ethics discussion break off

[MrLeN]

Ethics is not an ideology. Completely devoid of ethics, humanity would still be drinking from creeks and chasing goats and cows for lunch. Ethics is an integral and important part of a functional and advacing civilization. It is an absolute fact that could not be disputed by any level headed person, that ethics is a fundamental foundation for the success and survival of humanity.

MrLeN

[Chris]

Completely devoid of ethics, humanity would still be drinking from creeks and chasing goats and cows for lunch.

i think you are confusing ethics for being civilized. or are you saying that back in the hunter and gather stages of development, early man had no ethics?

[Chris]

ethics is a sense of right and wrong (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Aethics&btnG=Search). there are pleny of civilized evil people. jeffrey dahmer comes to mind.

[jmiller]

i thought opposable thumbs, big brains, and being able to talk was the "fundamental foundation for the success and survival of humanity"--oh the ability to reproduce--forgot one of my Darwinian concepts there--cockroaches remember that part, why can't I?

ethics are evolved and relative ideals subject to the society that developed them and different from other societies--this is why one society cuts off hands as a punishment for stealing and another locks people up. Ethical differences

--maybe he's thinking of ethics as the "herd mentality" or the "innate conscience" which is different altogether (See C.S. Lewis for more info)

[MrLeN]

ethics is a sense of right and wrong (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Aethics&btnG=Search). there are pleny of civilized evil people. jeffrey dahmer comes to mind.

A simplified definition, but in short: exactly. You hit the nail right on the head. If man was devoid of the concept of right and wrong since day one, we would never have progressed. We'd be sitting up in the banana trees with chimps, because every time someone tried to build something, some nut case anarchist with no comprehension of right and wrong would come and smash it all down and spend the rest of the afternoon laughing his guts out, while his brother is up in a tree courting his sister.

MrLeN

[MrLeN]

i thought opposable thumbs, big brains, and being able to talk was the "fundamental foundation for the success and survival of humanity"--oh the ability to reproduce--forgot one of my Darwinian concepts there--cockroaches remember that part, why can't I?

ethics are evolved and relative ideals subject to the society that developed them and different from other societies--this is why one society cuts off hands as a punishment for stealing and another locks people up. Ethical differences

--maybe he's thinking of ethics as the "herd mentality" or the "innate conscience" which is different altogether (See C.S. Lewis for more info)

I said ethics was {{{"A"}}} fundemental foundation, Not "the" fundemental foundation.


..ethics is a fundamental foundation for the success and survival of humanity.

MrLeN

P.S. You sound like you've spent too much time in a classroom, being told lies and disproven theories by so called scholars who argue amongst each other and discredit each others theories every second year. You can take all that "opposable thumbs, big brains, and being able to talk" and feed it to the crows for all I care. Scientists suck. There's one thing we don't need for the success and survival of humanity. More often than not, they cause the opposite.

[jmiller]

"some nut case anarchist with no comprehension of right and wrong would come and smash it all down and spend the rest of the afternoon laughing his guts out, while his brother is up in a tree courting his sister."

This operates under the assumptions that animals are anarchists by nature (which they're not) but also that humans' first instinct is to destroy (which it's not)and the second instinct may be to enjoy the pain of others, which goes against the aforementioned herd mentality or innate conscience--

the sister thing, though, well that probably happened in the beginning a bit (assuming that the first two or four humans were closely related) and it's difficult to argue why close "relations" were frowned upon between "close relations" without some sort of innate conscience, or at least a suddenly imposed societal sanction

all in all, i'd say anarchy, destruction, and incest (or avoidance of) are learnedbehaviors, much like ethics, which relies on a system of learned rights and wrongs

Even if humans are innately evil (which they're not) it's difficult to predict the society that evolves out of it, but I'd place a bet that it would be different than the apes (who also have a sense of right and wrong when it comes to their families), if for nothing else, the egotism that humans often suffer

PS. And as for the spending time in the class room...yes that's true. I'm one of those whackos who thinks education is a good thing

[mike]

Even if humans are innately evil (which they're not)


Speak for yourself writer-boy.

[MrLeN]

You forgot to include the post that I was referring to, which renders this whole break off thing a waste of my time.

ie: It was detached from the wrong point of conversation.

Also, the thread has been weaved into a separate topic to what I was referring to when I first presented my intelligent, factual and logical observations.

MrLeN

P.S. What is this? Mod's on MrLeN day? -- Hot pies! Hot pasties! Hot Saaaausage ROLLS! Drinks 'a dollar. Donuts 'a Dollar. Everything's 'a dollar. Step right up..

Chris had it right above. Ethics is at its base, a moral question of right and wrong. The basic ethical question is: "Does the end justify the means." It's pure and simple.

Is stealing that candy bar worth the consequences of what happens if I get caught?

Is paying someone $10 worth the pain and suffering they might receive in the science experiment you're conducting?

OR better yet is shooting 20 people worth it to save 1000?

There are lot of people who question Harry Truman's decision to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is it right? Would you have done it, know thousands people would be disintegrated in a flash of light knowing it's probably saving millions on both sides in the process? Or would it save that many people? All ethical questions. All simple at their base but then again not so simple. It depends on your own moral code to decide these.

[MrLeN]

Great, another Mod..

Ok, rolls up sleeves. Who wants it first? (lol)

This whole topic revolves around this factual statement:


Completely devoid of ethics, humanity would still be drinking from creeks and chasing goats and cows for lunch.

Who can disagree with that? Honestly? Stop an think for a minute or to about the consequences of a civilization Completely devoid of ethics. Or simplified as "write and wrong" which is not the true and complete, rounded definition of "Ethics".

If anyone says that humanity can progress, then I'll have nothing more to do with this thread, because you're too far gone and it would hurt my brain to continue thinking down to the level of each reply thereafter.

MrLeN

[Chris]

for Mr LeN:


Mate, if my attitude changes to the contrary in the 30 years from now, then I would have failed myself as a human being that is able to grow, adapt and learn for the benefit of tomorrow, and also to the detriment of the next generation.

I think too many people in this world worry about numero uno. If people spent more time observing and abiding by even the lowest level of moral principal, then this world would be a much better place; even a place free of contracts.

and


I feel quite sure that I know the difference.

Without ethics, it is not possible to be, or become civilized. I have no way of knowing the level of ethics that man possessed during his journey to modern times. But I do know than devoid of ethics, humanity would be still sleeping in the grass, or under logs, and sucking the heads off grasshoppers.

As I said; Without ethics, it is not possible to be, or become civilized. Therefore, I put a lot of weight in the value of ethics. I don't believe that ethical conduct can be wavered, just so long as you can make an extra buck out of it.

[MrLeN]

Thanks for quoting my intelligent and factual comments :)

..point?

MrLeN

[Chris]

i'm sorry, but i fail to see how having a sense of right and wrong (which is normally instilled by society to begin with as stith and j so eloquently put it) has anything to do with being civilized.

as i've said earlier, many people who lack a moral compass (or one that adheres to society's standards) have lived civilized lifestyles or established civilized existences. see, for instance, hitler, adolph or bundy, ted.

both men functioned just fine in a civilized society, in fact, so much so that a great deal of their behavior went unnoticed until after the fact. now, where would you gauge their respective ethical center?

[MrLeN]

The existence of both individuals resulted in the mass murder of millions of people. If each and every person was like that, not only would civilization have not advanced, but they would have murdered each other before inventing the wheel.

A perfect example of the result of poor ethics. But even so, these individuals still understood ethics. Imagine a civilization devoid of them? Imagine how much worse things would be.

Case closed.

MrLeN

[jmiller]

I'm not trying to gang up on you with the other mods, this is just a subject I love, and any argument put forth in the spirit of debate.

"Completely devoid of ethics, humanity would still be drinking from creeks and chasing goats and cows for lunch."

Logically, I don't think you could call this factual. This is a statement rooted in fantasy, assuming the outcome is already known by some sort of controlled experiment (an experiment only a god could perform) that took out a sense of ethics and left alone to grow, which hasn't happened.

The grammar of the sentence is even written in the subjunctive mood (which suggests non-truth):

If this had happened---first part of the sentence admits to fantasy

Then this would have happened--a predicted outcome of the first non-event

So, I can, categorically, disagree with your "factual" statement. There is no way of knowing, without another world to base it on, what would happen in a world devoid of ethics.

Sticking my tongue out at you in righteous indignation ;-)

And Stithmeister, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.--Not really, I just like to say that. But I think your argument is too far advancedin time for this discussion. It assumes we've already settled the human nature vs. behavior modeling question

[mike]

Mr. Len, I would submit that you are confusing ethics with a concept more akin to Rousseau's Social Contract which actually has very little to do with ethics at all.

[MrLeN]

I'm not trying to gang up on you with the other mods, this is just a subject I love, and any argument put forth in the spirit of debate.

"Completely devoid of ethics, humanity would still be drinking from creeks and chasing goats and cows for lunch."

Logically, I don't think you could call this factual. This is a statement rooted in fantasy, assuming the outcome is already known by some sort of controlled experiment (an experiment only a god could perform) that took out a sense of ethics and left alone to grow, which hasn't happened.

The grammar of the sentence is even written in the subjunctive mood (which suggests non-truth):

If this had happened---first part of the sentence admits to fantasy

Then this would have happened--a predicted outcome of the first non-event

So, I can, categorically, disagree with your "factual" statement. There is no way of knowing, without another world to base it on, what would happen in a world devoid of ethics.

Sticking my tongue out at you in righteous indignation ;-)

And Stithmeister, that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard.--Not really, I just like to say that. But I think your argument is too far advancedin time for this discussion. It assumes we've already settled the human nature vs. behavior modeling question

Well, I must be highly intelligent then. Because I have absolutely trouble working out that this civilization could never have be modernized without ethics.

I don't even have to think hard about it. I certainly don't need another world to test it on. It's a no brainer.

Chris demonstrated my point extremely well. Just one Hitler caysed millions of deaths. Imagine if everyone was a Hitler.

Isn't that enough proof?

MrLeN

[MrLeN]

Mr. Len, I would submit that you are confusing ethics with a concept more akin to Rousseau's Social Contract which actually has very little to do with ethics at all.

Never heard of it. Therefore, there's nil chance that I am confusing it with anything at all.

MrLeN

[mike]

Well, no because your arguments makes way too many assumptions. You're a nice guy and all, but you're in a bit over your head here.

[google junky]

If a person grows to be an adult and becomes a public nose picker even when in a crowded room a people.
I'd say the nose picker learned that somewhere.
It grew into a learned habit from a family member or friends.

(I keep thanking god I live in Indiana and not the hillbilly hills of Kentucky)

It's not wrong or right to them. It’s just something that’s done.
Like dating your cousin. <-- I got back to the KY thing

You can make a website for a client’s competitor.
Your learned habit from growing up to adulthood will let you know.
It’s neither wrong nor right. It’s just how it’s perceived by you.

Final note:
You can pick you nose, you can pick you friends, just don’t pick you friends nose

[jmiller]

hmmm...picking your nose in a room full of people huh?

Is like a hoosier pickin' fights in a room full of Kentucky boys?

Right or wrong, it ain't smart (ooh, i'm feelin' them eastern ky hilljack roots!) :-)

Know why all the trees in KY lean north, bright boy?

Indiana sucks.

[mike]

oboy.

now we're cookin'.

[MrLeN]

It's plain simple to me. I personally know a few "partially" unethical people and if the world was full of them, let me assure you, the world would be very close to anarchy. I have no doubt.

But if the would was totally void of ethics, anarchy would be an understatement. Nothing could develop or grow, because people's self centered, short sighted and belligerent attitudes would totally undermine progress.

ie: Imagine the power of "greed" with no ethics. Imagine if everyone in the world would just take what they want, without caring what others might want.

Dangerous territory here, but there are cultures on this earth, in this day and age that have a very poor standard and understanding of ethics. And just look at the dumps. Progress is in a stranglehold. Corruption is rampant. Each generation grows up uneducated, corrupt, angry and bitter, because "right and wrong" doesn't get instilled into them. These people grow up selfish and resentful and hateful, "because things don't work out for them and life is hard".

Do I have to spell out every consequence for a world with no ethics? I am starting to think you're all joking. If you're not, then I'm getting scared.

