[biko]

Ethics and morals are based on "codes of behaviour" that are older and more base than anything the bible or even humans have.

For instance, animals also have these basic concepts of behaviour/ethics.
Altruism has been observed in animals although it'd up for discussion whether is true altruism.

[Sarky]

I got most of my morals from Batman.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Sarky

I got most of my morals from Batman.

who unlike God (an omnipotent being spaning all existence and time possessing the power to do anything he likes) some how manages to not feel it necessary to butcher people to death or torture them for their crimes.

Batman - 1
God - 0

[Dades]

^^ Or require worship! He even hides his identity...

[Sarky]

Well, He has no trouble breaking a safecracker's fingers so he'll never crack again, but I don't have a few billion dollars to spend on ninja training and body armour and stuff, so I doubt I'll ever go that far.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Dades

^^ Or require worship! He even hides his identity...

yeah funny that Superman, the closest analogy to Jesus or a God, also doesn't require worship.

Obviously that was more of a requirement for fictional characters in the 40th millenium BC rather than the 20th millenium AD.

[Gbear]

Originally Posted by Valmont

I don't follow you here. If it's the 'will of the people' why would it need enforcing? Is this not an argument for the ethics of mob rule?

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with mob rule.

The practicality is that the mob isn't wise enough to be just and that's why mob rule is bad rather than because a state shouldn't represent the consensus of it's citizens.

Edit: Of course if the "mob" was wise enough for mob rule to be feasible then it's probable that you wouldn't need any law enforcement anyway - a hypothetical anarchic state where everyone was both infinitely altruistic and infinitely wise. A silly notion, of course.

[Valmont]

Originally Posted by Dades

But for life within most societies - the issue is not people knowing, or disagreeing with the *rules*, it people ignoring choosing to ignore the rules.

Does that not make the rather large assumption that the *rules* are somehow the correct, moral way to conduct oneself? Says who? On what basis? What are the alternatives?

Originally Posted by Gbear

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with mob rule.

I think those not part of the mob would disagree with that sentiment!

[RussellTuring]

Originally Posted by Gbear

Absolutely. I qualified my statement by saying that ideally, the ethics enforced by the government should be based on a mandate. They often don't have that - look at the war on drugs - as unpopular and demonstrably ineffective as that is, it's being kept in place and will continue to do so for the forseeable future due to a moral judgement.

That wasn't my point. I was highlighting the fact that you seem to be advocating a state that punishes those who don't act as determined by its codes of behaviour but accepts no responsibility for educating its subjects about these rules, which I think is ridiculous and reminiscent of religion.

In a "perfect" democracy the state would be only a tool to enforce the will of the people rather than a discrete identity.

If it was really the will of the people then there would be nothing for the state to enforce.

Originally Posted by b318isp

Areas that were covered were:

- the finality of suicide as a solution to temporary problems
- the effects on those who have to deal with it
- guidance on not glorifying or reflecting on the details, but accepting the emotions
- identifying that problems are usual transient and are better tackled by seeking help and assistance

That's good but when you said the "morality" of suicide I thought you meant something a bit more judgemental.

Originally Posted by Gbear

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with mob rule.

The practicality is that the mob isn't wise enough to be just and that's why mob rule is bad rather than because a state shouldn't represent the consensus of it's citizens.

Edit: Of course if the "mob" was wise enough for mob rule to be feasible then it's probable that you wouldn't need any law enforcement anyway - a hypothetical anarchic state where everyone was both infinitely altruistic and infinitely wise. A silly notion, of course.

State rule is just mob rule on a larger scale with a relatively tiny proportion of active participants.