Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How many of you "believers" think you are going to hell?
-
28-07-2001 12:08pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
I don't think I'm going to hell, but I don't think I'm a "believer" - at least by the standards set in the last thread (as far as I could tell, "believer" was used to infer "Christian").
I'm fairly sure I'll have to fight against hell (or the passage to it), but then again, don't we all? Whether a hell torn straight from The Inferno or Paradise Lost, or just a life destroyed.
But I suppose I'd be considered a "good" person. "Bad" people might not see either destination as being the place to be.
And, as you have no morals Scutchy
, are you really the person to start such a thread? 
0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JustHalf:
And, as you have no morals Scutchy, are you really the person to start such a thread? </font>
I'm a struggling amoralist, not quite there yet ;-)
and an absence of morals means I do whatever I want.
This thread will die in 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 10 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Scutchy,
We know each other. And as much as you will claim to be amoral - you are only so when it comes to labelling yourself in one of our seven-hour-through-the-night-and-neuro-is-dying-of-lack-of-sleep conversations.
As a person, if you lacked moral standards, you would feel no need to express consideration and kindness. Surely amorality means a certain greyness? And Scutch, not to bloat your ego, but you have displayed to me many examples of hospitability, friendliness, concern and kindness. All signs of one who is not ambiguous or apathetic when it comes to ethics and behaviour.
Your idea that you are amoral (or almost there) is ridiculous.
A definition of amoral from the dictionary on my parent's desk:
a·mor·al
adj.
Neither moral nor immoral.
Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
I think a more suitable way to describe yourself would be one who is non-committal about labelling definitively what is right and wrong when out of context. When you are in context, in situations in real life and (not just blabbering away about philosphical things with me and our buds) you make positive decisions and you treat people well.
But then, who am I to tell you who you are or what you really believe? I have no right.
However, Dr. Scutchington, you are just pretending and striving for modernity when you claim amorality. YOU STUPID BLIND MAN!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Please don't kick my ass in MA.)
PS - If anyone starts a fight with me in this thread I can't respond because I only have net access while I'm at my folks' house, which is rare.
Edited for spellings
[This message has been edited by neuro-praxis (edited 28-07-2001).]0 -
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
Scutchy,
We know each other. And as much as you will claim to be amoral - you are only so when it comes to labelling yourself in one of our seven-hour-through-the-night-and-neuro-is-dying-of-lack-of-sleep conversations.
</font>
Greetings, oh fellow MAist
First off, thanks for the many compliments. My ego is swelling, and it is not due soely to the many beers that have been consumed before this 01:15 post.
The dictionary definition of amoralism doesn't really tally with my definition - and as a struggling amoralist, I reserve the right to self-determination. (So there)
to break amoralism down - morals - meaning a code or set of rules by which one lives one's life - and a - meaning an absence of or without.
I strive (well, strive implies more effort than I normally put into things, but hey) to avoid making decisions based on preset rules or a moral code. Instead, I try and follow what I have variously described as my instinct, intuition, or inner nature.
Humans are, by nature, social and cooperative creatures who lean towards alutrism. If we try and remove exterior codes of conduct, we will revert to this natural state. This is my goal.
To draw a Christian analogy, (and feel free to correct me on this one) I wish to return to an Eden-like state.
But to take your definition (or el dictionary's) :
Neither moral nor immoral.
Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
I would not describe myself as moral; my two remaining identified morals relate to accepting grades and flirting, the latter I would gladly remove. If successful, my 'moral' code would be to not accept a grade higher than the best fighter in my club - not a moral as such, just a different definition of a belt.
I would not describe myself as immoral, as I do not act against my moral code. In some cases, I act against the moral code of others, but I have no intention of following theirs anyway. Although I do not define myself as immoral, others might.
So the first sentence stands.
Lacking moral sensibility?
I don't have the concept of absolute good or absolute evil; I'll go with that provisionally.
Not caring about right and wrong? I have concepts similar to these; normally they relate to what benefits society (as defined by what group I affiliate to at that point in time) and that which is detrimental. But then again, sometimes society isn't a 'good' thing. (I'm somewhat complex in that manner)
If I feel my social group or friends are threatened, someone or something had better expect a rather atypical scutch experiencing something variously described as riastreadh, mushin, beserk or demonic posession with no particular understanding of pain or mortality.
So there are some things which could be described as "good" or "bad", "right" / "wrong" that I'd be willing to die for, (even if I don't understand the concept of death at that time) but it's the definition thereof I have issues with.
Hitler did what he did because he believed it to be good.
Rapists can generally justify their actions, and say they took the 'right' course of action.
Paedophiles tend to project blame onto young children, seeing them as the evil ones.
You describe me as one who is non-committal about labelling definitively what is right and wrong when out of context - I agree. And if you give me a specific scenario, I can generally give you my response to it, but I can't really judge if that response will lead to good, as a parallel to my equivalent of the term.
If you can get "People of the Lie" off Excelsior when he's done with it, you'll see that all the 'evil' people in the book have clearcut definitions of right and wrong.
But anyway, I digress.
Back to the need for morals:
If I am suffering from obesity, annorexia or a related complaint, a dietician may prescribe a set list of what and what not to eat, referred to as a diet, which will keep me moderately healthy.
However, if I am a healthy individual, in tune with my body's needs and sense of hunger, I will eat what I want, when I want and how I want. My body will get all the nutrients it asks for and I will obtain a superior sense of health.
If I am an unbalanced individual, I will require a code by which to live my life, called morals...0 -
*lol*<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by scutchy:
The dictionary definition of amoralism doesn't really tally with my definition - and as a struggling amoralist, I reserve the right to self-determination. (So there)</font>
Scutchy, this reminds me far too much of my father's assertion that we are not part of the food chain, backed up with "what *I* mean by the food chain is what we eat"0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement