Well, it seems like you want to go head to head and discuss philosophy. Even though I am dead busy, yet in between my work, I shall find time to do an official formal debate.
I realize you are busy, as I am. You are busy with the operations of the website, while I am busy with putting little Koon Baches in their place. Jokes aside, I knew this would be too interesting a topic for you to pass up, and I appreciate your taking time and effort to invest into it. I am more than happy to have a discussion on the topic with you. However, I would like to clarify that I do not view this as a debate, but as a discussion. A debate would involve arguing two opposing sides. I don’t think that we are necessarily arguing opposing sides, but instead having an in depth discussion on the matter. Therefore, I call this a discussion, and not a debate.
I say, Let’s go one on one, but if some worthy member wants to input an opinion, then let them include; however, if some retard, degenerate or Bache Kun would interfere with this thread to post Bull Shiite, then right away we delete the post and kick him out of IPC in one shot. As Lib says: “Some just ask for it to be banned!” In other words, kill the mother without any trial! What do you say?
Agreed. I see no need to restrict this discussion to just the two of us. I would welcome input by others regarding the subject. In fact, the more input the better. My purpose is not to drive my opinion as the prevailing one, but to understand how others have struggled to define and understand morality. I also agree that if a Bache Kooni or similar degenerate wants to come in here and ruin the thread, that his comments should be removed into an alternative post. If you wish to completely delete it, that’s your choice, and I have no problem with it. Either way, let’s not allow this topic to turn into a circus.
So I have given you first the definition and second the examples. Now, some of my examples such as nationalism, are not according to your standards, and qualify for Moral examples. Some of my examples maybe symbolic but I have a reason to include them!
My criticism of your nationalistic examples was not a criticism of the examples themselves, but in their categorization. I would also ask others to follow those patriotic examples, but would not cite morality as its justification. There are some overlaps of morality and nationalism, but I do not believe that nationalism is all-inclusive within morality. Nationalism is among other things a call to uphold and protect one’s extended society. It calls for the greater beneficence of that society, and in that respect morality and nationalism have common ground. However, I believe that nationalism goes beyond that simple request, and at other times may be in conflict with morality. Therefore, I do not accept that a call to morality necessarily involves a call to nationalism. For that reason, I say that your examples of nationalism do not belong within your examples of morality, even though I like your examples of nationalism and would encourage all to uphold them.
We may be speaking of morality, but allow me to also clarify that I do not hold morality to be the only important issue in the broader sense of existence. Morality is perhaps one of the most important issues, but not the only issue. This will become more apparent later in the discussion.
Perhaps one of those issues is nationalism. What do you think?
An issue or act may be viewed from a moral perspective, as with any other perspective. Logically, there can be three possibilities. The first outcome is for it to be viewed as “moral,” or in accordance with one’s accepted notion of morality. The second outcome is for it to be viewed as “immoral,” or in direct conflict with one’s accepted notion of morality. The third, and less realized possibility is for it to be viewed as “amoral.” Many will erroneously interpret the word “amoral” to be the equivalent of “immoral.” I suppose it depends on how one defines the word “amoral.” Many will define it as the absence of morality, and therefore view it as the equivalent of “immoral.” Others, such as myself, define it as moral neutrality, neither in accordance with nor in contradiction to one’s accepted notion of morality.
One may hold that moral neutrality cannot exist. This claim may be true for some people, but it depends on how one defines morality. If one defines morality in such a rigid and specific way as to exclude all acts that are not in accordance with that specific definition to be immoral, then amoral acts by default also become immoral acts, and amorality becomes synonymous with immorality. Most fundamental religious philosophies actually do so.
You may be wondering why I am bothering to expand upon the issue of amorality. That’s because I find it relevant to the statement I made earlier, that morality and immorality are not all-inclusive of all notions and acts, and that there are other issues of importance outside the realm of morality. Some of these concepts may be irrelevant to morality, and so they are morally neutral.
According to my definition of morality (which you will get a chance to scrutinize later), parts of nationalism are moral, others are immoral, while others still are amoral. Therefore, as a whole I see nationalism as not bound by morality. Perhaps you see it otherwise, and define morality in such a way that nationalism becomes embedded with morality. If so, I am anxious to hear your definition, and see how nationalism subsequently becomes wedded to morality.
