become a god and given it meaning, but not just subjective. I have given it an objective meaning. No one can live and be happy without believing that what they perceive is objective reality.

I don't believe that what I do are the only things that are rational. What is rational can differ depending on the circumstances behind the situation. While I may criticize myself for taking up job A in this country where job A is popular, I would not say it is immoral to take up job A where job A is not popular.


When I said that people will derive different moralities, I meant it in the way where something can be moral in one place, but not in another. Of course, it depends on what is rational at the time.

There is an objective morality because there is an objective reality. If there is a best way to live in this reality, then there must be a morality that guides one to live that way. I do believe that one can make the most out of his existence and at the same time cast it away as if it were trash. This means that there is a morality. There has to be something to guide me to this best way of living.

No, I view it the same way as you. Reality affects everyone. However, the way it affects everyone is not the same. Starving kids in a third world country affect me, but on such a small level that, unless it were to affect me more, I shouldn't care. My happiness does not depend on the enjoyment of others. You brain doesn't give you pleasure when someone across the world, whom you have never met or even knew existed, has stayed alive one more day.

Well, I figured that if you wanted to get in on this argument about morality and ethics then it wouldn't be to hard. If I were to argue regularly then I would have to repeat myself, which I don't feel like doing. If you want to know why I think those are good then you have the last couple posts between me and The Unfan for you to read.

I mean, your way of argument was no better. You assumed that everyone would think those a bad things. I was just trying to point that out.