0

You're missing my point. Collective Gatherings, even for the purpose of keeping the totality alive, are. not. Civilization. The things which make Civilization require the presence of that spark of greatness inside humankind that you apparently wish to deny even exists. Ants do not provide an example of Civilization or even Barbarian-level culture (which in itself contains some admirable traits). As you pointed out, they provide nothing but the totality, the hive mind or collective intelligence. Civilization does not rest on a single individual of whom all others are mere extensions, it relies upon the differences between individuals.

And I will say that you are wrong (absolutely) in assessing right and wrong as nothing but imaginary, relative constructs of humankind. Or are you saying that there might be some condition under which it would be right for you, as you are now, to kill me, as I am now, or vice versa?

Right and wrong form the foundations of our civilization and any culture developing off of it. To attempt to run a culture of any sort without them would lead to pure chaos.


As to Greenpeace and PETA, or any other groups like them, I suppose these are the kinds of groups that'd cheer at the following legal decision. I can't remember the case name, or the year, sadly.

A brazilian monastary attempted to have termites living underneath them legally evicted. (I believe the purpose of this was to allow them to exterminate the pests, but cannot recall for certain.) The judge declared instead that the monastary would have to cede some of their own holdings to the termites, on the grounds that the termites were there first and so had prior legal claim.

0

You're missing my point. Collective Gatherings, even for the purpose of keeping the totality alive, are. not. Civilization. The things which make Civilization require the presence of that spark of greatness inside humankind that you apparently wish to deny even exists..

Wrong!

- I never said that ants have a civilization.... They have highly ordered society. Total order if you will. That's what our civilization is going for. Total suppression of the individual for the benefit of the collective. Just think about it, man... Do you have retirement plans? You do? Now let's elaborate those plans a little:
You go to school.
You find a job.
You make a career of it.
You end your career.
You live in some worm place and enjoy your golden years.

Way I see it:

1. You go to school. - You educate your self mostly for the work.

2.You find a job, you make a career of it, you end your career. - Work, work, work. 30 - 40 years of it. (best part of your life)

3. You live in some worm place and enjoy your golden years. - After you're 70!! I want to do that in my 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and 60' also.

Point 2 is what really matters in human civilization. Working, building, doing something that benefits the "society" (read: big buck corporations that run our lives). Same principal goes for ants. Whole point of existence of one individual is stripped down to working purpose only.
Artistic expression, genius of one man, "the greatness of human kind" as you say it is not something that I deny. It is something that doesn't fit in the "big plan" made by our "society". At least not if it can't be commercially exploited by the "society".
You can call me romantic anarchist.

About right and wrong:
Simple examle:
Guy "a" tries to kill guy "b". At the end, guy "b" kills guy "a".
If the killing is wrong, who's right there?
In the mind of guy "a" guy "b" is wrong and he himself is right. Vice-versa.
Key words: "in the mind"


Ants winning a lawsuit? Who was their lawyer?

0

One fact regarding ants: they are pure example of collective intelligence. (As, single ant can only run in circles, but the colony as a whole can migrate, rebuild, devastate...) Something similar to the human civilization, only on a smaller scale. Social order among ants bare painful resemblance to our civilized world. Workers, soldiers, babysitters, queen (hello, Dani). Only thing lacking there is individuality. (We are ants. Resistance is futile.)

Humans and ants are very different.. As Enderx said, Civilization requires much more than order.. We can actually think for ourselves.. ants cannot. We are self-aware. We know that we exist, and we know that some day we will die. Nothing else on the planet has this mental capability. We are a civilization in that we have art, history, tradition, etc.. We record our past, and we look forward to the future.

And I will say that you are wrong (absolutely) in assessing right and wrong as nothing but imaginary, relative constructs of humankind. Or are you saying that there might be some condition under which it would be right for you, as you are now, to kill me, as I am now, or vice versa?

Right and wrong form the foundations of our civilization and any culture developing off of it. To attempt to run a culture of any sort without them would lead to pure chaos.

The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective. There are thousands of human societies that judge 'right' and 'wrong' differently. For example, in the past it was considered 'right' to sacrifice other humans or to engage in duals and murder people.. Our sense of morality has changed throughout time. Today, it is Christianity that mostly judges what is right and wrong.. However, it is impossible to suggest that the human consciousness is aware of a constant sense of morality. The human idea of right and wrong is dependent upon society.

0

It would be hard to adjust.. but come on, we wouldn't like all die b/c we don't have any vehicles. Life would change drastically, but we would SURVIVE

a lot of people wouldn't survive. Those vehicles carry food and other essentials into towns and cities, without them those towns (and especially cities) would starve in days (I believe I read somewhere that major cities like New York will run out of food for the people in them in hours when nothing would get shipped and trucked in).