MrLeN

[mike]

Mr Len, nobody has suggested that ethics is a bad thing per se. Simply that ethics are highly subjective and as such cannot neccessarily be viewed in terms of universal maxims. That make sense?

I have minors in Phi and Psy, I have really spent a great deal of time studying and pondering these types of things. You should try some John Stuart Mill and the aforementioned Rousseau, you would probably enjoy Kant as well. Interesting stuff.

[MrLeN]

I know what I am about to say could possibly to cause you all to pounce on me, and kick me into the "uneducated" box.. and I'm leaving myself wide open for an assault, but let me say this:

I am formally, rather uneducated. I attended about a year and a half of highschool - all up. I don't read any such books, I never have and I never will read any such books.

I rely on my own understandings and every opinion I have is formed by my own thought process and has not been influenced by the thoughts of others. That's the way I'd like to keep it. I don't have a minor in anything.

However, minor or no minor, I can see clearly that I am correct, and I don't need to attend any lectures for anyone to tell me what I should believe or think.

MrLeN

[Lodg1kaL]

Ethics are subjective, as Mod-Mike said.

For instance:

Say I come to power through nefarious means and begin enslaving humanity and harnessing all the worlds power and resources toward space exploration, technological advancement and galactic domination. We're all working together for the greater good, no? If, end the end, I have founded a super powerful empire with unlimited resources and technology, does that 'end' justify the enslaving part ethically?

Or is it more ethical for today's selfish interests to keep the world moving in different directions and therefore stagnate progress as MrLen pointed out?

Which is more unethical and on what level? the individual or humanity?

Ethics are as subjective as the leftists who whine about them.

MrLen, I think you will find the more educated become, the more you learn how incorrect you may be.

[Chris]

However, minor or no minor, I can see clearly that I am correct, and I don't need to attend any lectures for anyone to tell me what I should believe or think.

ok, you had me up until this point. stating you are right no matter what anyone says is incredibly closed minded and, well, wrong. it's becoming apparent that you may not be getting the gist of what is being said to you...

take a look at the quote on the front page by aristotle and perhaps you will understand what i and others have been trying to say.

[mike]

I aint gonna be putting anybody in any 'boxes' (I'm saving my boxes for cats). You are entirely correct when you allude to the fact that you don't need a degree in anything to tell what's right and wrong.

That said, this is a sticky little subject that a great many of some of the world's best and brightest have been pondering for a few hundred years. My point, I suppose, is that there is a bit more to the subject than perhaps you have considered to this point.

Given your tenacity for the subject, I would certainly encourage you to check out some of the guys I talked about (google 'em or something) I think you would find several of them extremely interesting.

[MrLeN]

I'm not checking out anything. I came to the true and correct conclusion in an instant. You can go and read some more books and confuse yourself some more if you like, but I'm off it.

Maybe that's what the problem is. Maybe you should stop reading and start thinking?

I'm right. You're wrong. I have explained why, more than once. I didn't just pop up and say: "I'm right". I have provided heaps of evidence to support my correct and factual understanding.

My conclusion (in case you forgot).

Civilized humanity cannot function without ethics. If you want to argue further, then you'll have to talk to the hand, because you wont convince me otherwise.

MrLeN

[mike]

That is probably the funniest post in this whole thread.

Because you call it 'logic' simply doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

You should have stayed in school.

[Chris]

i never knew education was so bad for you.

[jmiller]

""If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."--Isaac Newton

I'll end with this cuz this has gone nowhere anyway.

My viewpoint: Ethics are culturally defined and not absolute. There are certain ones all (well, most) agree upon and you may be able to argue a social consensus on what is ethical and what is not. Those that go outside the consensus are met with scorn by the populace and if they survive the attack, leave the community and begin their own society where they can teach ethics "the right way." And then everybody fights.

MrLeN, by closing off your mind to the viewpoints and thoughts of others, either in here or in the lofty attic of academia you scorn, you have, in effect, nullified the debate. A debate cannot exist if only one viewpoint is allowed. Enjoy your quiet, meditative, but not truly contemplative, solitude.

And along those same lines, all of us missed it. The concept of a world without ethics as you have presented it assumes that a world without ethics is by default an evil and destructive one. However, if ethics is, as defined earlier, "a sense of right and wrong," then a world without either cannot define itself as being either. That is, if there is no right and wrong to begin with, then there is no way to judge it and name it as one or the other. In which case, this entire discussion was pointless, yes, quite moot.

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[google junky]

hmmm...picking your nose in a room full of people huh?

Is like a hoosier pickin' fights in a room full of Kentucky boys?

Right or wrong, it ain't smart (ooh, i'm feelin' them eastern ky hilljack roots!) :-)

Know why all the trees in KY lean north, bright boy?

Indiana sucks.


Answer: Kentucky blows?

heh j/k

I couldn't help myself since you all were in this thread. I live right on the border of KY near Evansville,IN
Have a good one guys.

[mike]

hmmm...picking your nose in a room full of people huh?

Is like a hoosier pickin' fights in a room full of Kentucky boys?

Right or wrong, it ain't smart (ooh, i'm feelin' them eastern ky hilljack roots!) :-)

Know why all the trees in KY lean north, bright boy?

Indiana sucks.


Answer: Kentucky blows?

heh j/k

I couldn't help myself since you all were in this thread. I live right on the border of KY near Evansville,IN
Have a good one guys.



Aw c'mon. All that buildup for 1 lame exchange of a joke older than Indiana's last win in a tournament game. I gotta say I'm disappointed.

[mike]

we need a kentucky/indiana poll of some sort for this thread since the original thread had a poll...

[mike]

jmiller: That is, if there is no right and wrong to begin with, then there is no way to judge it and name it as one or the other. In which case, this entire discussion was pointless, yes, quite moot.


Wow, Jason.

That was deep man.

the force is strong with this one.

[google junky]

Mike,

Have you met William Shatner(alias: Captain James Tiberius Kirk)?


I'm not in the BreakRoom am I?

[mike]

Yeah, I'm afraid you are.

And no, I've never met the Captain.

[MrLeN]

Oh boy. Ok. In an attempt to demonstrate that I am not closed-minded, and to show that every post I have made was derived from logical thinking, I'll break everything down into itsy bitsy pieces, just as the typical "scholar" would do. But before I start, let me explain also, that I am emphatic about my view that a world devoid of ethics would be to the detriment of the progress of civilization, and that such a view can be quickly surmised and calculated with a fraction of common sense, and that this whole breaking everything down is a typical problem with people today.

In effect, when it comes to moral and ethical issues in general, society has reached a point where simply accepting such principles has grown to become out of fashion. Mainly because it's more difficult to uphold a true and righteous demeanor than it is to succumb and adopt inferior methods. There is a common and growing trend within society that scorns righteousness. Therefore, in an attempt to live a life void of true and correct principles, people (especially scholars) like to break concepts down and dice them into sections that really have no contextual basis by themselves.

It is easier for the average human being to toss those dissected and dismembered principles around, than it is to pit themselves against a full and coherent truth. And all of this is caused by the simple fact that people are becoming, by nature, rebellious and theologically sufficient, in their own eyes. But I also hold the belief that such practices, which are also taught and engrained upon every learned person, by a system that has turned it's back on realisms that it can never truly understand. Nor can they be explained and analyzed. Therefore, any attempt to do so, ie: by writing books, is always going to be inherently littered with flaws and conflicting views and statements which cause confusion and complication.

Suffice to say, I prefer to keep my understandings within the realms of basic (but whole) truths, and I can assure you, as learned as you are, and I know you wont agree, that my method of analysis involves much less dissecting, and allows me to come to full and correct conclusions in moments, where as a learned person who has been taught to dismember every though into unrecognizable components could still be thinking a year later, and have written 8 books and still not have a full and complete answer. It is for that reason I appear to scorn "the lofty attic of academia" jmiller. Because although there are many truths taught within academia, there's just too much mumbo jumbo floating around, and I'd rather turn by back to the whole lot of it and work things out for myself.

My Reply:


My viewpoint: Ethics are culturally defined and not absolute. There are certain ones all (well, most) agree upon and you may be able to argue a social consensus on what is ethical and what is not. Those that go outside the consensus are met with scorn by the populace and if they survive the attack, leave the community and begin their own society where they can teach ethics "the right way." And then everybody fights.

