Board 8 > So...can anyone present a decent argument for the existence of moral absolutes?

(+) Yeah! (+)

example XIII? you have to atleast present some kind of argument...

--
.

Hell, the act of rape occurs in nature. Can a natural phenomena be inherently wrong?

sure, why not?

the rapist raccoons are immoral.

--
For your BlAcK TuRtLe.
At least Kupo has class and doesn't MESSAGE the people -Dr Pizza

Moral relativism = Anarchy
Moral absolutism = Fascism

--
Chrono1219

No I don't, I'm just observing and stating my views. I'm not interested in arguing the point either way.

--
http://i.imgur.com/GH3sK.jpg

Hell, forget objective morality; it's hard enough to support an objective reality.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
I watch Planet Chasers Starlight Excellent all day, every day.

well...your position cannot be validated just saying 'uh uhh you are wrong'.

--
.

Andel posted...
well...your position cannot be validated just saying 'uh uhh you are wrong'.

But I do believe you're wrong. There's other people on my side who can do that for me.

--
Oops! I'm breaking the fourth wall!
http://imgon.net/di-CFMD.gif

maybe so...but they have yet to do so.

and where is smartmuffin? he wanted this topic initially...

--
.

I dont believe that any particular belief (moral) can be shown to be absolutely correct

There's a big difference between this and saying that no morals/beliefs are in fact absolutely correct. There are many things that are true but which cannot be proven.

And yes, that means that we generally cannot prove that a moral is actually correct- but if there is in fact a correct moral, that means we can debate the question. If there were no correct moral at all, then it would be senseless to do that.

--
90s games > 00s games

I actually wrote a paper on this

let me get it

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

Morality and the Happiness Equilibrium
Throughout history, civilizations have formed into different political and social structures. Differing customs have risen, shaped by various factors such as geography and population density. As cultures expanded and interacted with each other, it was discovered that what was viewed to be ethical in one society could be viewed as morally corrupt in a neighboring land. This discovery led men to question what it meant to act ethically. As philosophers have pondered over these findings, two main questions have emerged. First, is morality relative depending on location, and second, assuming some form of universal morality exists, what actions should be taken by individuals and society to ensure that morality is sustained? Through this essay, I will answer those questions, by examining the difference between cultural practice and societal ethics, and then explain what must be done by both individuals and governments in order to preserve morality.
The ancient Greek historian Herodotus presented one of the earliest arguments for moral relativism. In his History, he argues that because the Greeks refuse to eat the corpses of their fathers but have no qualm with burning them, and the Callatians refuse to burn the corpses of their fathers but have no problem with being cannibalistic, that morality is simply a custom (420-421). Ruth Benedict, one of the foremost anthropologists of the twentieth century also agrees with this view. She states, “We recognize that morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits” (428).
While these views acutely show that customs and values can occasionally change depending on the culture, they fail to acknowledge that some social practices are harmful and degrading. In her book, Sex and Social Justice, Martha Nussbaum examines the cultural practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). She states that there is initially the tendency to feel that the criticism of FGM is ethnocentric and thus undeserved. Nussbaum writes, however, that “Female genital mutilation is linked to extensive and in some cases lifelong health problems” (442,449). She continues, “We should continue to keep FGM on the list of unacceptable practices that violate women’s human rights.” Nussbaum expounds on her view that a cultural practice is deplorable when it takes away the rights of other people.
In some ways, she coincides with W.T. Staces view on morality. In his writings, Stace explains that although the particulars of culture change depending on the place, there is a fundamental law of altruism that permeates all moral nations. He states, “We should look, amid differing moral systems, not for a consensus of opinions upon the particular duties of life, or the particular maxims of morality, but for some recognition of the general law of morals. This general law is the principle of altruism” (46). The practice of FGM however, does not align with the principle of altruism as it takes away the rights of women and only benefits men who wish to keep women under their control. FGM, therefore, is a social practice which brings harm to female members of cultures which partake in it, and is therefore a universally immoral tradition.

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

By demonstrating that there are some moral customs that are inherently unethical, it conversely proves that there are some general moral truths. Since the beginning of civilization, societies have enacted laws to ensure that the rights of the citizen are not trampled upon by other people in the same culture. Even if, as Herodotus states, that the Greeks and the Callatians had differing customs on the treatment of their dead, this in no way undermines the fact that without some form of civil law, neither society would be able to function. Both societies had to exist in a state where the rights of a citizen were just as valuable as the rights of all others that enjoyed equal privilege. Otherwise, the civilization would descend into a state of anarchy where those with the most power would be able to subject others to do their bidding. This shows that there is a clear distinction between cultural relativity, which is what is accepted practice in a culture and can change, and universal moral principles, which must be maintained for any sort of permanent bond to form between groups of people.
Once it has been shown that there must be universal moral principles in order for a society to operate at an optimal level, the second question needs to be addressed. What is the optimum theory of morality? John Stuart Mill states in his theory of utilitarianism, that that which is ethical is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness in a society. He states, “Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (15). This theory is perfectly altruistic and moral on an individual level, but is faced with obvious shortcomings when applied to a more general basis. If all members of a country were to willingly follow the principle of utilitarianism, then a society would be perfectly ethical; however, because some people are inherently selfish, forced utilitarianism cannot be enacted in a society.
When I traveled to Ghana, I came to the realization that individual members of society live at “Happiness Equilibrium.” Those that chose to be selfish were comfortable with their selfish desires and enjoyed the benefits that selfishness had brought them, while those that lacked basic luxuries learned to cope with what they were given. Although I found many cases where people lived in a poverty stricken state, I did not find that those in that situation were less happy then those in a more comfortable situation. Instead, those that had objectively more difficult lives had grown to accept the difficulties that were placed before them. If both parties were to artificially be placed at the same level of wealth, then the party that was coping with less would have his happiness slightly increase as his life improved above what was strictly necessary for survival. The party which had wealth taken away from him, however, would have a dramatic drop in overall quality of life as what was once viewed as necessities were removed from his possession.

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

This principle of Happiness Equilibrium is what prevents forced utilitarianism to be the optimum theory of morality. The American philosopher John Hospers explained what happens when an entity is given the authority to regulate an individual’s choices: “Government must have power in order to be effective—and yet the very means by which alone it can be effective make it vulnerable to the abuse of power, leading to managing the lives of individuals” (802). Because the equilibrium state varies depending on the situation, it is impossible for governments to effectively enact laws that are designed to increase the happiness of some citizens while decreasing the happiness of others. Governments should therefore encourage individuals to act utilitarian themselves by generously giving what they have to the poor. Additionally, governments should continue to enable individuals to live in a secure area where they can strive to increase their personal utility. Governments should not, however, attempt to force any utilitarian behavior upon members of the society.
In conclusion, although the views of what is acceptable behavior in a society may vary, there are universal moral principles that transcend culture and must be followed in order for a nation to be ethical. One of these underlying principles is the cultivation of an environment where the greatest maximum amount of happiness is available for the greatest number of people. Governments should do everything in their power to cultivate an environment where people seek to act as altruistically as possible, but cannot forcibly attempt to redistribute happiness because of the principle of Happiness Equilibrium.

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

Anyways, the end of the paper starts to delve into a different issue and idea I have of the way government should govern because of this, but I think the first half is a good argument.

We studied this in my philosophy class

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

This is now a topic were we paste in essays

--
"I have a place to live because of FFXI, I lost my virginity because of FFXI, and that's why it's my #5 game of all time" - RPGLord95

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

The action in short stories is mainly psychological, and internal to the main characters. Their subjects are therefore normally private and individual rather than social. Do you agree with this statement?



The idea posed is that because short stories are often internal, psychologically-based pieces, this has a profound affect on their main characters, making them less social and more introverted and private. This could be an example of what the short story can offer an author as a medium; a chance to explore and establish a character in-depth, without the subsequent consequences or necessary buildup of a novel.

The opportunity for “privacy” presented by the short story is one that an author may take to avoid wasting time on secondary characters who do very little to service the main focus; that is to say, the main character. That is not to say that secondary characters are not an option. It simply means that characters in short stories are more likely to become unnecessary, allowing a greater focus on one entity. However, this is not always the aim of the short story. Some authors may use it is a chance to present a microcosm of social interaction, and because of this, privacy and, to some extent, individuality is severely lessened.

