Thread: if you could get away with anything

Lol. That would be some interesting porn to see.

I'd hide behind politicians and sing really loudly whenever they started talking.

Originally Posted by slash112

would you still have morals if you could get away with anything?"

I don't have much of a morals, so in my case it is called the survival instinct. It's not any ethical approach that keeps me from committing things, but it's more my brain that warns me not to do things if they have a chance to ruin my existing life. Therefore, if I noticed an opporturnity to commit something that I want with great chances of succeed, I will commit it. ( Taken it won't ruin my other possibilities for something else.)

Luckily I don't want to do everything so I don't have to constantly evaluate my actions.

i dont really have morals, so if i could get away with anything thats what i would do anything i wanted, if I had a ring that made me invisible
mygod the world would be in for it

your avatar looks like bill murray

I think riding a horse would be funny

Originally Posted by dreamingofdreaming

your avatar looks like bill murray

I think riding a horse would be funny

THATS STEVE MOTHER FUCKIN ZISSOU
played by bill murray

oooo yeah

Hmm...this is a very interesting subject. Was your class studying Plato's "The Republic" by any chance? Something like this is brought up in Book II. In it, Socrates and Glaucon are debating the merits of justice vs. injustice. Glaucon argues that justice is disagreeable but desirable because it offers protection from theft, murder, etc; committing an injustice and getting away with it is the greatest good, and not being able to punish someone else for an injustice they visited on you is the greatest evil.

In order to illustrate his point, he recounts the story of a Lydian shepherd who finds a ring which makes him invisible, and uses it to become King. He finishes by stating that if both a just man and unjust man were given such a ring that "no man can be imagined of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with anyone at his pleasure...the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point."

Now, I think things have become more complicated since then. What with fingerprinting and DNA testing, occasionally police don't need visual evidence. Not to mention that it takes much more to become a world leader these days. However, it'd still be pretty easy to shoplift whatever you wanted, and the pickpocketing oppurtunities this would open up are unbelievable. You wouldn't have to work another day in your life! So, I'm inclined to believe that most people would engage in at least a few unsavory activities. I know I would. The temptation would simply be too great.

Originally Posted by Michael

I would also still HAVE morals. I just wouldn't follow them.

^this

.

This thread made me think of this:


Personally, I'd just do whatever random things I felt like. Mostly just fun things, like everyone else. As for the idea of becoming unethically motivated ... uhh, well it's quite possible.

Originally Posted by dreamingofdreaming

oooo yeah

if you ever seen the movie than that is my future

Originally Posted by Vampyre

This thread made me think of this:




Personally, I'd just do whatever random things I felt like. Mostly just fun things, like everyone else. As for the idea of becoming unethically motivated ... uhh, well it's quite possible.

fuck ya whitest kids u kno
humans dont really have ethics when shit comes to shit, you'd eat another person if you had to

Originally Posted by stnicka

humans dont really have ethics when shit comes to shit, you'd eat another person if you had to

Probably because ethics change from person to person. Overall, it's agreed upon to not harm others, but when there's no reason to restrain yourself ... everything's up in the air.

Hence why the word anarchy is associated with a destructive society. Anarchy, means no government. With no government, there are no laws. With no laws, there's no punishment or anything besides the will of other people to stop you from doing anything.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

With no laws, there's no punishment or anything besides the will of other people to stop you from doing anything.

Nothing except survival of the strongest and fittest. Quite logical and rational option, I think.

Originally Posted by Unelias

Nothing except survival of the strongest and fittest. Quite logical and rational option, I think.

FUCK YEAH
darwinism

Darwinism or not, if humans are stripped of their morals that's the way it works. Animals don't have moral, therefore their only option is to be strong or sly enough to live. Humans are basically same, just a bit more complicated with social structures, social skills and tools we have invented.

And this is great that we're social... At least from my point of view: if everybody behaved like a barbarian I couldn't even walk out of the house without being raped

And lack of morals means lack of any friends. I prefer to have friends

I don't see how lack of morals prevents you from having friends could you elaborate please? Even if you immoral it doesn't mean you have all the urges in the world. I see no problem there, at least not in my life.

Well if you have no morals then in case you can profit by betraying a friend you would do it, right? Because you need money for survival And you need food, clothes, sex, etc., all kinds of necessary things that you need and could steal or take from others. It's a moral viewpoint to care whether others survive or whether they help you or oppose you, if you only care for yourself you couldn't possibly have anybody who'd like to be your friend.

Egoistic urges are suppressed by morals or society conduct (which is the same imho).

Egoistic urges can also be supressed by sheer intelligence, because fulfilling the urge might threathen your own condition or even life. You could label it as survival instinct. Although purely egoistic, it has nothing to do with ethics

Well if you have no morals then in case you can profit by betraying a friend you would do it, right?

If the profit from betrayal is greater that the relationship. However, there are only a few people I can label as friends and they carry that title for a reason. I have yet found nothing that surpasses my interest for those people.

And you need food, clothes, sex, etc., all kinds of necessary things that you need and could steal or take from others.

