Could a society survive without morality?

[Alyrium Denryle]

That would be because I am, personally, breaking the trust between the costumers and the company. In my role as a company man, I do interact with them, because the company interacts with them.

You are moving your goalposts fuckstick

I shall ignore the personal attack, and ask how I am doing so.

Because you do not get to redefine the term "personal". A personal interaction is face to face. A faceless corporate interaction is not. If you define the word personal so broadly, then your argument becomes a fucking tautology, and the distinction you claim to be making with personal vs general empathy becomes defined out of existence and your argument an irrelevant and worthless raving.

[Aranfan]

You are moving your goalposts fuckstick

I shall ignore the personal attack, and ask how I am doing so.

Because you do not get to redefine the term "personal". A personal interaction is face to face. A faceless corporate interaction is not. If you define the word personal so broadly, then your argument becomes a fucking tautology, and the distinction you claim to be making with personal vs general empathy becomes defined out of existence and your argument an irrelevant and worthless raving.

Am I not interacting personally with you right now? If we are not personally interaction, then how are we interacting?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Am I not interacting personally with you right now? If we are not personally interaction, then how are we interacting?

Let me refine-In a personal interaction, you are interacting directly. You may use an electronic medium etc, but it is still direct. You "Know" me, in a sense. You do knot "know" the N thousand people you may be dooming through a faulty brake system.

Now answer the criticism instead of nitpicking.

[Sarevok]

most third world countries, Laws exist but they are not followed because the populace as a whole has serious moral failings.

You can, of course, back this claim up?
Especially amusing coming from someone from Bangladesh - a country whose inception is due to a "Third World Country", i.e. India version 1971, trying to enforce legal/moral standards.

It is common everywhere in the world to blame scumbag politicans. But based on my personal experiences I think differently. Whenever someones personal interest vs the law is in clash they usually chose the former. Want a 10 story apatment complex built but you only have permit for a 5 story house ? Use corruption to influence the administration. Need to rough someone up and your brothers in the police/army ? Give him a call. You work in a government agency and have a lucrative tender ? Sell the work contract to highest briber.

From a non anecdotal perspective Bangladesh has been ranked by Transperency International as the most corrupt nation in the world twice in this decade. Is it a fault of the politicians ? Sure, but they were voted into office by the people. The people would also indulge in same wrong doings as their leaders on a smaller scaler when it suited their personal interests.As someone once said "People get the type of government they deserve". This seems to be highly true here.

[Spoonist]

For one, I'm a socialist.

Sorry for the tangent here but where you not an anarchist when discussing sophistry?
Is this more of your "its fun to debate" style or did you truly switch politically in the last month?

[Aranfan]

For one, I'm a socialist.

Sorry for the tangent here but where you not an anarchist when discussing sophistry?
Is this more of your "its fun to debate" style or did you truly switch politically in the last month?

I am a Libertarian Socialist, i.e. an Anarchist. When I say that the State should not intervene in the Economy, I do not make any exception for Capital. That it currently intervenes on the side of people as well as fictional corporate persons is better, but it doesn't deal with the core problem. My arguments against the State intervening on the side of Labor run akin to Lenin's arguments against Trade Unions, because even a clock as stopped as Lenin is right twice a day.

Am I not interacting personally with you right now? If we are not personally interaction, then how are we interacting?

Let me refine-In a personal interaction, you are interacting directly. You may use an electronic medium etc, but it is still direct. You "Know" me, in a sense. You do knot "know" the N thousand people you may be dooming through a faulty brake system.

Now answer the criticism instead of nitpicking.

Interesting. Except for this forum I had always encountered "Personal interaction" as short hand for "interaction with emotions invested". Every time I used personal in the context of interaction I meant it in that sense.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, how the heck could I harm people I don't personally interact with? Harming someone is a very personal interaction.

The fucking dumbest thing I've heard in years. Let's say you're the CEO of HolyBurning Ltd., and you decide to spend some money to lobby for a local war. Perhaps your lobbying becomes critical and the war starts. A million people are dead, but HolyBurning got new orders from the U.S. government. You did not need even to know about the people you just killed.

[PeZook]

Or, hell, how about a guy dropping a bomb on some house? Or the guy who tells him to do that? Or an artilleryman doing a fire mission on some enemy positions?

[Bernkastel]

No. You cant. Empathy is the cause, not a part of, morality and ethics.

Indeed. Looking at it, the world "part" undervalues how important empathy is to an individuals sense of morality. So I'll apologize for that error.

Not quite. The ability to empathize is part of morality. Yet it is only part, and you could get rid of morality by removing obligation, without getting rid of empathy.

At the same time, with empathy, you would still be able to develop a system of morality based on that ability to empathise with other living things. You would still be capable of considering acts such as the murder of a person as immoral. The majority of people around you would also be capable of the same. Therefore, a system of morality would continue to exist. Since the basis of the scenario is that morality has been removed and that the existance of empathy would allow for it to continue to exist, empathy must be removed too. As for your part about obligation, I believe Alyrium already has that covered, along with your argument in general.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hey Aranfan, I am still waiting for my argument to actually be addressed in a meaningful way.