Animation Source Forums

There is no objective definition on right and wrong. And if there is one, please; illuminate.

Sorry, Ultima. I'm afraid I can't do that until you yourself have been illuminated. That's all I'm allowed to say here. In the meantime, you never answered my question about your belief in shamanism.

I reserve the right not to answer questions about my beliefs; I avoid many discussions that way.
And, how can I be illuminated, when you are the one who created this discussion, which topic I know little of? Expecting me to know everything is arrogant; isn't illumination that, what a discussion of this type is created for?

And, pardon me if you feel offended, but how come that, from my point of view (and many other members as well), anyone who does not share your opinions are always wrong in your book?

"You yourself have been illuminated"? What the heck are you talking about? It's sounding like you're telling him to accept Jesus Christ as his lord and savior in order to understand that... I mean, it does to me, at least. Seriously, there is no objective definition of ethics. If you look it up in the dictionary, (which I have) you will find the following definition:

Ethics (noun): 1. The philosophical study of moral values and rules. 2. motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.

Honestly, it's just saying that ethics is whatever you believe them to be. Most people share common ethic beliefs, such as it's wrong to kill, steal, things like that. (A vast majority do, at least) However, when it comes to some issues, it's up to your own beliefs. For instance, I almost never inquire which religion people practice, unless I feel it's extremely necessary. I just don't think it's that important of a thing to know.

I just think that people should just believe what they want to believe, and everyone else should just take it or leave it. Human beings have free will from the moment of birth, which is why what people believe should be up to the individual, and it is up to nobody else but the individual to change it.

Honestly, if you don't like what a story is saying, just don't bother reading it. You don't really have the right to tell people what they can and can't write if you're not the owner of this site, because while you may not like what's being written, there are others that do.

As Swords of The Wolves pointed out, I'm not at liberty to discuss the topic of religion here. I was not saying that you had to become a Christian, Ultima, only that it's not going to work for me to try to explain what universal rules of right and wrong are until you at least agree to entertain the notion that they can exist. In short, we are talking from two presuppositions so opposite that the discussion would take us nowhere.
As for your abstention from answering my question, that's fair enough. Animists are not called on to share their belief.

Actually, the idea of universal rules of right and wrong is so close to impossible that you might as well say it is impossible. Here's one example of how that's true: The US constitution says that it is wrong for the government to support/sponsor a specific religion. However, if you look at some governments in the middle east, you will find that they openly sponsor Islam, because they believe in the laws of Islam, and they believe those laws are the right laws, and they won't accept any other laws or rules.

Honestly, the only way that universally accepted ethics are possible is if Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto becomes a 100% accurate prediction of the future, meaning that the entire world becomes a communist utopia, and the entire world's population will believe in the same things so much as to that a government would not exist, because it wouldn't be needed.

Or for another example of what the world would be like if everyone was like that, read "Brave New World" by Adolus Huxley. For those who have read it: Real nice society, isn't it? (sarcasm)

Of course, there are tons of reasons why the Communist Manifesto can't possibly be true, but I won't really go into them because that would take ages. Honestly, this topic of universal ethics should just be dropped in this thread, because the only thing we could really do with that is discuss what they should be if they could exist. Any educated person in this field will agree that it's impossible for everyone in the entire world to think and believe the same, exact things.

I have never read "Brave New World," on the grounds that my brother has already read it, and anything he's read, I practically have (the words, "not interested," don't mean a thing to this guy). But in terms of a communist utopia, that concept did historically work in the early church (please note that this is a historical reference, NOT a religious one). Because of the religious brotherhood (and sisterhood) that the early believers shared with each other through their faith, they were happy to give freely to one another- so much so that they had to be told once not to overdo it. Those with abundance gave freely to those who lacked, so that none were in want. Communism tried to use the same idea, but failed because they did not have the faith, the "thread," if you will, that was necessary to bind them together.
As for the governments that sponsor religions, I should point out that in a sense, any atheistic government sponsors a religion: the worship of the self. If there is no higher authority, then every human being is free to make up their own rules as to what is right or wrong. Thus, moral subjectivity which, as I said, is just a more exalted name for anarchy. So there have to be at least some rules which apply to everyone. Otherwise, the whole system goes down. It may seem impossible to believe in universal moral law, but to deny it is dangerous to the self and to society.

OK, well I think it's almost a guarantee that something like murder and stealing, for instance, is something that whoever commits it will be punished for to one extent or another in pretty much every country that has some form of government. But if you think of this; should the government of any country suddenly cease to exist for any reason and without warning, then what might happen? Will everyone gather together and agree soundly on what is right and wrong without argument? I doubt that seriously. What would happen, most likely, is complete chaos. There are some people that will do things in the absence of government that they wouldn't have normally done when there was one. For instance, a lot of people would probably break into other people's houses or stores and steal stuff from them because they want that stuff and they don't have to pay for it because there are no more laws saying that things must be paid for (plus the fact that money probably wouldn't be worth anything, either), and that there is no punishment for not paying for something, so in essence, they can get away with it every time. Others might go around killing people they don't like because they think they have a good enough reason to do so, and since there is no more laws saying that it's only justified in self-defense, and no more punishments for violating them, people will do it because they believe their own reasons are justified (even though those are rather twisted morals, some people would probably believe that).