It is true that action in short stories is more often than not psychological. While psychological events are usually brought about thanks to some kind of physical stimulus, this is not always the case. One could take, for instance, one of the two stories that will serve as the main focus in this essay. In Franz Kafka's The Hunger Artist, a man fasts for extended periods of time. It is not necessarily the hunger that serves as the primary focus of the piece, though, but more his feelings of sadness and dissatisfaction, in part because of the strict, 40-day limit imposed on him and in part because of the dwindling interest in his art. In Cortázar's The Southern Thruway, though, it is the physical stimulus of the traffic that provokes the events of the piece.

Through this essay, I will seek to analyse the “social” aspects of characters from these two stories. It will also look to examine the idea of short stories being, for the most part, psychological, and how much effect physical stimulus has on social interaction between characters. By closely examining both The Southern Thruway and The Hunger Artist, one will be able to establish a clearer gauge of how “social” the characters in these stories are, and whether it is the accepted norm for the short story medium.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/Nevest356/1dollagifas.gif

Well, its an essay written by me


so its my argument. The TC asked for a good argument, and so I gave him my essay on it

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

(I'm not insulting you or anything, I'm trying to hijack the topic >_>)

--
http://i.imgur.com/j5f3K.gif

Well,

My essay actually has to do with the topic


I kind of want him to respond to it

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

Upon realizing that Link is a tree, the mystery of the heroic green tunic is revealed. It is a part of the process of photosynthesis. In his human form Link is lacking in his green foliage, so he uses his tunic - both for camouflage and photosynthesis. For those who don't know, photosynthesis is the process that plants use to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds, such as sugar, that serve as their food source. To do this the plants use the greenness of their leaves to absorb sunlight, which they use as energy for the conversion process. Now do you understand why Link never eats? He's always running around absorbing sunlight in his tunic and creating his own sugars. It's only natural after all. This also explains why Link never needs to go to the bathroom, or why he never sleeps. Such things aren't a part of the daily routine of a tree; however, photosynthesis is.

Mind you, Link is one damn special tree. Photosynthesis is necessary to maintain life on earth, and the heroic Link is also necessary to maintain life on earth - otherwise the world would fall into the death and darkness of Ganondorf. Link uses his photosynthetic abilities to attack his enemies. Notable are darknuts and iron knuckles (aka lumberjacks) Ganon sends after Link to cut him down. In Twilight Princess, Link is taught a powerful photosynthetic hidden skill from the Hero's Spirit that greatly adds to his strength.

People often wonder what the connection is between the Links of the different Zelda games, seen as it isn't blood descent. Some people propose idiotic concepts about destiny and a heroic wolf spirit, when the simple answer is that Link is always a tree. The heroes are Ents, in the words of you Tolkienites. Thus, hints to the tree like nature of our hero litter many games in the franchise. Even Oracle of Ages contains a hint. Link saves the Maku tree, who in turn falls in love with him. Obviously trees only fall in love with other trees. Nintendo isn't going to encourage bestiality and inter-species romance. I mean they've never suggested Zoras and Hylians should copulate, and it would be absurd, even offensive, to have a tree loving a human. That's just too sappy.

Hence, by falling in love with Link, the Maku tree is actually falling in love with another tree. Believe me; trees know their own kind when they see one. The thing is, us humans have a hard time seeing trees when they see them. That's why it has taken us so long as the Zelda community to come to the realization that I have today. The Hero of Time is a tree. The Hero of Twilight is a Tree. The Hero of Wind is a Tree. That's why he sinks when he swims for too long and absorbs too much water into his trunk. Every single Link there has ever been and ever will be is a tree. Finally, the mystery of Zelda is solved.

It's almost been ten years now since I first got into The Legend of Zelda series, and what a decade it has been. The Zelda franchise has provided me with weeks, even months, of entertainment. It has provided fantastic gameplay; enthralling storylines and moral inspiration amongst many other things. However, there has always been something that I couldn't quite place about the series. For all these years as I've sat there playing, something hasn't seemed quite right. Something has seemed a tad out of place. Finally I've come to the realization of what exactly it is - and now a whole new level of understanding and appreciation for the series has opened wide open for me. I have discovered that the protagonist of the series is not human. Not even Hylian. Link is actually a tree.

The Hero of Time is mistakenly referred to as a Hylian because, conveniently, that's what the Deku Tree sprout tells him he is. However, it's pretty obvious that that's just a cover. The Sprout tells Link that his mother fled into Kokiri Forest, but that's just nonsense. She wouldn't have made it to the Deku Tree without becoming a Skull Kid or a Stalfos or something. The truth is, the Deku Tree is actually Link's father. As one of the Kokiri girls tells Link: "the Deku Tree is our father, the forest guardian, and he gave life to all of us Kokiri." A simple look at The Wind Waker reveals that the Kokiri, well the Koroks, are nothing but little trees that jiggle as they walk around. They just have the ability of taking on a human form - which is exactly what Link does. Beneath it all, he's nothing more than a mere tree.

It makes me think of Family Guy actually. You know, the scrawny pirate like guy with the eyepatch. The "me father was a tree" guy. The difference is: he's cool. Link, however, is an emotionless stump. But it makes sense why now. Trees do not have brains. Trees do not feel emotions. Trees are nothing more than trees. Trees cannot talk. Trees cannot become attached to others. Link has never been some empty shell of personality that the player is supposed to project themselves onto - he's just been a tree. Nothing more, nothing less.

Take a look at Majora's Mask even. Why is it that everyone assumes that the Skull Kid turns Link into a Deku Scrub with some sort of curse? Quite obviously the Skull Kid, with Majora's powers, can see Link for who he is. He can see that Link is a tree and he simply returns Link into his real and natural form. I mean, when you're being pursued by some tree that's pretending to be a human do you really need to get all powerful with some almighty curse? No. You just reveal him for the tree he is and watch him sit there wallowing in his own sap.

You begin with a reasonable claim: "While laws differ from culture to culture, they share a common purpose in providing order and social stability." Alright. But then things get tricky. Your definition of universal moral principles is bizarre: those principles "which must be maintained for any sort of permanent bond to form between groups of people"? This isn't moral objectivity; it's practical necessity.

The central argument of your paper is a utilitarian one: "In conclusion, although the views of what is acceptable behavior in a society may vary, there are universal moral principles that transcend culture and must be followed in order for a nation to be ethical. One of these underlying principles is the cultivation of an environment where the greatest maximum amount of happiness is available for the greatest number of people." Yet you haven't justified the morality of this belief at all. Why should we care about maximizing happiness for society at large? Why not just focus on a few individuals, or perhaps only the well-being of ourselves? Further, how do we go about defining "happiness"? Is it physical pleasure, self-achievement, or some combination of the two?

Hate to say it, but your paper makes the classic mistake which Hume made famous: the unintentional transition from "an is" (matter-of-fact claims about cultural differences) to "an ought" (moral imperatives without a proper foundation).

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
I watch Planet Chasers Starlight Excellent all day, every day.

yessssss

Using appropriate theoretical perspectives and specific examples, evaluate the impact of digital journalism on traditional journalism.

The impact of digital journalism on traditional journalism has been considerable. It has had a profound effect on how journalists work, as well as how their work is viewed by the public. These effects may help or hinder traditional journalism. Journalists may use the internet as a vast resource, enabling them to research stories more efficiently. They may also seek to use technological advances in communication in order to reach their audience, and use them to make their journalism more thorough.

This has, at times, resulted in the audience interacting with journalists in order to find stories, such as The Guardian newspaper utilizing the public to investigate the massive amount of data that was leaked during the United Kingdon Parliamentary expenses scandal. However, the other side of the coin represents a bleak picture for the future of traditional journalism.

The dominance of media magnates like Rupert Murdoch in the news industry, the speed and availability of news on the internet and the advent of blogging has hit traditional journalism hard, especially from a financial point of view. In this essay, then, I will seek to evaluate whether traditional journalism can still prosper in a digital age.

It is firstly important to look at ways in which digital journalism can aid traditional journalism, rather than render it obsolete. Firstly, the aforementioned use of the public by The Guardian during the expenses scandal is an interesting example of "interactive" or "collaborative" journalism, a practice that enables the public to collaborate with journalists to investigate stories more thoroughly, which provides a more complete story as a result. The internet is a key tool that has allowed journalists to close the gap between themselves and their readers, and this is most distinct when one looks at collaborative journalism. With the closing of this gap, journalists are allowed to extend their reach beyond their own domain and traditional journalism improves as a result.

The public, also, are more likely to buy into something they feel they have contributed to, or someone they know has contributed to. This impact cannot be underestimated; newspapers, aside from being a moneymaking business, are firstly in place to inform the public. If a small section of the public informs journalists, the journalists will enjoy a new and unexplored relationship with their readers. Jay Rosen's article The People Formerly Known as the Audience sums up the impact the public are having on traditional journalism, and the media as a whole, by saying "[The audience] are simply the public made...more able, less predictable".

Unfortunately, some professional journalists may see this as a bad thing, even if it does increase the overall quality of their own reporting. The idea that collaborative journalists are journalists at all is rejected. Neil Mcintosh's article, "let's forget about citizen journalism", encourages the reader to throw out the notion of the public as journalists. He postulates that this "amateur army" should not replace journalism, even if "you believe [it] doesn’t represent your views, or is corrupt". Dan Gillmor discusses the "former audience joining the party". Gillmor cites the example of a blogger named Zayed, who reported on the 2003 riots in Iraq. This story was missed by many major news sources, but not by Zayed, who gained several readers.

In this context, Gilmor discussed "grassroots" journalism, saying that "the grassroots have emerged, in ways the professional media largely still fail to comprehend, as a genuine force in journalism." Clearly, some journalists reject the idea of bloggers and "citizens" becoming fully-fledged journalists.

--
http://i46.tinypic.com/301k70h.gif

Suicide bombs, pedophile priests, a loved one lost to cancer: thoughts crowding my early morning mind while I sit planted at the kitchen counter, my breakfast untouched. Seeking a reprieve, I push aside Madison’s newspaper and reach for the pocket-sized tape recorder resting nearby. The “click” brings it all back: how, more than a dozen years ago, a touch of whimsy led me to tape the jovial sounds of those I love.

Today, the “play” button brings laughter, gales of laughter: Dennis’ basso profundo peppered with Elaine’s warm, rapid-fire cackle; Jeannie’s reliable staccato underscoring both of them with a snort — or two. Hitting “pause,” I smile at those precious moments spent with dear friends during my visit to New Mexico in 1992.

Next “play:” Chicago, where laughter, the common denominator of my hometown pals, calls back a childhood spent with Oz and Carol and later, Linnea. Year after year, retelling the same time-enriched stories, we need only to say, “Remember when…” and a crescendo of laughter leaves me grinning.

“Fast forward” and I’m in Chicago again, this time for Thanksgiving with family: 12 adults and nearly as many kids, a robust harmony of joy, each laugh distinctive. And there’s my brother’s voice chuckling, “This is so like something Mom would have done!”

Maybe tomorrow, I’ll play the once-familiar giggles of Mattie, my little buddy next-door, now 23, accompanied by the infectious laugh of his mother, Sarah. They form the core of my surrogate family here in Madison.

Another day, I may listen to Sarah, along with Chris, Kathy and Ruthann cracking up because the little recorder captured my own hilarious laughter more clearly than theirs. And is that Jiggs or Joe with the gusty guffaw? They laugh so alike, yet they hardly know each other. Larry, the man whose clothes I have laundered for 28 years, pops up occasionally gasping from a belly laugh that almost halts his breathing. Toward the end, old friends CJ and Katie let fly a string of rip-roaring howls — a fitting spot to rewind the tape.

The lighthearted notion to create a personalized laugh track, 15 years ago, has proved an unexpected blessing. I believe that merely listening to the laughter of loved ones brings nourishment and healing in a world in short supply of both. I believe in shielding myself with laughter, in order to withstand the painful, nasty, humorless parts of life. For me, to laugh is to transcend: this I believe.

--
I ****ing love to cuddle.
stole it. too lazy to type a real one

I do not enjoy this topic.

Moral absolutes don't exist because right and wrong don't exist

--
http://www.wellhappypeaceful.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/nuclear_disaster.jpg