Welcome to Gaia! ::

Preface: I consider the members of this guild as somewhat gifted when it comes to logic and reason, so I am hoping that you all will help indulge me with one of my other loves in life, philosophy. I am hoping to have a new philosophical discussion every week or two depending on time constraints such as midterms.

Morality can be described as an effort to guide your conduct through reasoning. Which is to do what is in the best interests of everyone involved, you must also give equal weight to the interests of everyone and not just that person. Ex: In a situation where you have to choose to let someone die so that others may live, your decision isn't in the best interests of the person who will die but it is in the greater interests of the entire group. Morally that decision makes sense but it is also wrong, it is murder still but it is for the greater good so is it also morally correct. Can something be wrong and right?

In order to decide this we must look at what exactly morality is to be certain.

An individual's actions if they effect a group of people must be examined from the point of view of society as a whole. What does society view as right? Well if the individual is a drug addict and he only harms himself with his intake of drugs, is what he is doing wrong from a societal point of view? Most people would probably say yes, but if you reason it out, the answer would come back as no. Why? Because he is choosing to harm himself and his actions do not directly effect anyone but him. But his actions are also harmful to himself, and he is a member of society so by partaking in drugs he is harming society right? Is this not both right and wrong?

To be moral we also have to be a conscientous individual. What does this mean? Well in lamens terms it means that you are an individual who is impartially concerned with the interests of others that will be effected by what you choose to do.

It is also important to examine differences between what different cultures see as moral. A societal case study can be found from the inuit. The men of this culture would often have more then one wife, and they would share their wives with visitors as a sign of hospitality. The women of the culture however were free to break arrangements like these by leaving their husbands. Also Infantacide was not frowned upon, and the discretion to keep a baby was made solely by the parents with no societal stigma attached to it. The elderly when they became to feeble to be useful were also left on the ice to die. So you might deduce that the Inuit had no respect for marriage or life. We might see this is wrong because of what we view as acceptable in our society but to the Inuit they see nothing wrong with this. Does that make them more or less moral then the rest of us?

(*note: The following case study(s) and definitions were taken from The Elements of Moral Philosophy written by James Rachels*)

Now to the discussion I wish to have. I want to discuss and reason with people universal morality as we see it now. I will play devils advocate at times and try to present the other side of the argument, and I will express my point of view as well but I will not force them upon you. In a philisophical discussion nobody is ever wrong if they can reason out their answers.

What I want to discuss:

Infanticide: Is this right or wrong?
Murder: Is this a moral stigma or a Universal accepted wrong? Is there a justifiable reason for homicide?
Marriage: How do we decide the Sanctity in it?
The Homosexual perspective and Denial of Rights.
*Also I'd like to discuss the Inuits idea of disposing of members of society who are no longer useful.
*do you believe that religion is stifling the advance of science and technology?* (U235 requested that I add this)

If the child is already born, I see no real reason to end it's life.

Only if they have it coming or if you are a loan shark. 3nodding



Marriage no longer has sanctity. It's merely a perversion of a Catholic custom wrapped up with legal mumbo-jumbo. Since essentially, the legality of it seems to be out of the pan, I vouch that marriage be abolished and civil unions take precedence for legal reasons.

However, one thing that always irks me is how all these homosexuals really want to get married... Sure, their hearts may be in the right place, but if that love is real, a legal document shouldn't be a limiter for their relationship. Personally, if I was in that situation, I wouldn't give a rats a** about 400USD a year tax deductable or whatever as long as I was getting nookie. I mean, really. Stop the bitching and enjoy yourselves.

Now, I'm not saying that marriage is by any means bad or that it should be illegal, but I wish that something so religious in origin wouldn't be such a big part of the legal system.


All I know is my gut says maybe.


Heh. Sounds like a page out of the book "Anthem." xd

However, I do believe that there is a difference between no longer being useful and being detrimental. I would have no motive for disposing of a not-so-useful individual, but for those detrimental to society... Well... we have prisons and stuff.

Now, B_type, I would like to add a topic to your list. Inspired by real events, this is a ripoff thread from another place on gaia...

But do you believe that religion is stifling the advance of science and technology?

Let me monkey wrench this with a Taoist, and thus humanist, view on the situation.

Morality is bunk. In my not so humble opinion, the entire moral concept is an attempt to spread shades of gray into black and white. Morality, as taught to children (and practiced by some adults), is simply a method of control for people who cannot handle the implications of true decision process.

There are far too many factors involved in any given situation. Sometimes killing is right, sometimes killing is wrong. Most of the time, it's both, and your allegiances and personal convictions are what makes the difference. The Taoist master does not worry about morality, and instead simply does what is most in harmony with tao -- she takes each decision as it comes and makes the decision that is right for her at that moment.

I am a firm believer that every person should do whatever they really want to do, be it a murderous rampage or a humanitarian mission, provided they're willing to accept the consequences of whatever path they choose.

This isn't so much a Taoism thing as an outgrowth of eastern humanistic philosophy. Respect for life is a huge part of Taoism, and while there is the responsibility for actions, it doesn't go into a belief in karma. I'm a big fan of saying that I don't believe in luck, only situational irony.

That said, can you link some references on your philosophy? Google turned up nill, I'm guessing it's a spelling problem that isn't easily soundex matched.

I am not at all surprised that the web turns up nill for results on Exventationalism, as it is an abstract form of philosophy with few obscure references to it in text. Furthermore it is clouded by the fact that it goes by several different names, of them Exventationalism, Diventism, and Evoism. I can however tell you a few relevant points about the beliefs.

the main belief is that all life no matter how atrocious, should be respected. (This goes back to the whole idea that even your worst enemy has a right to his or her own life.)

To end a life is to also kill a part of yourself as you have form in the minds of other people as well. ( Ie: There are many versions of yourself, because many people have different perceptions of you.)

Everything other people view you as is true as well, because to them, there is motivation behind either loving or hating you totally. Which is why it is important to be good to other people, so you are percieved as good and this becomes the absolute truth.

Although natural death is viewed as your end, you can never really die if you are remembered well by other people, hense is why the impression you make on others is to be absolutely valued.

Your love for other people is irrational but understandable, it makes you stronger then you normally would be, but it also makes you weaker then you normally would be as well. (*this goes back to the idea that love is a good thing but it can be used against you as well)

A life partner is hard to find, but you can have many of them, but only one soulmate. (You can have many really good friends but they are hard to find, but you can have only one person that you can love absolutely.)

Karma, is not really important and does not always occur, it is merely taught that if we kill someone for any reason, we must also accept the fact that that person was loved and that their life did have value so there should be no surprise if someone wants to avenge them. Also it should not be held against you, or the other person if revenge is attempted and it fails or succeeds. (Ie: If someone trys to kill you because you killed someone that they love, you cannot hate them for it, as their actions are justifiable to them. Likewise they can't hold it against you, if you defend your own life and they die as well)


I'll likely add more to this when I find the philosophy book (I moved recently and I have no clue where half my s**t is anymore) where it was mentioned.

Infanticide: Is this right or wrong?
There are already enough humans in the world. Parents who wish to do away with their children should be the ones to kill them, they must both agree, and they must both be a part of the killing.

Murder: Is this a moral stigma or a Universal accepted wrong? Is there a justifiable reason for homicide?
Murder being wrong is a fiction of society. Animals kill each other every day, we're no different except that we can sometimes choose otherwise.

Marriage: How do we decide the Sanctity in it?
Marriage doesn't really mean anything in todays world, beyond the tax benefits.

The Homosexual perspective and Denial of Rights.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it"- Voltaire

The Inuits idea of disposing of members of society who are no longer useful.
"No man is ever obsolete"-The Twilight Zone
And really, who is going to judge the usefulness of another person?

do you believe that religion is stifling the advance of science and technology?
ORGANIZED religion is a truly evil thing indeed. Even Jesus said so. Faith won't stop anything, but it may help.

Ryuke, I find it strange that you defend old people who may no longer serve a purpose yet you say it's okay to kill a child who may grow to do who knows what.

I caught that test, and, although I am very opposed morally, the test does do something (especially since both parents must participate).