If you take away ALL motorised transport (which is the end goal of the radical environmentalist lobby and the far left political end of the spectrum, albeit for different reasons) the result would be that the majority of the population would rapidly starve to death.
People in rural areas would have a somewhat easier time, as they're closer to the places where food is produced, so they can use handcarts and animal pulled vehicles (which would likely be illegal under "animal rights" laws, but without cars and aircraft the police would be unable to enforce those laws) to distribute food to themselves.
But they too would be in severe trouble rapidly unless the monoculture that is typical of modern agriculture was swept aside immediately in order to make way for smaller patches of produce and stables for a larger variety of animals (also illegal of course) per farming community.
You can't survive on cabbage or grain alone after all, at least not for long...

Effectively the only thing that allows major cities to exist is motorised transport.

0

Key word = "known".

Humans consider themselves more intelligent than dolphins because they have invented things like cars and war.
Dolphins consider themselves more intelligent than humans for those same reasons.

Douglas Adams...

0

1. If you can find someone else you can trick into supporting you in your desires to live the life you want while you're young, go right ahead. But unless they're unnaturally generous and/or altruistic (unnatural because humankind as a whole is a selfish bunch) you'll have to trick them or somehow coerce them; without that unnatural generosity, there's really no reason for them to support you at the expense of themselves, which is, at least in the world we live in, kind of a requirement of the situation at hand. Again, though, if you can find someone that generous, by all means, take the chance.

2. Commercial exploitation is the definition of your ant colony, is it not? I say that human civilization is beyond that. And you are correct that we are quickly running toward ant-like totality in much of society. Where we disagree is that you seem to have claimed this as a form of civilization, whereas I see it as the decivilizing of our world. Iff I have mistaken your point of view, I apologize and ask for forgiveness and correction. "Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred."

3a. I asked specifically about a decision defined as being between the two of us. I would see it as wrong if you were to kill me, of course. However, I would also see it as wrong for me to kill you. The only case I can see where I would even be willing to do so is if I were acting in defense of others, and that's not a case of making it right for me to kill you, it's a case of weighing two wrongs and choosing the lesser of two evils. It's still wrong. And if I were only acting in defense of myself, rather than others, I might prefer that you kill me, rather than attempting to kill you. I can't say for sure; attempted survival is a rather easy habit to pick up.

3b. Again, in your hypothetical case, I would say that it's still a wrong no matter who dies. Based solely on the information you have provided, I would place the blame on guy A, but I would still say it is wrong of Guy B to kill guy A.

As to the lawsuit, it was termites, they were the defendants, and I don't recall any more of the case than I posted earlier. I'm not even sure what century it was, beyond that if I'm right about it being in Brazil it must have been sometime after that nation was founded.

0

a lot of people wouldn't survive. Those vehicles carry food and other essentials into towns and cities, without them those towns (and especially cities) would starve in days (I believe I read somewhere that major cities like New York will run out of food for the people in them in hours when nothing would get shipped and trucked in).

If you take away ALL motorised transport (which is the end goal of the radical environmentalist lobby and the far left political end of the spectrum, albeit for different reasons) the result would be that the majority of the population would rapidly starve to death.
People in rural areas would have a somewhat easier time, as they're closer to the places where food is produced, so they can use handcarts and animal pulled vehicles (which would likely be illegal under "animal rights" laws, but without cars and aircraft the police would be unable to enforce those laws) to distribute food to themselves.
But they too would be in severe trouble rapidly unless the monoculture that is typical of modern agriculture was swept aside immediately in order to make way for smaller patches of produce and stables for a larger variety of animals (also illegal of course) per farming community.
You can't survive on cabbage or grain alone after all, at least not for long...

Effectively the only thing that allows major cities to exist is motorised transport.

People aren't going to instantly die.. humans can last weeks without food. Besides, we could still ship items without vehicles.. just hook up the old horse and buggy lol.. Obviously, not everyone will survive, but the human race will.. If you were to take away all of our forms of transportation that we use today, it would be devastating to our economy, society, and all the world. However, humanity as a whole would survive.

3a. I asked specifically about a decision defined as being between the two of us. I would see it as wrong if you were to kill me, of course. However, I would also see it as wrong for me to kill you. The only case I can see where I would even be willing to do so is if I were acting in defense of others, and that's not a case of making it right for me to kill you, it's a case of weighing two wrongs and choosing the lesser of two evils. It's still wrong. And if I were only acting in defense of myself, rather than others, I might prefer that you kill me, rather than attempting to kill you. I can't say for sure; attempted survival is a rather easy habit to pick up.

3b. Again, in your hypothetical case, I would say that it's still a wrong no matter who dies. Based solely on the information you have provided, I would place the blame on guy A, but I would still say it is wrong of Guy B to kill guy A.