Morality means different things to different people. Moral examples are also different to different folks.
Correct you are. The concept of morality is very much subjective. It is for that precise reason that it is also so elusive. You will not find a discussion by numerous people on the length of a meter, for instance. That’s because the concept of “length of a meter” has been precisely defined in an objective way that everyone will agree. No variation exists. There is no room for subjectivity. Morality, however, is very much subjective.
But before I go further with this, why don’t you tell me what is your definition and examples?
First, let me start with your request for “examples.” In order to avoid redundancy, I will not give any examples because you have already done that. I suppose I could give examples, but most would be similar to yours (with the exception of your examples of nationalism). You see, my point was not that your examples are incorrect or that I do not agree with them, but that examples as a whole are not adequate in order to define a concept. Suffice it to say that I like your examples, and if I chose to define morality via examples, that mine would essentially be the same.
Second, with regard to my definition of morality, you will get it soon enough. I suppose I could just blurt it out right now, but then the fun would end. This is my first reply in this post, and to say everything now would not leave much else to talk about in subsequent posts. You show up to dinner and want to gulp down the main course as soon as you arrive? Come; let’s take our coats off first. Let’s have some tea. Let’s see the menu. Let’s have an appetizer or two first. You will get your Chelo Kabab Koubideh soon enough.
Now, I think you are perhaps confusing what I said with what L said. It is true that I was critical of your “fashion show” and the “horoscope section,” but not for alleged immorality. My criticism of the horoscope section was mainly for its intellectual poverty and antagonism to what I perceived was your intent to enlighten and educate your readers. You gave a justification for it, and I saw it as adequate. My criticism of the “fashion show” was not that you were behaving immorally because of the sexual content of that spread (spread…Ha Ha…I kill myself). My criticism was:
1. That you were calling it something that it obviously is not. If you put a sexually suggestive photo on the site, at least call it what it is. Don’t try to disguise it as art.
2. While I find nothing wrong with sex and sexuality in general, I find it in poor taste when it is mixed with material that was intended to be non-sexual in nature, such as the quest for history, philosophy, news, or politics (well, maybe not politics). My point was that people coming to IPC are usually not looking for porno at that time, and most probably do not appreciate having it shoved down their throats.
So you see, morality or immorality had nothing to do with my objections on the two topics. Practicality, purpose, and taste were the driving forces, and not morality. Those matters are closed as far as I am concerned, and I do not wish to refocus upon them now in this thread, and I do not see a link between them and morality. However, I understand why you brought them up. Sexuality is always mixed up with morality, thanks to religion, and you may have extrapolated that my objections were moral in nature in protest of sexuality. I assure you, that was not the case. In fact, I think that sexuality ought to be divorced from morality.
Because I believe “Ends” justifies the “Means”. So this is just a “Tactic” to Achieve the “Strategy”. What is the strategy?
To Provide Mass Readership for IPC
To provide Mass Advertisers for IPC
To Jump Start The Moral Revolution
To Jump start The Political Revolution
“By All Means Possible”
I recall we had a similar discussion a while back, regarding the ends and the means. I understand that you believe that the ends justify the means. Fair enough. I could accept that you hold that notion, as do many other logical people. I sometimes may even agree with the ends justifying the means, although usually I do not.
However, in this statement you have provided a very crucial inclusion. That is: “To jump start the moral revolution.” All the other statements I can accept, but this one provides a problem, does it not?
How can you possibly start a moral revolution “by all means possible?” What is a moral revolution, if not a call to adherence to your notion (or even the populace’s notion) of morality?
You have not yet defined morality as far as I am concerned, but you have given some examples. Allow me to ask a question. If “by all means possible” involves direct disregard for some or all of those examples you cited, what becomes of this “moral revolution” which you wish to achieve?
If, for example, one of your examples of morality is to not lie, but in order to achieve your “moral revolution” you and your colleagues must tell lies, have you really achieved a “moral revolution?” What kind of moral revolution have you really achieved, if not a farce?
It becomes similar to the paradoxical request of “you must always tell lies, in order to never tell lies.”
but even having a few million Dead Islamists as Casualties of War to overthrow IRI is not a bit of a moral dilemma for me!
Well then, I suppose that depends on how you define morality.
