Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is he wrong?It also doesn't help when Zach assumes he knows how she needs to be helped.
It gets complicated because he appears to be concerned with, at minimum, both the safety and the happiness of his target. And since he's already demonstrated at least partial ignorance of what factors influence the latter...Wiping any and all sources of conflict from the face of the earth is a very valid strategy if your only concern is the safety of your client, and you're so strong you don't have to worry about escalation.
Exactly my point, morality is different from person to person, but guided by the culture's overall moral beliefs. With radially different cultures you'd have radically different overall moral beliefs to work from, so personal morals end up completely different.morality isn't so much shades of grey as it is a kaleidoscope of all the colors of the rainbow.There's the whole question of how much morality is subjective and how much is objective, but it really does seem like it objective morality doesn't really exist, in which case it's all subjective so thinking something is moral or immoral is just based on your personal beliefs and thus can seem wrong to another. All makes perfect sense.
Or a better example. It's been proven scientifically that having sex at least 3 times a week provides massive benefits to your health and wellness, both physically and mentally. This physical and mental benefit can be gained as soon as someone exit's puberty.Theoretically, then, there could be something that has a sum total effect of being good for you and actually be seen as morally wrong. Say, abandoning someone else in a disaster situation when not doing so might doom you as well. It saves your life, but it won't make you any friends.
Ah but he knows that. It's a known unknown to Zach, so he'll be (cheerfully!) trying to improve on that continually.It gets complicated because he appears to be concerned with, at minimum, both the safety and the happiness of his target. And since he's already demonstrated at least partial ignorance of what factors influence the latter...
Well put.Or a better example. It's been proven scientifically that having sex at least 3 times a week provides massive benefits to your health and wellness, both physically and mentally. This physical and mental benefit can be gained as soon as someone exit's puberty.
So you have an 10 year old child who's finished puberty, even though there's a proven physical and mental benefit to them having sex, it's still immoral and 'wrong' for someone that young to actually do so. In fact it's one of the worst crimes our culture knows for someone even just a few years older to have sexual relations with someone of that age.
This is the official hug for you about that. You seem legitimately upset on this and here there is only likes.
Regardless of why it is, where it's worst or even what the cause is, this isn't the thread to discuss it in I think. Mind, that might make a really solid thread for QQ to have, this just is not that thread.I think in those extremes it is mostly a US specific problem. Probably related to religion.
Which is why it's so much fun to write Andrea in Recoil and Alea Iacta Est. I'd say she gives no fucks but that statement, while idiomatically true, isn't quite accurate in a literal fashion ...Well put.
The way our culture treats sexual expression really is completely toxic. Having regular sex may actually be just as important to good health and development as regular full-night sleep.
And yet, even people who acknowledge the medical facts, in their very next breath condemn even just talking about ways to provide sexual freedom to children or sex to adults who cannot provide for themselves through social prowess. The ingrained convention is that sex belongs exclusively to socially successful pretty people and anyone else who dares to even have sexual desires is automatically a filthy pervert or a rapist.
Prostitution is viciously maligned, sexual education wages an endless war against scare tactics and misinformation, birth control is withheld from sexually active minors, and we are endlessly beaten with the message that only dirty sluts give their consent freely and only sissy losers wait to receive it verbally while simultaneously being endlessly beaten with the message that there is something disgustingly wrong with anyone who is not traumatized for life after experiencing anything sexual what-so-ever that is even slightly imperfect or unasked-for while simultaneously being endlessly beaten with the message that only sociopaths and deviants plan their sexual encounters in advance.
This, is dystopia. We're living in it, right now.
But we're not on the NSFW side of QQ.
BIGGEST STICK can be seen from anywhere on QQ. Cross contamination is inevitable.
I am a T-800 sent from the future to ensure the survival of John Connor.
I am a perfectly normal human sent to ensure the survival of Taylor Hebert.
OH! He's talking about me!............And yet, even people who acknowledge the medical facts, in their very next breath condemn even just talking about ways to provide sexual freedom to children or sex to adults who cannot provide for themselves through social prowess.
Well, you've heard the bare-bones on my concept, what's yours?I can tell we have incompatible conceptions of what "morality" is.
