chat with EndogenousArdor
Jul. 15th, 2003 07:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coyotegothCoyoteGoth (3:26:49 PM): Well, hello there, Mister... Bincher, isn't it?
EndogenousArdor (3:27:12 PM): Pintscher.
CoyoteGoth (3:27:58 PM): Ahh, yes; of the Doberman-Pintschers, no doubt.
EndogenousArdor (3:29:12 PM): Actually, her maiden name was Dublermon.
CoyoteGoth (3:29:29 PM): Hmm; it must have been the accent that made me mishear it.
EndogenousArdor (3:32:50 PM): Obviously.
CoyoteGoth (3:33:20 PM): Pity about that overbite, too; I'm sure that didn't help. Overgrown canine teeth can be so cumbersome.
EndogenousArdor (3:34:16 PM): How did you know the entire family suffered from overbites?
CoyoteGoth (3:35:47 PM): (And I'm delighted to see you're making the rounds at Christianity.com, by the way. As an ordained minister myself, I rejoice whenever godless heath- err, people of other religious beliefs follow the true path to salvation and tax breaks.)
CoyoteGoth (3:36:05 PM): Well, those family portraits were a giveaway.
EndogenousArdor (3:36:29 PM): Christianity.com?
EndogenousArdor (3:36:38 PM): Watchu talkin bout willis?
CoyoteGoth (3:37:28 PM): That charming link you posted as an attempt to throw people off the trail of your own inner geekdom, you floppy disk recycler, you.
EndogenousArdor (3:43:20 PM): I really am lost now.
EndogenousArdor (3:43:55 PM): And, by the way, I have no inner geekdom off which I need to throw people of the trail.
CoyoteGoth (3:44:08 PM): Well, that's what the christianity.com is for. You should have read the whole site when you linked that article, you silly thing.
EndogenousArdor (3:44:44 PM): OHHH!!!
EndogenousArdor (3:44:46 PM): That!
CoyoteGoth (3:44:47 PM): I see. It must have been someone else who was rhapsodizing about Space:1999 DVDs in his LJ.
EndogenousArdor (3:45:23 PM): No. I didn't read much beyond the fact that a Desmond Finchly was mentioned.
CoyoteGoth (3:47:20 PM): Harrumph. I can run a joke into the ground just as well as the next person, Mister *insert gratuitous Enterprise model reference here*
CoyoteGoth (3:48:09 PM): So there.
CoyoteGoth (3:49:16 PM): In fact, nyah.
EndogenousArdor (3:49:24 PM): Enterprise?
EndogenousArdor (3:49:35 PM): You're not one of those, are you?
EndogenousArdor (3:49:47 PM): A trekkie.... blech.
CoyoteGoth (3:50:28 PM): Hmm? Did you say something...?
CoyoteGoth (3:51:19 PM): Besides which, I am rubber and you are glue. As I believe the LJ debate community would have it.
EndogenousArdor (3:51:40 PM): One of those freaks who know that the name of Spock's pet sehlat was named I-chaya.
EndogenousArdor (3:51:48 PM): Oh.. wait...
EndogenousArdor (3:51:52 PM): I didn't know that.
EndogenousArdor (3:51:57 PM): It was a guess.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 3:52:57 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 3:53:05 PM.
EndogenousArdor (3:53:22 PM): I. Am not. A trekkie. I. Am. A normal person.
EndogenousArdor (3:54:13 PM): Really.
CoyoteGoth (3:54:19 PM): Paul, Paul, Paul... you know what they say about denial not simply being a river in Egypt.
EndogenousArdor (3:54:51 PM): Paul? I'm ... uh... Darla.
EndogenousArdor (3:55:26 PM): Yeah. That's it. I'm Darla and a big old Trek freak. Paul will be back shortly.
CoyoteGoth (3:55:31 PM): Well, we all knew that. I'm speaking to the outer Paul right now, though.
EndogenousArdor (3:55:53 PM): He's never even heard of Star Trek. He's a big football fan.
CoyoteGoth (3:56:29 PM): So I hear. I think his fiancee told me that.
CoyoteGoth (3:59:17 PM): *whispers* Don't tell anyone, but I hear they have a bun in the oven.
CoyoteGoth (4:04:19 PM): Good heavens, Darla- I've stunned you into silence.
EndogenousArdor (4:06:35 PM): No. An LJ post distracted me. I had to respond.
EndogenousArdor (4:06:53 PM): A debate on Good vs. Evil.
EndogenousArdor (4:07:01 PM): How could I not get drawn in.
CoyoteGoth (4:09:19 PM): Ahh, of course. I assume you're mentioning John Ashcroft in there somewhere?
EndogenousArdor (4:09:33 PM): I"ve been avoiding it.
CoyoteGoth (4:09:51 PM): yeah. it's almost atrope at this point. Too easy.
EndogenousArdor (4:11:34 PM): Too easy, and too loaded. It would distract from the debate, not add to it.
CoyoteGoth (4:13:01 PM): True. personally, for me, 'evil" always brings up images of some harried civil servant rushing through the day's work, consigning ten thousand people to the gas chamber with one hand, while flipping through the phone book for the number of a florist for his wife's birthday with the other.
EndogenousArdor (4:16:36 PM): hold on a sec... lemme finish my post and I'll link you to the thread.
CoyoteGoth (4:18:28 PM): Okie doke.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 4:21:35 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 4:25:41 PM.
CoyoteGoth (4:28:35 PM): So, hurricane much...?
EndogenousArdor (4:28:50 PM): It fizzled.
CoyoteGoth (4:30:23 PM): So I gather. I was going to offer a couple of puns on the subject, but I wasn't feeling inspired.
CoyoteGoth (4:43:49 PM): Hmm; now, someone's asking when I'm going to write another poem. "As soon as I find a good rhyme for 'Nantucket'..."
EndogenousArdor (4:47:58 PM): Bucket.
EndogenousArdor (4:48:08 PM): Sans Bucket.
CoyoteGoth (4:48:12 PM): Ahh. You're a lifesaver.
EndogenousArdor (4:49:07 PM): I've done a poor job of presenting my side, but here's the thread...
EndogenousArdor (4:49:09 PM): http://www.livejournal.com/users/darthbeckman/148200.html
CoyoteGoth (4:53:50 PM): Mmm; i'm not certain your definition of "good" is in accord with my own. I think goodness refers to more than simply an obstacle-free envirmonment.
EndogenousArdor (4:59:15 PM): So then you believe in a middle value.
EndogenousArdor (4:59:20 PM): Evil, nuetral and good.
CoyoteGoth (5:00:00 PM): Well, if you havce a state of utter inactivity, that in itself would be "neutral."
EndogenousArdor (5:00:23 PM): Not if that inactivity allows Evil to flourish.
EndogenousArdor (5:00:44 PM): Or perhaps sleep.
CoyoteGoth (5:00:52 PM): If "evil" is flourishing, then that connotes activity of a sort, doesn't it?
EndogenousArdor (5:00:54 PM): Sleep is neither good or evil.
CoyoteGoth (5:01:12 PM): No. Except for nap monsters, of course.
EndogenousArdor (5:01:28 PM): All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Who said that? Or something to that effect.
CoyoteGoth (5:02:18 PM): I'm not sure who said it, but it wasn't me. If good men and bad men do nothing, then there isn't evil- merely stasis... or, if you prefer, neutrality.
EndogenousArdor (5:03:42 PM): Like in a cemetary.
EndogenousArdor (5:03:59 PM): We are all constantly acting.
CoyoteGoth (5:04:05 PM): Hmm... yes, I'd accept that.
EndogenousArdor (5:04:05 PM): doing something.
EndogenousArdor (5:04:24 PM): And either our actions are evil or they're not evil.
CoyoteGoth (5:04:28 PM): Well, if I'm sitting alone in the park reading a book, is that good or evil?
EndogenousArdor (5:04:33 PM): That is good.
EndogenousArdor (5:05:09 PM): You are freely and without constraint pursuing self interest and happiness.
CoyoteGoth (5:05:14 PM): Is it? What if I'm reading Mein Kampf, with an eye to put its theories into practice?
EndogenousArdor (5:05:31 PM): The action is still good.
EndogenousArdor (5:05:59 PM): Only actions are evil or good.
CoyoteGoth (5:06:07 PM): Ahh, but you forget- I specified that i consider "good" to refer to more than simply an obstacle-free environment. To me, and theis may be my own cultural baggage talking, "good" includes an ethical- if not moral- element.
EndogenousArdor (5:06:31 PM): define the difference between moral and ethical.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 5:07:30 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 5:08:28 PM.
EndogenousArdor (5:08:29 PM): Ethics, to me, means keeping your agreements.
EndogenousArdor (5:08:54 PM): Doing what you say you're going to do, for the reasons you say you're going to tdo them.
CoyoteGoth (5:10:52 PM): Ahh. Per my own- completely subjective- lexicon, "moral" means living up to society's expectatiosn of you; "ethical" means to live up to your expectations of yourself.
EndogenousArdor (5:11:19 PM): I think that's a great nutshell definition of the two.
EndogenousArdor (5:12:03 PM): But, can't a society become immoral? Nazi Germany, for example?
CoyoteGoth (5:12:12 PM): why, thank you. I certainly don't consider myself a moral person- opther than to the extent that I don't, say, push enemies in front of busses, but i am assuredly a moral one.
EndogenousArdor (5:13:14 PM): I think morality is driven by the definition of good and evil.
CoyoteGoth (5:13:27 PM): Well, but by the definitions of your society, you're still behaving morally if you, say, turn in Mr. Goldberg to the authories. Contextual morality versus absolute- mean, if you will- morality.
EndogenousArdor (5:13:37 PM): In my world view, any action that is peaceful and honest is moral.
CoyoteGoth (5:13:55 PM): That's too easy, Paul. it's all about context.
EndogenousArdor (5:14:14 PM): Morality has to be complex?
CoyoteGoth (5:14:16 PM): So if I peacefully, honestly sleep with an eight-year-old, that's moral?
EndogenousArdor (5:14:53 PM): How is it possible to honestly sleep with an 8 year old?
CoyoteGoth (5:15:06 PM): Not in the context of American society, it isn't. Granted, that may change in other cultural contexts- but then, to some cultures, cannibalism is laudable.
CoyoteGoth (5:15:21 PM): "Mister Jones, do you mind if I have sex with Amy? No? Okay..."
CoyoteGoth (5:16:16 PM): Which brings up the issue of parental consent versus societal consent.
EndogenousArdor (5:16:22 PM): What about Amy's consent?
CoyoteGoth (5:17:33 PM): Well, then you have to assume that an eight-year-old can give an informed consent in such a matter.
EndogenousArdor (5:17:53 PM): Which I don't guess I assume.
CoyoteGoth (5:18:24 PM): Eight-year-olds have consented to what most people would term molestation before, I'm afraid.
EndogenousArdor (5:18:53 PM): Consent free from coercion?
CoyoteGoth (5:18:55 PM): (Granted, someone attempted it with me when I was about eight, and I screamed my head off.)
CoyoteGoth (5:19:18 PM): "Amy, do you want a nice piece of candy...?"
EndogenousArdor (5:19:21 PM): Mine happened at 11 or 12 and I didn't scream my head off.
EndogenousArdor (5:20:16 PM): Here's a weird question that I hope doesn't make you think I'm pedofile or a member of NAMBLA...
CoyoteGoth (5:20:19 PM): Granted that children have been considered of marriage age at 12 in other cultures- say, Elizabethan England- and the age of consent in New Mexico is all of 13.
CoyoteGoth (5:20:49 PM): All right...?
EndogenousArdor (5:21:05 PM): If an adult and a child have consensual non-violent sex, would there be any harm at all were the activity not considered taboo?
EndogenousArdor (5:21:46 PM): For me, ALL of the harm was emotional and phychological.
EndogenousArdor (5:22:14 PM): And it all arose out of the fact that it was taboo... a secret... something I knew was wrong by our society's standards.
CoyoteGoth (5:22:30 PM): That's a question for someone with far more knowledge of child psychology than I to answer. Children's psyches are incredibly permeable, and can retain incidents in unforseeable ways. (And how old is this putative "child"? The age of consent is something like 13 in New Mexico, after all.)
CoyoteGoth (5:22:53 PM): Exactly. Cultural versus personal morality (as opposed to ethicality.)
EndogenousArdor (5:23:02 PM): The only frame of reference is my own life.
CoyoteGoth (5:23:22 PM): "Child" meaning 11 or 12, then, as you were?
EndogenousArdor (5:23:47 PM): Had I not had to keep it a secret, had it not been taboo, had it been as acceptable as my sexual relationship with Seth, 21 years my junior, I don't think it would have been damaging to me.
CoyoteGoth (5:24:02 PM): And not necessarily. You've never enaged in necrophilia (I assume), but I'll bet you have moralistic response to the subject.
EndogenousArdor (5:24:43 PM): Actually, I find it horribly repulsive, but not on moralistic grounds.
CoyoteGoth (5:24:50 PM): That's quite possible. As I say, in other cultures marriages- and children- at that age were scracely unknown.
CoyoteGoth (5:25:03 PM): Well, but that's another matter. What about bestiality?
EndogenousArdor (5:26:35 PM): Ewww....gross. But short of physical harm perpetrated on the animal, my qualms aren't moralistic. I think cock-fighting is more immoral than some farmboy sticking his wee willie winkle in a ewe.
CoyoteGoth (5:28:17 PM): I have to disagree, because the animal can't give informed consent. Rover doesn't understand that if Mr. Owner comes home and finds Rover obeying his biological imperative with Mrs. Owner, Mr. Owner is liable to discipline him with the business end of a shotgun.
CoyoteGoth (5:34:20 PM): (Incidentally, do you mind if I post this- names and all- as I did the other chat? I haven't had a good, cracking philosophical debate in a while.)
EndogenousArdor (5:34:39 PM): Neither can the cocks.
EndogenousArdor (5:34:50 PM): So are they equally immoral?
EndogenousArdor (5:35:19 PM): Does an animal care if it's being used sexually and isn't being hurt?
EndogenousArdor (5:35:58 PM): You're saying with the Rover example that's it's immoral because of how others may react to the act, not because of the act itself.
CoyoteGoth (5:36:10 PM): Hmm. Granted that cockfighting has an edge of deliberate, nonconsensual sadism which sets my teeth on edge, I'd have to say both acts are immoral. Cockfighting might get the edge, and you're deliberately engineering teh death and/or harm of one of the animals.
EndogenousArdor (5:36:20 PM): Which is the same as saying it's immoral because people consider it immoral.
EndogenousArdor (5:36:39 PM): That's kind of circular.
CoyoteGoth (5:37:00 PM): And, I honestly can't speak to how an animal might react to bestiality. I'm sure it finds the situation somewhat confusing.
CoyoteGoth (5:37:29 PM): Actually, per teh definition I gave earlier of moral behavior, that's exactly what immorality means in general.
EndogenousArdor (5:37:45 PM): Immorality is what we say is immoral.
EndogenousArdor (5:37:51 PM): There's no objective definition at all?
EndogenousArdor (5:38:10 PM): See... THAT bothers me.
EndogenousArdor (5:38:57 PM): If immorality is so subjective, and there's no absolute or objective measure, then morality doesn't really exist.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 5:40:33 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 5:40:51 PM.
EndogenousArdor (5:40:51 PM): I'm not saying that morality has to be the same for everyone.
CoyoteGoth (5:41:00 PM): Well, morality has always been contextual. Consider my earlier point about cannibalism.
CoyoteGoth (5:41:07 PM): And, may I post this?
EndogenousArdor (5:41:44 PM): I am saying that each person needs to have an a personal objective definition.
EndogenousArdor (5:41:53 PM): Sure... post it.
EndogenousArdor (5:43:13 PM): See, I have no problem with cannibalism either, provided the ingredients for the dinner are obtained peacefully and honestly.
CoyoteGoth (5:43:18 PM): In which case A) it becomes much closer to my definition of ethics than my definition of morals, abd B) I find "objective" to be the sticky point. How does one obtain a truly objective set of mrals standards? (Including your user name? I can take it out.)
EndogenousArdor (5:43:37 PM): You can keep the names in.
EndogenousArdor (5:44:22 PM): Objective simply means measurable and observable.
EndogenousArdor (5:45:52 PM): Like in that message thread... I can define "to run" to describe what is occuring when a living creature reaches and maintains a speed of 8 mph.
EndogenousArdor (5:46:07 PM): That's objective. It's measurable. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
CoyoteGoth (5:46:15 PM): See, in this instance, my definition of "objective" would be quite similar to my definition of "absolute"- an unassailable (by any reasonable curtural standard) set of moral standards, rather than necessarily situational ones.
EndogenousArdor (5:47:23 PM): Objective just means that any person using the definition will come to similar conclusions in observing the same event.
CoyoteGoth (5:47:33 PM): for instance, there's not a one of the ten commandments (which, granted, is far from an objective moral absolute) that one can't find a moral counterexample for.
EndogenousArdor (5:47:42 PM): Even if they disagree with the definition.
CoyoteGoth (5:47:51 PM): Meaning, in this case, that the given behavior is "moral"?
EndogenousArdor (5:47:55 PM): They're pretty objective.
CoyoteGoth (5:48:01 PM): or simply, what it is?
EndogenousArdor (5:48:03 PM): Thou shalt not kill.
CoyoteGoth (5:48:26 PM): Isn't human sacrifice- such as Yahweh used to demand- killing?
EndogenousArdor (5:48:34 PM): Or, put another way, to cause the death of another human being is immoral.
EndogenousArdor (5:49:20 PM): Human sacrifice is immoral, according to that objective definition.
EndogenousArdor (5:49:46 PM): I happen to think it's evil as well.
EndogenousArdor (5:50:06 PM): In fact, I'm not sure I draw much of a distinction between "immoral" and "evil".
CoyoteGoth (5:50:14 PM): (although granted, I would scarecely consider the dictates of a god who sent a bear to eat 42 children because they laughed at the bald head of one of his prophets to be a moral absolute to begin with.)
EndogenousArdor (5:50:24 PM): Or between "moral" and "good".
CoyoteGoth (5:50:35 PM): so, following teh dictates of god to the letter is immoral?
CoyoteGoth (5:50:55 PM): Or at least, can be?
EndogenousArdor (5:50:57 PM): I don't think god has anything to do with morality.
EndogenousArdor (5:51:19 PM): At least not to my definition of Good and Evil, or Moral and Immoral.
CoyoteGoth (5:51:41 PM): Then what's the use of using the ten commandments as a basis for moral behavior- as so much of our society does- in the first place?
CoyoteGoth (5:56:44 PM): (I have to remember to thank RM the next time I see her. You and I have some wonderfully lively discussions, Mr. Bintscher.
EndogenousArdor (6:24:20 PM): Sorry.
EndogenousArdor (6:24:25 PM): Had to answer a post.
EndogenousArdor (6:24:53 PM): What do the ten commandments have to do with god?
CoyoteGoth (6:25:28 PM): No worries. Didn't God dictate them to Moses on Mt. Sanai?
CoyoteGoth (6:25:33 PM): (sp.)
EndogenousArdor (6:26:12 PM): Well, I suppose Christians would have you believe peopel didn't live by some of those codes of behavior before Moses came along.
CoyoteGoth (6:27:05 PM): I'm not sure the Bible specifies, although I'm fairly certain the human scarifices are pre-Moses.
CoyoteGoth (6:30:54 PM): And certainly, the commandments weren't the first time mankind heard teh dictates of God.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 6:38:27 PM, and is now considered idle.
EndogenousArdor (3:27:12 PM): Pintscher.
CoyoteGoth (3:27:58 PM): Ahh, yes; of the Doberman-Pintschers, no doubt.
EndogenousArdor (3:29:12 PM): Actually, her maiden name was Dublermon.
CoyoteGoth (3:29:29 PM): Hmm; it must have been the accent that made me mishear it.
EndogenousArdor (3:32:50 PM): Obviously.
CoyoteGoth (3:33:20 PM): Pity about that overbite, too; I'm sure that didn't help. Overgrown canine teeth can be so cumbersome.
EndogenousArdor (3:34:16 PM): How did you know the entire family suffered from overbites?
CoyoteGoth (3:35:47 PM): (And I'm delighted to see you're making the rounds at Christianity.com, by the way. As an ordained minister myself, I rejoice whenever godless heath- err, people of other religious beliefs follow the true path to salvation and tax breaks.)
CoyoteGoth (3:36:05 PM): Well, those family portraits were a giveaway.
EndogenousArdor (3:36:29 PM): Christianity.com?
EndogenousArdor (3:36:38 PM): Watchu talkin bout willis?
CoyoteGoth (3:37:28 PM): That charming link you posted as an attempt to throw people off the trail of your own inner geekdom, you floppy disk recycler, you.
EndogenousArdor (3:43:20 PM): I really am lost now.
EndogenousArdor (3:43:55 PM): And, by the way, I have no inner geekdom off which I need to throw people of the trail.
CoyoteGoth (3:44:08 PM): Well, that's what the christianity.com is for. You should have read the whole site when you linked that article, you silly thing.
EndogenousArdor (3:44:44 PM): OHHH!!!
EndogenousArdor (3:44:46 PM): That!
CoyoteGoth (3:44:47 PM): I see. It must have been someone else who was rhapsodizing about Space:1999 DVDs in his LJ.
EndogenousArdor (3:45:23 PM): No. I didn't read much beyond the fact that a Desmond Finchly was mentioned.
CoyoteGoth (3:47:20 PM): Harrumph. I can run a joke into the ground just as well as the next person, Mister *insert gratuitous Enterprise model reference here*
CoyoteGoth (3:48:09 PM): So there.
CoyoteGoth (3:49:16 PM): In fact, nyah.
EndogenousArdor (3:49:24 PM): Enterprise?
EndogenousArdor (3:49:35 PM): You're not one of those, are you?
EndogenousArdor (3:49:47 PM): A trekkie.... blech.
CoyoteGoth (3:50:28 PM): Hmm? Did you say something...?
CoyoteGoth (3:51:19 PM): Besides which, I am rubber and you are glue. As I believe the LJ debate community would have it.
EndogenousArdor (3:51:40 PM): One of those freaks who know that the name of Spock's pet sehlat was named I-chaya.
EndogenousArdor (3:51:48 PM): Oh.. wait...
EndogenousArdor (3:51:52 PM): I didn't know that.
EndogenousArdor (3:51:57 PM): It was a guess.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 3:52:57 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 3:53:05 PM.
EndogenousArdor (3:53:22 PM): I. Am not. A trekkie. I. Am. A normal person.
EndogenousArdor (3:54:13 PM): Really.
CoyoteGoth (3:54:19 PM): Paul, Paul, Paul... you know what they say about denial not simply being a river in Egypt.
EndogenousArdor (3:54:51 PM): Paul? I'm ... uh... Darla.
EndogenousArdor (3:55:26 PM): Yeah. That's it. I'm Darla and a big old Trek freak. Paul will be back shortly.
CoyoteGoth (3:55:31 PM): Well, we all knew that. I'm speaking to the outer Paul right now, though.
EndogenousArdor (3:55:53 PM): He's never even heard of Star Trek. He's a big football fan.
CoyoteGoth (3:56:29 PM): So I hear. I think his fiancee told me that.
CoyoteGoth (3:59:17 PM): *whispers* Don't tell anyone, but I hear they have a bun in the oven.
CoyoteGoth (4:04:19 PM): Good heavens, Darla- I've stunned you into silence.
EndogenousArdor (4:06:35 PM): No. An LJ post distracted me. I had to respond.
EndogenousArdor (4:06:53 PM): A debate on Good vs. Evil.
EndogenousArdor (4:07:01 PM): How could I not get drawn in.
CoyoteGoth (4:09:19 PM): Ahh, of course. I assume you're mentioning John Ashcroft in there somewhere?
EndogenousArdor (4:09:33 PM): I"ve been avoiding it.
CoyoteGoth (4:09:51 PM): yeah. it's almost atrope at this point. Too easy.
EndogenousArdor (4:11:34 PM): Too easy, and too loaded. It would distract from the debate, not add to it.
CoyoteGoth (4:13:01 PM): True. personally, for me, 'evil" always brings up images of some harried civil servant rushing through the day's work, consigning ten thousand people to the gas chamber with one hand, while flipping through the phone book for the number of a florist for his wife's birthday with the other.