Ethics is absolute. It existed before humanity and it will exist when humanity is gone. Just as oxygen existed before man took his first breath. There is a true and correct set of ethical principles, but whether or not all men can learn them and use them for his benefit remains to be seen.


MrLeN, by closing off your mind to the viewpoints and thoughts of others, either in here or in the lofty attic of academia you scorn, you have, in effect, nullified the debate. A debate cannot exist if only one viewpoint is allowed. Enjoy your quiet, meditative, but not truly contemplative, solitude.

Mate, I can't treat people seriously when they openly state that ethics is not a necessary, fundamental requirement for the success of civilized man and humanity. It's unfortunate that if I don't subscribe to that, then you feel I have my eyes closed.But maybe you should consider that maybe I have my eyes open and you have yours closed. "Enjoy your quiet, meditative, but not truly contemplative, solitude." is an accurate description of my position, because people (like yourself) very often disagree with me. But that's because I take on the burden of a fuller truth, and I don't dissect everything into bite size chunks like academia does. Which, I might add, seems to make such people appear smart, but in reality, just the fact that they are breaking everything down demonstrates that they have absolutely no idea whatsoever.


And along those same lines, all of us missed it. The concept of a world without ethics as you have presented it assumes that a world without ethics is by default an evil and destructive one. However, if ethics is, as defined earlier, "a sense of right and wrong," then a world without either cannot define itself as being either. That is, if there is no right and wrong to begin with, then there is no way to judge it and name it as one or the other. In which case, this entire discussion was pointless, yes, quite moot.

Good and evil would still exist without ethics. I don't hold the opinion that a word without ethics would be inherently evil. The existence of good and evil would be less restrained by the absence of ethics. Without ethics, there would be nothing to stop or hinder the proliferation of evil and the result would be disastrous. There would be nothing to stop anyone from doing as they please, either right off the bat, or eventually (but I'd assume that right off the bad would be more likely, all of the time). If people walked the earth, doing as the pleased, without regards or concern for consequences (ie: a lack of ethics), the result would cause so many problems and injustices that the world system as we know it would grind to a halt. We would have, instead, a less functional and inferior world where progress and success would be restrained and "negative occurrences" would continuously blot out any attempts at progress, either by greed or anger or lust or jealousy, or one of a thousands negative traits which are kept in check by ethics. Furthermore, to reply to the second part of your statement, if a world couldn't differentiate between right or wrong, that wouldn't change the principal. It would merely mean that humanity would have no concept of it.


“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Confused. Your point?

Lodg1kaL


MrLen, I think you will find the more educated become, the more you learn how incorrect you may be.

I agree wholeheartedly.

MrLeN

[Chris]

while jason's point was on target and therefore rendered this conversation pointless, i will say i've learned this: Mr. LeN, you do NOT know the defenition of the word ethics.

to state that ethics ARE an absolute in a world where there are none, save death, pretty much proves that.

good night everyone. see you tomorrow.

[MrLeN]

Chris, I have no response for you. Your post confuses me on too many levels.

MrLeN

[Faglork]

However, minor or no minor, I can see clearly that I am correct, and I don't need to attend any lectures for anyone to tell me what I should believe or think.


Yeah, looks like that, sadly.

I think I can explain why this discussion is so confusing:


Ethics is absolute. It existed before humanity and it will exist when humanity is gone.

MrLen, you are not talking about ethics in general - this is concentrating on one of the three branches of ethics called meta-ethics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics
for an explanation.

If you had made this clear, there would have been a lot less discussion: You simply cannot discuss meta-ethics on the same level as "ethics in general" a.k.a. "normative ethics". Citing the article mentioned above: "A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not contain any ethical evaluations."

That is what you seem to be confusing: normative ethical theory and meta-ethics. And this is what makes this discussion likewise confusing.

You permanently mix normative ethics with meta-ethical statements, so there can be no real discussion at all. Let me give an analogy: It is like mixing science fiction elements with the facts of your daily experience and discuss the outcome on the base that it were real. It won't work.

faglork

PS. It is just natural that this discussion draws so many mods ... it has nothing to do with MrLen personally, it is simply the topic itself.

[MrLeN]

I am not the one confusing the topic. I have been trying to stick to the original topic since the very start. It is not ethical to SEO for two rival websites. Now in an attempt to disagree with me, and to disband the need for ethics in business, all you guys have 1). Pulled me out of the thread and stood around me. 2). Started analyzing and debating what ethics actually is 3). Constantly accusing me of not understanding ethics. 4). Introducing new words and gimmicks into your debates.

Ethics is a very simple concept guys. I'm partially to blame for allowing you to turn a simple topic into a total mess. I should have just told you all to get real to begin with.

So, I'm just going to stick with what I was trying to get across, before my opinion was torn from the original topic.

It is unethical to take money from a client and then put a knife in their back by directly competing with them with another client.

If that can't be understood by any of you, then unfortunately, and it is sad, but I am the lone voice of reason in this thread.

MrLeN

[ctabuk]

Ken PM'd on this one, it's doing the rounds, absolutely 'Classic' -

But when having such debates please remember that if it were not for the British -Australia would still be run by Aboriginies.
We sent our finest convicts to get the place started.Ned Kelly was a great example.

And as for you American types, well, really! Only a few years ago you ere still riding around on horses shooting each other.

Civilisation starts here. Forget the Greeks and the Romans, that was our lot, we went over way before the history books tell the tales. Homer can from Wapping near London! And not many people know that!

[MrLeN]

I'd have to agree with that. The Brits are one of the most sophisticated, intellectual and advanced cultures on earth.

I believe that if there was no such thing as Britannia the world would have developed and advanced at a much slower rate.

MrLeN

[dharrison]

And as for you American types, well, really! Only a few years ago you ere still riding around on horses shooting each other.


Hmm, I never met any of the mods, but to think of them in stetsons, riding horses. What an image :)

Think that might have made my day, Thanx david.

[MuNKyonline]

I'd have to agree with that. The Brits are one of the most sophisticated, intellectual and advanced cultures on earth.
Yes, I agree fully with this statement. And of course I'm a shining example of this lol. jk

I believe that if there was no such thing as Britannia the world would have developed and advanced at a much slower rate.
Didnt the Romans have running water and central heating while we were still living in mud huts? I may be wrong as i'm not that good with history.

I thought that all we did was go around and take control of lots of countries, most of which have been given back today.

What has Britannia done to allow the world to develop at a much faster rate?


And as for you American types, well, really! Only a few years ago you ere still riding around on horses shooting each other.
LOL, they should have stayed like that. Would have been great to go on holiday there!

[ctabuk]

From the Life of Brian apapted by DC
'I hate the Romans, what have they ever given us?'
'The Viaducts'
'Well apart from the Viaducts, what have the Romans given us?'
'Roads'
'Yes but apart from the viaducts and the roads what have the Romans ever given to us?'
'Law and Order, you can go out at nights'
'Yes, but apart from Law and Order, the roads and the viaducts, what have the Romans ever given to us?'
'Education'
'Yes - I know about education, but apart from that and Law and order, the roads and the Viaducts - what have the Romans ever given to us?'
'Peace, we have'nt been raped and pillaged by the Vikings for ages, I used to enjoy a good rape and pillage, yes I hate the Romans too'

[Tubby]

Quote
"It is not ethical to SEO for two rival websites."MrLen.

There is nothing wrong with this statement. Maybe I understand what it means because I am an Australian.

MrLeN has correctly disregarded the concept of 'Justification' This enable a Man who has a primary belief that killing is wrong, to 'justify' any killing he does. This simple concept of 'justification' enables a person to promote or demote any value at will.
As a general rule Ausralians tend not to accept that 'arguments change the facts'.

[MrLeN]

Exactly. Too many people these days have a justification for everything. If people spent less time doing what they please, while drumming up new justifications every 25 minutes and more time trying to adhere to a universal set of ethics and truths, there would be far less problems in the world. Believe me.

MrLeN

[MuNKyonline]

Less problems would make things boring though. If the world became a 'nice' place to live in and I had to be 'nice' and ethical towards everyone then I'd probably become suicidal lol. It's fun being nasty sometimes and doing as you please.

[MrLeN]

You've just explained to me that you've never had a problem in the world. A few years of anguish would change your attitude.

MrLeN

[ctabuk]

I had an uncle Anquish - Scottish chap, used to play his bagpipes in the bath - made a good Jacqzzi

[dharrison]

Hmm... haggis has that effect on every1 though. :)

[MuNKyonline]

You've just explained to me that you've never had a problem in the world. A few years of anguish would change your attitude.
Yeah, I'm sure I'll feel the same when I hit 30 =P

[jmiller]

said I was done, but the topic is so compelling...

Ctabuk, too funny!

MrLeN...the God vanishing in a puff of logic was a quote as well as a joke from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which expresses exactly what my point was and even emphasised your point that even God, dissected into little logical bits becomes an impossible notion, whether the answer to that logical riddle is truth or not.

Let me clarify my position on a more personal level.

I believe in right and wrong and I struggle on a daily basis to achieve more right than wrong. I don't always make the right decision, but I do try (most of the time.) And you're right that a high moral character is difficult to achieve and its easier to just do as you please, screw everybody else.

But this discussion wasn't really about what we believed. It was a discussion about the nature of man, what is inherrent and what is learned, which is an argument that may never be settled save to say that it's probably a mixture of both.

I took issue with your "logical and factual" analysis of "ethics" and the consequences of a world without them. We can't say that, in a perfectly controlled experiment, which side the world would fall on without a concept of ethics simply because we can't measure it. Your argument is based on faith and belief--not logic or science (i.e. "this is what I believe would happen" as expressed in the earlier grammar I noted). That's a hypothesis or a theory that can't be proved, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect. And I can commend you for sticking up for yourself and holding true to the truths you believe in...Just recognize that others have truths as well that may differ (which may be proof of the relativity of ethos and morality)...and that a universal Truth (capital t) may be a few hundred or thousand years of debate down the road, if ever.

Faith has its place in life, certainly, but may have no place in logic.

I am a man who believes in some crazy otherworldly crap. Sometimes I think I'm a fool for believing it, but the fact is, I do, outside of logic (unless quantum string theory can provide a new logic to understand it). I was just pointing out flaws in your initial argument, hoping you'd grow stronger, and you did, with eloquent, albeit in my opinion still logically flawed, responses. I believe you're intelligent and I respect your passion.

None of that changes the fact that we cannot make universal conclusions based on assumption-filled "factual" statements. And building up from the little pieces is how we learn about the big piece and understand it better. If one is intellectually strong enough to weather the minutia of trying to understand the vastness of the universe, he will not be destroyed or confused by it, but become a giant among men. And often that journey begins and ends with education, learning and analyzing the thoughts of others.

Good luck on your journey, MrLeN, I've appreciated the awesome discussion here and wish for your success.

And I'm really done this time.

[MrLeN]

okies mate. I am kind of sick of this topic too. I made a branch topic about right and wrong too, but I don't even feel like continuing with that now, because that's not being taken seriously either.

The admins around here are getting on my nerves, to be truthful. Not trying to start WWIII or anything, but it seems that WPW administration is all for defending each other and their policies and they can be all serious about their own points, topics and beliefs, but if anyone else has something to say, it becomes either a joke, or shrugged off, or cut in half or the poster is just made out to be someone who doesn't understand (even thought that poster understands 10 times better than them).

I don't think WPW is the place for sensible, fair, original or constructive discussion. I'm pretty much all worn out now. I'll go find something else to do.

MrLeN

[jmiller]

related post on business ethics, just fyi

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=280669#280669

[mike]

I don't think WPW is the place for sensible, fair, original or constructive discussion.


Were that the case, I'd have already banned you and turned all 500+ of your posts into:

"Mike is the coolest".


Of course, tomorrow is another day... ;p

[MrLeN]

More warnings.. I'm picking up a theme here.

Edit And they are 500+ intelligent, lengthy, thoughtful, constructive (although sometimes controversial), inspirational and logical posts which also encourage conversation, contribution, referrals and visits, I'll have you know :)

So when do I hit the payroll?

MrLeN

[mike]

More warnings.. I'm picking up a theme here.


At least you're picking up something. Maybe we are making some progress after all. - and here I'd all but given up.

[MrLeN]

rofl..

Didn't your teachers explain to you that by not trying, you've already failed? Never give up mate :)

MrLeN