Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:Darth Utsanomiko wrote:So then your 4th option and my 5th are identical in mentality. One just depends on the person having main-stream social values instilled in them, and the other is the full application through discarding worthless 'morals'.
You make that sound a lot worse than it really is. Put another way, "One just depends on the person having not been raised by wolves, and the other is the raw essence without the benefit of human decency." Same statement, different wording. Isn't editing wonderful?
'Really'?
What 'really'? You can't/won't prove what 'really' is. You're the one making it sound a lot better than it is. your ability to edit to achieve an opposite meaning is a deusion.
Let's extract the opinions, stated and implicit. First, there is an assumption that humans behaving in such a way as to survive and succeed in the company of other humans is a bad thing. There are plenty of unconventional/independent thinkers who are perfectly capable of maintaining civility, compassion, etc. and still accomplishing their objectives. The difference is that they don't create problems for themselves by behaving antisocially. Your second assumption is that morals are "worthless"; again, untrue for the same reason. Morals serve, at the very least, the pragmatic purpose of keeping other human beings from objecting to, and thus interfering with, your plans.
The objectives of civil independent thinkers is irrelevant to wheter or not they're carrying out proper anihilation of everything. For all they know, God knows humans deserve to die, and only put humans on Earth to ultimately realize that their purpose is to rise above creation itself and destroy all that is.
You haven't addressed the possibility that these morals are just defined by the group, and are therefore both subjective and inherently anti-freewill. Humantity might not deserve to live. 'True' morality might be what the mentiality I pointed out covers. You can't make any appeal or claim to anything in a world that has nothing to judge things by. In such a world, morals, human survival, or civility don't matter;
NOTHING can be proven to exist, so one can easilly conclude that we're here only to accept the one fact that to exist is no different than to not exist.
to make a conclusion from that: To love is to hate, to be civil is to be without compassion, and to live is to lie. Death shall end the lies.
And on a different angle of Devil's Advocate, I'd like to post theis statement, before I log off, and get back on the more relevant topic tomorrow.
All communication is essentially an argument. In order to promote your own ideas, you must argue for it through some method. Without rational thought through reasoning and logic, Nobody can argue against the validity of this statement:
"A little bird told me that it saw Daniel Rogers, and he was in his marshmallow-house taking a bath in a square-circular tub, and Alfred E. Newman was in there listening to Rogers tell him that all the stuff he was posting on SD.net was bogus, and he’s just doing it because his uncle's Fats Domino and Fats Domino told Rogers that he'd buy him a magical camel if he would make up a bunch of solipsistic thoughts and post it on SD.net for it. Then Alfred E. Newman turned into a butterfly and flew away singing 'Tequila'."
.... 