EndogenousArdor (4:16:36 PM): hold on a sec... lemme finish my post and I'll link you to the thread.
CoyoteGoth (4:18:28 PM): Okie doke.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 4:21:35 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 4:25:41 PM.
CoyoteGoth (4:28:35 PM): So, hurricane much...?
EndogenousArdor (4:28:50 PM): It fizzled.
CoyoteGoth (4:30:23 PM): So I gather. I was going to offer a couple of puns on the subject, but I wasn't feeling inspired.
CoyoteGoth (4:43:49 PM): Hmm; now, someone's asking when I'm going to write another poem. "As soon as I find a good rhyme for 'Nantucket'..."
EndogenousArdor (4:47:58 PM): Bucket.
EndogenousArdor (4:48:08 PM): Sans Bucket.
CoyoteGoth (4:48:12 PM): Ahh. You're a lifesaver.
EndogenousArdor (4:49:07 PM): I've done a poor job of presenting my side, but here's the thread...
EndogenousArdor (4:49:09 PM): http://www.livejournal.com/users/darthbeckman/148200.html
CoyoteGoth (4:53:50 PM): Mmm; i'm not certain your definition of "good" is in accord with my own. I think goodness refers to more than simply an obstacle-free envirmonment.
EndogenousArdor (4:59:15 PM): So then you believe in a middle value.
EndogenousArdor (4:59:20 PM): Evil, nuetral and good.
CoyoteGoth (5:00:00 PM): Well, if you havce a state of utter inactivity, that in itself would be "neutral."
EndogenousArdor (5:00:23 PM): Not if that inactivity allows Evil to flourish.
EndogenousArdor (5:00:44 PM): Or perhaps sleep.
CoyoteGoth (5:00:52 PM): If "evil" is flourishing, then that connotes activity of a sort, doesn't it?
EndogenousArdor (5:00:54 PM): Sleep is neither good or evil.
CoyoteGoth (5:01:12 PM): No. Except for nap monsters, of course.
EndogenousArdor (5:01:28 PM): All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Who said that? Or something to that effect.
CoyoteGoth (5:02:18 PM): I'm not sure who said it, but it wasn't me. If good men and bad men do nothing, then there isn't evil- merely stasis... or, if you prefer, neutrality.
EndogenousArdor (5:03:42 PM): Like in a cemetary.
EndogenousArdor (5:03:59 PM): We are all constantly acting.
CoyoteGoth (5:04:05 PM): Hmm... yes, I'd accept that.
EndogenousArdor (5:04:05 PM): doing something.
EndogenousArdor (5:04:24 PM): And either our actions are evil or they're not evil.
CoyoteGoth (5:04:28 PM): Well, if I'm sitting alone in the park reading a book, is that good or evil?
EndogenousArdor (5:04:33 PM): That is good.
EndogenousArdor (5:05:09 PM): You are freely and without constraint pursuing self interest and happiness.
CoyoteGoth (5:05:14 PM): Is it? What if I'm reading Mein Kampf, with an eye to put its theories into practice?
EndogenousArdor (5:05:31 PM): The action is still good.
EndogenousArdor (5:05:59 PM): Only actions are evil or good.
CoyoteGoth (5:06:07 PM): Ahh, but you forget- I specified that i consider "good" to refer to more than simply an obstacle-free environment. To me, and theis may be my own cultural baggage talking, "good" includes an ethical- if not moral- element.
EndogenousArdor (5:06:31 PM): define the difference between moral and ethical.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 5:07:30 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 5:08:28 PM.
EndogenousArdor (5:08:29 PM): Ethics, to me, means keeping your agreements.
EndogenousArdor (5:08:54 PM): Doing what you say you're going to do, for the reasons you say you're going to tdo them.
CoyoteGoth (5:10:52 PM): Ahh. Per my own- completely subjective- lexicon, "moral" means living up to society's expectatiosn of you; "ethical" means to live up to your expectations of yourself.
EndogenousArdor (5:11:19 PM): I think that's a great nutshell definition of the two.
EndogenousArdor (5:12:03 PM): But, can't a society become immoral? Nazi Germany, for example?
CoyoteGoth (5:12:12 PM): why, thank you. I certainly don't consider myself a moral person- opther than to the extent that I don't, say, push enemies in front of busses, but i am assuredly a moral one.
EndogenousArdor (5:13:14 PM): I think morality is driven by the definition of good and evil.
CoyoteGoth (5:13:27 PM): Well, but by the definitions of your society, you're still behaving morally if you, say, turn in Mr. Goldberg to the authories. Contextual morality versus absolute- mean, if you will- morality.
EndogenousArdor (5:13:37 PM): In my world view, any action that is peaceful and honest is moral.
CoyoteGoth (5:13:55 PM): That's too easy, Paul. it's all about context.
EndogenousArdor (5:14:14 PM): Morality has to be complex?
CoyoteGoth (5:14:16 PM): So if I peacefully, honestly sleep with an eight-year-old, that's moral?