Exactly my point, morality is different from person to person, but guided by the culture's overall moral beliefs.
No, that's ethics.The primary criteria is whether said behavior is symbiotic or parasitic/predatory, or put in a different way whether such behaviour universalised would help or harm the tribe.
The working definition of 'Ethics' and 'Morality' as I have always understood it is that 'Ethics' is concerned with whether an act is helpful or harmful, whereas 'Morality' is concerned with the innate virtue of the act. I.e. 'ethics' is is right vs. wrong, 'morality' is good vs. evil.No, it's not. Ethics are specific codified rules of behaviours, useful as guidelines of mainly what not to do, derived from morality but not defining it, because we can't have every moron try to derive good behaviour from first principles every time...
In Worm we have an example of Taylor who cared very much about right and wrong, thus can be said to have been very moral, but utterly lacked ethics - so by being a moron at moral judgment ended up enabling villains, holding hostages, robbing banks, terrorizing civilians, etc, etc...
As far as I can tell, almost everyone agrees there's a subtle but important difference between the two, but nobody can agree on what that difference is.The two terms are basically synonyms really, differentiating is very tricky at best.
Ethics, by my definition, are not quite the same as Utilitarianism. For one, the definition of help/harm isn't necessarily based off maximizing happiness. For another, it doesn't necessarily hold that the act which causes the least harm, long-term, is necessarily the right one; that is the ethical framework I subscribe to, but I acknowledge there are others under the same definition of the term.That said ethics is definitely not about just measuring if something is helpful or harmful, that's a form of ethics/morality, but not all of it is utilitarian which is what that is. Morality and ethics are both about right be wrong and good vs evil as it were, and both can be used in references to the rules someone imposes on themselves due to them.
The working definition of 'Ethics' and 'Morality' as I have always understood it is that 'Ethics' is concerned with whether an act is helpful or harmful, whereas 'Morality' is concerned with the innate virtue of the act. I.e. 'ethics' is is right vs. wrong, 'morality' is good vs. evil.
Don't read too much into the 'innate virtue of the act' thing; I phrased it that way only to distinguish it from the ethics. My definition admits both consequentialist and virtue-based systems under the term 'morality'; the distinction is that it is concerned with an abstract concept of good and evil, whereas ethics is always practical: does this help or harm society? A lawyer defending a murderer they know is guilty might be acting ethically but immorally; a revolutionary trying to bring down the government might be acting morally but unethically. (Note: might. In both cases, it will depend on the moral and ethical systems you subscribe to.)Frankly I've never heard them used like that. Helpful/Harmful vs "innate virtue of the act" seems to be a distinction between consequentialistic and deontological moral/ethical systems, not a distinction between morality and ethics.
Not always, but usually. There's always room for more errorOn the other hand, most ethical systems in actual use are deontological, because it turns out humans are really bad at making utilitarian judgments; things work out better in practice if you follow generalized rules that have been developed over time through trial and error.
Even without any actual error (in the sense of 'rule X should be replaced with rule Y') - it's the nature of using deontological rules instead of case-by-case analysis. They cannot cover every possible situation and variable, so there will always be times when a rule that works in the general case produces suboptimal results in the specific. It just turns out that the frequency of such special cases is less than the frequency with which humans will get it wrong if they try to deal with each situation on its own, individual merits.
*whistles innocently*there'll always be a smartarse who finds a loophole to exploit for his own ends.
So... like 2% of the world's population?Which is, of course, why any sensible person puts aside their deontological constraints in the face of an existential threat.
Kill orders are very hard to earn, and I don't think Piggot even has the power to just put one out herself (though I could easily be wrong). Even gang leaders like Lung, Kaiser, and Skidmark don't get them. It seems overkill for Piggot to consider one for a guy who has thus far only injured a few people, not even having killed them, no matter how strong he seems to be. Considering putting a kill order on Taylor in this situation feels outright out of character, even if she did decide against it. Perhaps it would be better to change the kill order into something else? Maybe instead make this a normal arrest warrant and a capture squad sent out to take her in, or something? Mentioning a kill order on Taylor just didn't seem to fit at all. Everything else seemed good.Kill order on the Hebert girl? She seems innocent in all of this, and it may send him berserk.