Those all are mundane things, which I can obtain from any source, in any way ( commonly accepted or unaccepted) . There is no need for betray a friend for such simple things. Now if there would be something I really crave on the other side of the scale, then the situation is different. Sadly, I doubt there is a being that can offer me such a prize.

if you only care for yourself you couldn't possibly have anybody who'd like to be your friend.

Rationally thinking you are indeed right. Yet humans are such a unrational bunch and there are people who deeply care me, even if I am extremely chaotic and unpredictable yet they accept it. Life is strange.

Egoistic urges are suppressed by morals or society conduct (which is the same imho).

True. The pressure from other people intimitates you and prevents you from doing what your want, even if you personally think it is just. It is just the lack of strength against so many people

Originally Posted by Unelias

Egoistic urges can also be supressed by sheer intelligence, because fulfilling the urge might threathen your own condition or even life. You could label it as survival instinct. Although purely egoistic, it has nothing to do with ethics

That only goes for the weakest, what should the stronger ones do? They can always avoid suppressing their urges because the weaker ones exist and can be robbed or exploited in any other way without repercussions. (And in amoral society based on survival no repercussions would exist, we're talking about the power in hands of those who're better fit for survival..)

If the profit from betrayal is greater that the relationship. However, there are only a few people I can label as friends and they carry that title for a reason. I have yet found nothing that surpasses my interest for those people.

This is admirable . But I wasn't insisting that you're a bad friend. I think that you do use moral rules in your life, however, even though you prefer to label them differently. For example, the very passage quoted above sounds moral to me A "friend" status means a lot to you, and you value such special people higher than profit.

Btw I'm not using the word "moral" as a curse or something connected to religion and saints, or to holier-than-though attitude. Saying just in case, some people hate it because of these connotations...

True. The pressure from other people intimitates you and prevents you from doing what your want, even if you personally think it is just. It is just the lack of strength against so many people

So if you happen to be very strong, nothing will stop you from doing what you want?

Originally Posted by Arutad

That only goes for the weakest, what should the stronger ones do? They can always avoid suppressing their urges because the weaker ones exist and can be robbed or exploited in any other way without repercussions. (And in amoral society based on survival no repercussions would exist, we're talking about the power in hands of those who're better fit for survival..

This is indeed the most interesting part and the core reason why I am fascinated with the concept of strength. Can a human achieve such a strength than he don't even have to suppress his urges? This is also reason why this topic is such an interesting one : will power demolish morals?

This is admirable . But I wasn't insisting that you're a bad friend. I think that you do use moral rules in your life, however, even though you prefer to label them differently. For example, the very passage quoted above sounds moral to me A "friend" status means a lot to you, and you value such special people higher than profit.

We haven't discussed this enough for us to understand each other I am a nihilist of a sort, therefore I don't believe in concept of wrong or right. I hold no principles or doctrines which would guide my way. Even though true extreme nihilism denies values in everything, I do hold some sort of "values" but none which couldn't be overthrown after right situation. My point is being that I cannot profit much of betraying my friends, unless I want to bother swindling them from everything they own. I am rational man though and there is no need to waste time for something like that, which can be achieved by easier means withoyut losing those people. Lastly, I don't have much use for material, my motives are much more non-materealistic

Btw I'm not using the word "moral" as a curse or something connected to religion and saints, or to holier-than-though attitude. Saying just in case, some people hate it because of these connotations...

That's a good clarificiations, but I rarely assosicate it with religion anyways. Moral probably would exist even without religion as it is now.

So if you happen to be very strong, nothing will stop you from doing what you want?

Right to the point. Even better world than strong would be capable. It consist all traits that help to that goal. Only flaw in this plan is that what I want is something that most likely humans will never achieve. If I were just a bloodlustly sexual predator, things would be much worse. Luckily, I consider myself quite sophisticated

I gotta go now, I'll be on next time at the weekend interesting conversation, as always with you.

-Un

I think a better way to phrase Arutad's point would be to simply say: "In a morally unstable world, you would have less friends." Which is true, because there'd be fewer reasons to trust people.

Kinda like how in most zombie movies, the people are edgey and untrusting. It's because they never know when something's gonna turn on them. In such a scenario, it's more of a priority to take care of yourself than make friends. Although, that doesn't mean you won't have any; just less than in a civilized environment.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

I think a better way to phrase Arutad's point would be to simply say: "In a morally unstable world, you would have less friends." Which is true, because there'd be fewer reasons to trust people.

You're right.

And that's about morally unstable, what about complete lack of moral rules?

I guess it boils down to whether people have a real necessity, a kind of instinct, to have friends or not. If we do, then no matter how amoral we are, we'd still be afraid to lose our friends and would treat them well.

Originally Posted by Arutad

You're right.

And that's about morally unstable, what about complete lack of moral rules?

I guess it boils down to whether people have a real necessity, a kind of instinct, to have friends or not. If we do, then no matter how amoral we are, we'd still be afraid to lose our friends and would treat them well.

By "morally unstable" I meant that there was no significant reason to have morals. Like a place without laws, courts, prisons, etc. But even in a world like that, people would still have some sense of morality. It's just that it would be much more unstable, because of how untrustworthy people would become.