EndogenousArdor (5:14:53 PM): How is it possible to honestly sleep with an 8 year old?
CoyoteGoth (5:15:06 PM): Not in the context of American society, it isn't. Granted, that may change in other cultural contexts- but then, to some cultures, cannibalism is laudable.
CoyoteGoth (5:15:21 PM): "Mister Jones, do you mind if I have sex with Amy? No? Okay..."
CoyoteGoth (5:16:16 PM): Which brings up the issue of parental consent versus societal consent.
EndogenousArdor (5:16:22 PM): What about Amy's consent?
CoyoteGoth (5:17:33 PM): Well, then you have to assume that an eight-year-old can give an informed consent in such a matter.
EndogenousArdor (5:17:53 PM): Which I don't guess I assume.
CoyoteGoth (5:18:24 PM): Eight-year-olds have consented to what most people would term molestation before, I'm afraid.
EndogenousArdor (5:18:53 PM): Consent free from coercion?
CoyoteGoth (5:18:55 PM): (Granted, someone attempted it with me when I was about eight, and I screamed my head off.)
CoyoteGoth (5:19:18 PM): "Amy, do you want a nice piece of candy...?"
EndogenousArdor (5:19:21 PM): Mine happened at 11 or 12 and I didn't scream my head off.
EndogenousArdor (5:20:16 PM): Here's a weird question that I hope doesn't make you think I'm pedofile or a member of NAMBLA...
CoyoteGoth (5:20:19 PM): Granted that children have been considered of marriage age at 12 in other cultures- say, Elizabethan England- and the age of consent in New Mexico is all of 13.
CoyoteGoth (5:20:49 PM): All right...?
EndogenousArdor (5:21:05 PM): If an adult and a child have consensual non-violent sex, would there be any harm at all were the activity not considered taboo?
EndogenousArdor (5:21:46 PM): For me, ALL of the harm was emotional and phychological.
EndogenousArdor (5:22:14 PM): And it all arose out of the fact that it was taboo... a secret... something I knew was wrong by our society's standards.
CoyoteGoth (5:22:30 PM): That's a question for someone with far more knowledge of child psychology than I to answer. Children's psyches are incredibly permeable, and can retain incidents in unforseeable ways. (And how old is this putative "child"? The age of consent is something like 13 in New Mexico, after all.)
CoyoteGoth (5:22:53 PM): Exactly. Cultural versus personal morality (as opposed to ethicality.)
EndogenousArdor (5:23:02 PM): The only frame of reference is my own life.
CoyoteGoth (5:23:22 PM): "Child" meaning 11 or 12, then, as you were?
EndogenousArdor (5:23:47 PM): Had I not had to keep it a secret, had it not been taboo, had it been as acceptable as my sexual relationship with Seth, 21 years my junior, I don't think it would have been damaging to me.
CoyoteGoth (5:24:02 PM): And not necessarily. You've never enaged in necrophilia (I assume), but I'll bet you have moralistic response to the subject.
EndogenousArdor (5:24:43 PM): Actually, I find it horribly repulsive, but not on moralistic grounds.
CoyoteGoth (5:24:50 PM): That's quite possible. As I say, in other cultures marriages- and children- at that age were scracely unknown.
CoyoteGoth (5:25:03 PM): Well, but that's another matter. What about bestiality?
EndogenousArdor (5:26:35 PM): Ewww....gross. But short of physical harm perpetrated on the animal, my qualms aren't moralistic. I think cock-fighting is more immoral than some farmboy sticking his wee willie winkle in a ewe.
CoyoteGoth (5:28:17 PM): I have to disagree, because the animal can't give informed consent. Rover doesn't understand that if Mr. Owner comes home and finds Rover obeying his biological imperative with Mrs. Owner, Mr. Owner is liable to discipline him with the business end of a shotgun.
CoyoteGoth (5:34:20 PM): (Incidentally, do you mind if I post this- names and all- as I did the other chat? I haven't had a good, cracking philosophical debate in a while.)
EndogenousArdor (5:34:39 PM): Neither can the cocks.
EndogenousArdor (5:34:50 PM): So are they equally immoral?
EndogenousArdor (5:35:19 PM): Does an animal care if it's being used sexually and isn't being hurt?
EndogenousArdor (5:35:58 PM): You're saying with the Rover example that's it's immoral because of how others may react to the act, not because of the act itself.
CoyoteGoth (5:36:10 PM): Hmm. Granted that cockfighting has an edge of deliberate, nonconsensual sadism which sets my teeth on edge, I'd have to say both acts are immoral. Cockfighting might get the edge, and you're deliberately engineering teh death and/or harm of one of the animals.
EndogenousArdor (5:36:20 PM): Which is the same as saying it's immoral because people consider it immoral.
EndogenousArdor (5:36:39 PM): That's kind of circular.
CoyoteGoth (5:37:00 PM): And, I honestly can't speak to how an animal might react to bestiality. I'm sure it finds the situation somewhat confusing.
CoyoteGoth (5:37:29 PM): Actually, per teh definition I gave earlier of moral behavior, that's exactly what immorality means in general.
EndogenousArdor (5:37:45 PM): Immorality is what we say is immoral.
EndogenousArdor (5:37:51 PM): There's no objective definition at all?
EndogenousArdor (5:38:10 PM): See... THAT bothers me.
EndogenousArdor (5:38:57 PM): If immorality is so subjective, and there's no absolute or objective measure, then morality doesn't really exist.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 5:40:33 PM, and is now considered idle.
“EndogenousArdor” has started using the computer again at 5:40:51 PM.
EndogenousArdor (5:40:51 PM): I'm not saying that morality has to be the same for everyone.
CoyoteGoth (5:41:00 PM): Well, morality has always been contextual. Consider my earlier point about cannibalism.
CoyoteGoth (5:41:07 PM): And, may I post this?
EndogenousArdor (5:41:44 PM): I am saying that each person needs to have an a personal objective definition.
EndogenousArdor (5:41:53 PM): Sure... post it.
EndogenousArdor (5:43:13 PM): See, I have no problem with cannibalism either, provided the ingredients for the dinner are obtained peacefully and honestly.
CoyoteGoth (5:43:18 PM): In which case A) it becomes much closer to my definition of ethics than my definition of morals, abd B) I find "objective" to be the sticky point. How does one obtain a truly objective set of mrals standards? (Including your user name? I can take it out.)
EndogenousArdor (5:43:37 PM): You can keep the names in.
EndogenousArdor (5:44:22 PM): Objective simply means measurable and observable.
EndogenousArdor (5:45:52 PM): Like in that message thread... I can define "to run" to describe what is occuring when a living creature reaches and maintains a speed of 8 mph.
EndogenousArdor (5:46:07 PM): That's objective. It's measurable. Doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
CoyoteGoth (5:46:15 PM): See, in this instance, my definition of "objective" would be quite similar to my definition of "absolute"- an unassailable (by any reasonable curtural standard) set of moral standards, rather than necessarily situational ones.
EndogenousArdor (5:47:23 PM): Objective just means that any person using the definition will come to similar conclusions in observing the same event.
CoyoteGoth (5:47:33 PM): for instance, there's not a one of the ten commandments (which, granted, is far from an objective moral absolute) that one can't find a moral counterexample for.
EndogenousArdor (5:47:42 PM): Even if they disagree with the definition.
CoyoteGoth (5:47:51 PM): Meaning, in this case, that the given behavior is "moral"?
EndogenousArdor (5:47:55 PM): They're pretty objective.
CoyoteGoth (5:48:01 PM): or simply, what it is?
EndogenousArdor (5:48:03 PM): Thou shalt not kill.
CoyoteGoth (5:48:26 PM): Isn't human sacrifice- such as Yahweh used to demand- killing?
EndogenousArdor (5:48:34 PM): Or, put another way, to cause the death of another human being is immoral.
EndogenousArdor (5:49:20 PM): Human sacrifice is immoral, according to that objective definition.
EndogenousArdor (5:49:46 PM): I happen to think it's evil as well.
EndogenousArdor (5:50:06 PM): In fact, I'm not sure I draw much of a distinction between "immoral" and "evil".
CoyoteGoth (5:50:14 PM): (although granted, I would scarecely consider the dictates of a god who sent a bear to eat 42 children because they laughed at the bald head of one of his prophets to be a moral absolute to begin with.)
EndogenousArdor (5:50:24 PM): Or between "moral" and "good".
CoyoteGoth (5:50:35 PM): so, following teh dictates of god to the letter is immoral?
CoyoteGoth (5:50:55 PM): Or at least, can be?
EndogenousArdor (5:50:57 PM): I don't think god has anything to do with morality.
EndogenousArdor (5:51:19 PM): At least not to my definition of Good and Evil, or Moral and Immoral.
CoyoteGoth (5:51:41 PM): Then what's the use of using the ten commandments as a basis for moral behavior- as so much of our society does- in the first place?
CoyoteGoth (5:56:44 PM): (I have to remember to thank RM the next time I see her. You and I have some wonderfully lively discussions, Mr. Bintscher.
EndogenousArdor (6:24:20 PM): Sorry.
EndogenousArdor (6:24:25 PM): Had to answer a post.
EndogenousArdor (6:24:53 PM): What do the ten commandments have to do with god?
CoyoteGoth (6:25:28 PM): No worries. Didn't God dictate them to Moses on Mt. Sanai?
CoyoteGoth (6:25:33 PM): (sp.)
EndogenousArdor (6:26:12 PM): Well, I suppose Christians would have you believe peopel didn't live by some of those codes of behavior before Moses came along.
CoyoteGoth (6:27:05 PM): I'm not sure the Bible specifies, although I'm fairly certain the human scarifices are pre-Moses.
CoyoteGoth (6:30:54 PM): And certainly, the commandments weren't the first time mankind heard teh dictates of God.
“EndogenousArdor” has stopped using the computer at 6:38:27 PM, and is now considered idle.