As to the reference to the early church, although that may be true, later on came one of the reasons why the Communist Manifesto did not work out as it supposedly should have in the USSR: bad leaders. At one point in time, the papacy became very corrupt, and it wasn't until a monk named Martin Luther came along and pointed out how the Church was corrupt and needed to change. Of course, he was excommunicated from the church because he wouldn't recant what he wrote on that subject, but that's when the Church lost a lot of its credibility. (for the time being, at least. They did change their ways and remove the corrupt leaders, but it's beside my point.) But even before that, the actual concept of a utopia is something for a country, and later on the rest of the world. Now, since Vatican City was not its own country at the time, and the fact that even back then, there was no single country inhabited only by the clergy, I don't think we can consider it an actual utopia. You could say it was in a utopia-like state, but it's not a utopia as Marx and the modern world would define it. Besides, there is one thing that separates the "utopia" of the early church from Marx's utopia, which is that Marx's was based on the idea of a utopia coming forth from a rebellion of the workers against the capitalists, because of the workers being just ticked off that they're overworked and underpaid, whereas the capitalists are underworked and overpaid. The early church was based off something entirely different.

And how you said that moral subjectivity was just another word for anarchy... well, even though that may be true to an extent, you might want to read "The Cider House Rules" by John Irving. Honestly, if you think about it, the book makes a good point that some laws and rules are just silly because there are laws that are written by people who have never had to deal with a situation that has anything to do with the law in question. One of the main morals of the story is not to let others tell you what to do if they don't know what they're talking about or what you're going through. You can have moral subjectivity without anarchy. Heck, aren't the differing laws of every country moral subjectivity on the part of each country's leaders/whoever writes the laws? Isn't it also true with the differing laws and penalties of each of the states in the United States? I don't think I'd call that anarchy...

So what I'm really trying to say is that there are some morals that apply to a vast majority of people, like how it's wrong to kill someone unless it's self-defense, or how it's wrong to take things from other people that aren't yours. (those are the only ones I can think of... if there are any more, the total number might not even break two digits) However, they aren't believed by everyone in the entire world. They may apply to everyone in every country that is not a complete anarchy, but they aren't believed by everyone. (I believe them, but I'm just saying that there are complete sickos out there that don't) As to everything else, pretty much everything else is something that most everyone decides for themselves. Sure, they can ask for help on those decisions, but it's still up to the individual to decide if they should heed the advice or not.

Your point about Martin Luther stood out to me, Swords. Uncannily, I and several of my classmates watched a movie on that very subject just last night. And you are right. The papacy did become very corrupt, namely because they lost what the early church had: a common devotion to each other and to (for lack of a term more acceptable term on this site) their master. They began to "worship" money by making economy the driving law in their lives. By abandoning the thread of faith and unity that the early church posessed, they destroyed the integrity of the church itself. They had come to, in essence, worship themselves by placing their own ambitions over the law they professed (feel free to compare to my earlier comment on atheism). It was not until Martin Luther brought the people back to the very law which held the original church together that a reformation was possible. The Catholic leadership tried to make up their own rules, resulting in widespread corruption.
You are right that some laws are silly, because they are written based on a "what if?" basis. Of course, the alternative system is making rules after they are broken, as one pastor (again, this is not a religious reference) illustrated: "There is currently no rule against playing lacrosse in the sanctuary. But if somebody did it, you can bet there would be a rule pretty darn quick." Of course, this system always leaves the lawmakers one step behind the lawbreakers. The ideal is if a law system could be established by one who had absolute knowledge, and therefore knew beforehand what rules needed to be made.

Ack. I didn't mean it the way you seem to have taken it. What you said is exactly what I was trying to get across. Balto cared about Rosie because he cared about Jenna. He loved Rosie in, more or less, the same way your dog loves you (assuming you have one). It wasn't a romantic love, but... well, I'm not sure there's a good way to put it in English. The best way I can think of to put it is that it was what the Greeks called agape love; it was unconditional love.

I'm kind on mixed on yours and Draco's opinions on this matter. I do agree with your point at a limit, but I also have a little understanding for Draco's. But I do see quite an amount of negativity on this topic. And I got to say, I think some of these people see it as a really big deal to express your opinion. They see it as another argument. And the reason I think that is because they see the rules for epressing they're opinions about this. I voted "kind" of because I'm kind of neutral about this.

Guys! In the Balto series fthe dogs DO have ethics! They follow laws and such. if they didn't Steele would have gotten away with his crime but he didn't, did he? No. In movies and books about animals, DOGS HAVE EHTICS!

Thank you, Grey Wolf. I can't seem to find Draco's posts here, though.

Exactly. Thanks for the backup, wolfcall. But next time, don't use quite so many caps. A lot of people think it's immature.