Yes, to you there is a constant right and wrong. But do you speak for all of humanity?? NO. There are still undeveloped tribes or people in the world that do not think the same way as you.. Look at Africa for instance, there are tribes of people that are not considered 'civilized' by western standards, and they do not agree with us about what is right and wrong. There are no moral standards for the world.. people simply follow what society deems right or wrong. Of course, today in America, the UK, or some other developed nation, you may believe that every human has a divine sense of right and wrong.. but If you were to grow up in Africa or a third world country you would certainly disagree..

Use me as another example. I am an atheist, and I do not think it is wrong to kill in self-defense. If I felt my life was threatened by someone, I would take him/her out in a heartbeat.. and I would feel no regret..

0

A society may become just as easily deluded as an individual. Just because it is commonly held that something is true, or is false, is not the proof that it is so.

0

A society may become just as easily deluded as an individual. Just because it is commonly held that something is true, or is false, is not the proof that it is so.

Exactly what I was trying to prove.. Just b/c you or the christian community thinks a certain way that doesn't make it true. Many people hold different moral beliefs, and who are you to say that your beliefs are true? However, if morals were constant throughout the human race, then everyone would interpret laws similarly. We know that this is not the case; All societies are unique in their beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong'..

0

Exactly what I was trying to prove.. Just b/c you or the christian community thinks a certain way that doesn't make it true. Many people hold different moral beliefs, and who are you to say that your beliefs are true? However, if morals were constant throughout the human race, then everyone would interpret laws similarly. We know that this is not the case; All societies are unique in their beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong'..

I'm so lost, what exactly are we trying to prove?

0

I think part of what we're trying to prove is that people can argue about pretty much anything if they set their minds to it.

0

1. If you can find someone else you can trick into supporting you in your desires to live the life you want while you're young, go right ahead.

I wasn't talking about my early retirement (I now realize that my words point to just that). I was talking more of utopia my way.

2. Commercial exploitation is the definition of your ant colony, is it not? I say that human civilization is beyond that.

Commercial exploitation? Yes it is. It is the driving force of the civilization, and I KNOW that the "human" civilization is just that. Have you ever been to Africa? That's the real face of civilization you praise.

And you are correct that we are quickly running toward ant-like totality in much of society. Where we disagree is that you seem to have claimed this as a form of civilization, whereas I see it as the decivilizing of our world.

Sorry to break it to you, but ALL of the things that you (and everybody here) use in your every day life came from decivilizing factors you despise. Every manufacturer is looking for the way to manufacture cheaper product in order to collect the profit (greed). Cheap electronic parts, slippers, ANYTHING used is, in 90% of the cases, made of cheapest possible parts. And those parts are often produced in 3rd world countries (where ppl work for monthly wage that is less than you spend in a day). By buying a cheap sunglasses I endorse the poverty of the 3rd world. That's how civilization works. But, you're right, every now and then something like penicillin happens that truly helps people. Only, I can't think of a single thing of such human value happenin my lifetime, apart from space exploration that I hold the next logical step for this ever-expanding civilization.

A comment:
2 things advance civilizations. Wars and greed. For instance, cold war produced GPS. Greed produces consumer products. You can squeeze science somwhere in between, but it usualy is triggered by war and depends on greed ($$$).


- What do I think about western civilization? I think that it would be a great idea! - Gandhi

0

Yeah well I'm still lost lol. What are they debating about?

EnderX thought that there was some kind of constant consciousness throughout humanity.. That everyone agreed on the same morals and could differentiate btwn 'right' and 'wrong' similarly.. Which is obviously quite wrong..

0

EnderX thought that there was some kind of constant consciousness throughout humanity.. That everyone agreed on the same morals and could differentiate btwn 'right' and 'wrong' similarly.. Which is obviously quite wrong..

Hmm... I think that there is some consciousness to a degree in humanity. But I think it all depends on how you were raised by your guardians. If you were taught not to steal a cookie from the jar in the kitchen, then you realize it is wrong. If you weren't taught that, then you obviously think it's okay. And it also depends on society itself. People usually follow what they see around them.

0

Hmm... I think that there is some consciousness to a degree in humanity. But I think it all depends on how you were raised by your guardians. If you were taught not to steal a cookie from the jar in the kitchen, then you realize it is wrong. If you weren't taught that, then you obviously think it's okay. And it also depends on society itself. People usually follow what they see around them.

Yep, exactly. There isn't a universal moral code that humanity just naturally accepts. People are raised differently, and learn what is 'right' and 'wrong' from their environment and experiences.

0

Yep, exactly. There isn't a universal moral code that humanity just naturally accepts. People are raised differently, and learn what is 'right' and 'wrong' from their environment and experiences.

NOPE! Well, as with everything, a universal moral law is debateable. Many people argue for its existance (as do I).

http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html (read "there is a Universal Moral Law"; no worries, it's based on reason, not religion)

0

NOPE! Well, as with everything, a universal moral law is debateable. Many people argue for its existance (as do I).

http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html (read "there is a Universal Moral Law"; no worries, it's based on reason, not religion)

Debatable sure, likely NO. Morals come from religion.. and if you are going to argue for a universal moral law, then you are arguing for the existence of a creator.. And that is a debate that you will not win

1

There is plenty of evidence that proves a universal moral code is completely idiotic. For one, It would require the existence of a supreme being. For how could a sense of morality be incorporated into evolution? The human genome has been mapped, and there is no 'soul'. Nothing that sets us apart from any other species on the planet (Other than the +-2% difference in code from chimps.

Aside from the existence of a god, we know that a person's environment helps to shape his character and actions. If you travel to different cultures, you will find that they do NOT all share moral similarities. Just open a single history book! Ancient tribes were not always against stealing, murder, etc. Ancient civilizations have created games in which if you lose, you die. They have sacrificed other people.. People have fought and killed others for "the glory of god!" People who fought in the crusades thought they were killing on behalf of god, and thus it was morally right. Tribes in Africa and many other places still practice pagan rituals that the western world would consider immoral. The novel okonkwo is also a perfect example. Okonkwo was a wise and powerful leader of his tribe.. They did many 'evil' things such as murder(killed babies that were thought to be evil) and thievery. They followed what their prophet said, b/c they thought it was moral and right. Then the Christian missionaries come along and force their ideas on the people.. Okonkwo ends up committing suicide.

Society decides morality. People are shaped by their environment. There is no universal moral law.. Morals exist only b/c people create them. Again, look at many mass murderers throughout history. Hitler, for example. He truly thought that the Aryan race was supreme, and that all other people were inferior. He risked his own life and killed millions b/c of his belief. He obviously thought what he was doing was moral and just, but people disagree based on their own principles.

Votes + Comments
i agree with you on weither to own guns or not
0

Duki is family and christina>you is close enough, but i do have to disagree 100%. both of you know that my 2 girls and my famliy means more to me than anything, so you can not say that i do not care because both of you know me and know that i do care about people. having said that not everyone that disagrees with you don't care. freedom is what makes this country so great, and we need to keep it. second if it is not guns then it would be bombs and that may kill even more, if a bomb went off like in OK city you could kill 200+ like that did. look at the middle east they have more deaths than we do, due to bombs. the guns are not the problem it is the people, they have to pull the trigger. as for protection yes i feel better that i have guns because if someone breaks into my home and endangers my girls and family they may have an illeagel gun, knife, there might be more than one and then innocence people would die that way also. this is a subject that will never be solved and you will never change someone elses mind. if someone does not agree with you it does not mean they do not have feelings, it means they have an option. drunk driving kills more people than anything else and to me that is murder because you know when you go out and you are drinking that you will be driving and you do not care that you put innocence peoples lives at stake so why not ban alcohol it is a murder weapon, it kills even without driving. even in a lot of radom shootings people are either high or drunk and depressed, so i think that it is this society that we live in not the guns themselves. look at movies and songs and the images that we and our childern see everyday, thats what gets in their heads not the guns. this world is full of sin and evil and we are not going to rid of all of the sin, and definitely not by one action of banning guns. the bottom line is that their is more people that owns guns and do not harm anyone than there is that does own them and harms someone.

thank you
God Bless

0

Hmm... I think that there is some consciousness to a degree in humanity. But I think it all depends on how you were raised by your guardians. If you were taught not to steal a cookie from the jar in the kitchen, then you realize it is wrong. If you weren't taught that, then you obviously think it's okay. And it also depends on society itself. People usually follow what they see around them.

then this proves that it is not the guns it is our society, if it is how you are rasied. we as a society needs to work harder to improve our society, then that would solve a lot of the evil things that are happening, not banning guns.

0

then this proves that it is not the guns it is our society, if it is how you are rasied. we as a society needs to work harder to improve our society, then that would solve a lot of the evil things that are happening, not banning guns.

That post wasn't directed to the gun debate. I was talking about morals and the differentiation between knowing right/wrong.

0

we're not saying guns and guns alone kill people... we're just saying they make it a lot easier for that guy who is high orwho is drunk. Would you rather defend your girls against a guy with a knife or a guy with a gun? The guy at VT legally purchased his guns btw.

0

lol i showed a friend this thread and he came out with "guns dont kill people, bullets do"

Id rather defend against a knife. With one its up close and personal, in your face. Its hard to kill someone like that, whereas with a gun its easy. You push a button and they die.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.