I like your vision, but I believe that it is a separate matter from morality. Unless of course, you view morality in such a way that the issues become mixed, in which case I am more than interested to hear that argument.
When Xerxes punished Greeks for interference in internal affairs of the Persian Empire and agitating the Greek citizens of Anatolia to separate from the Empire, and when Xerxes returned the favor (destruction of Sardis in Anatolia by Greeks) via burning down Athens to the grounds, he did not have a moral dilemma!
I doubt that any of us can truly know Xerxes’ mental state at the time, since no record of his philosophical ponders exist. Perhaps he did have a dilemma, but made a choice to go ahead and burn it down anyways. However, judging by his goal and actions, this in unlikely, and your assertion is probably correct. Nevertheless, using the actions of a particular politician or monarch, whether from current times or times of long ago, makes for a poor justification of morality or acceptable behavior.
Perhaps the Greeks had it coming to them and deserved what they received. Whether such an action was wise or moral, however, is a different matter. Now that you bring it up, overall I view Xerxes as a magnificent figure and take great pride in his rule in Iran. However, his burning of Athens is an act for which I am ashamed. As you know, two wrong acts do not make for a right. Vengeance is not a virtue, and it usually begets more vengeance.
As you know, when Gay Boy Alex invaded Iran, one major driving force for his burning of Persepolis was revenge for what Xerxes did to Athens. There are no winners in destruction and revenge. This, of course, is an issue aside from morality itself. One may argue that Xerxes’ act was immoral, and must be condemned based on that reason alone. I would hold that in addition to that, his act was illogical, as it offered Iran little or no benefit, while resulting in a potentially avertable disaster that befell its beloved city of a jewel more than a century later. Revenge for the purpose of revenge is illogical.
Greeks needed to be taught a lesson to not stick their nose in Persian affairs no more.
Of course you know that Alex the Gay gave the same reason right before he burned Persepolis, substituting the words Persians for Greeks, and Greek for Persian.
You see, the nation has gone beyond degeneration and way off course. Nothing can bring it back but a major “Change” and I mean major!
I agree with you on that. The question is, what is that “change,” and how do we go about bringing it on? How far can we go, what is realistic, and what type of sacrifice is deemed an acceptable one?
Major Change takes major Balls. Major Change takes Kheshayari (Xerxesi), Aqa Mohamad Khani, Naderi and Reza Khani Balls. Major Change to absolutely delete the past 28 years, like Reza Khan had done in 1925, takes Balls.
Yes, I am aware of your fascination with balls. No doubt, testicles will be needed for the task. However, if balls dictate everything, then screwing will become the national pastime. It will take more than just balls. Brains will be needed, and unfortunately they are in short supply. Also, a certain level of heart and compassion will be needed, and that is in even shorter supply.
This Change is not easy. This change will take a major bloodshed.
Unfortunately, I believe you. I certainly do not welcome such bloodshed, but I realize that given the current stranglehold that the IR has on Iran, it will not let go without force. The tenaciousness of religious fervor that has been instilled in the minds of the fanatics will result in their own destruction, whether people such as myself welcome it or not. Furthermore, the decades of abuse of the people will undoubtedly unleash a wave of vengeance by the tormented upon their tormentors. I do not condone such action, though I realize that it will be the reality of the matter.
To align myself with Christian Fundamentalists in GOP is worst than eating Shiite and die!
Isn’t it though?
Whether one bows to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other religion, fundamentally it is all the same. Christianity is the same shit as Islam; it just comes covered with whipped cream in order to mask the flavor.
Why don’t you tell me what is your definition and examples?
As an atheist, what are you basis for morality?
What is morality?
What are your examples?
What are the proper, scientific and logical answers to above questions?
I will answer these questions, and more. However, let us for now enjoy the smell of the Kabab, and have some Mast-o-Khiar and some Kashk Bademjan. Pass the Dolmeh, please.
For now, tell me your thoughts on what I have said so far. In my second or third reply, I will get to the meat of the matter and answer these burning questions.
PS – I will be out of town for the next couple of weeks. I’m visiting Tehran Geles. I’ll try to continue the discussion from there, but if I don’t get back to you quickly enough, please be patient. The wife gets particularly annoyed when I spend time on the computer when we are on vacation.
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam