For trying to do the right thing...

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, I think the communication jam comes in where some people get their deepest and most profound pleasures from things that aren't sex (which may even be 10x better - I know, it'll probably sound either really far-fetched or fruity to some people).

I don't think it sounds awkward at all. I think we should all revel in what gives us meaning and pleasure, and to deny ourselves is completely wrong. I hate denying myself,that is what I am trying to get at: life is meant to be lived!

it's called "ethics"

Ethics? Trying to argue ethics is like trying to argue for the existence of God; its very possible that they do not exist. Biological proofs of some sort of ethical reasoning do not substantiate the vast majority of ethical doctrines; many of them are just people trying to reason their defeatist attitudes. Life-denial as a wise man once put it.

"Ethics", as philosophers have argued over for many centuries, is almost a mute subject; many moral philosophers have a hard time figuring out exactly what is ethical. Its not ethical for him not to do this cheating broad; its just a made up self denial.

There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.

or

Many a peacock hides his peacock tail from all eyes—and calls it his pride

Both great quotes

Dionysian instincts are there for a reason. Attempting to circumvent them is a recipe for a life not lived.

Well, obviously one set of objective ethics doesn't "exist". But they do exist in the sense that many people work out ethics for themselves. And generally it's agreed that it's unethical to have sex with someone who's committed to someone else and not in an open relationship. But again you're right, that can't be "proven".



According to his and my ethics, it is.



A Nietzschean, eh? Nietzsche was pretty funny, but he was also nuts.

As he said, "Eyes to see, Ears to hear"

Attack the message, not the messenger.

Nietzsche meant himself to be funny. He was very sarcastic, and even playful sometimes.

Right, but if there is no objective basis, who is to say that one ethical doctrine is better than another? It would seem ambiguity would be the best candidate for something that is correct; its validity resides in the fact that everything else can be disproved. Thats a horrible thing! No one has ever been able to solve the "Transvaluation of all Values", but I hope that one day a philosopher will come by and show us a true objective morality. Probably won't happen though.

I could always say "According to my ethics, its okay to kill people", and that would be just as valid.

Also, just because something is agreed to be morally incorrect by the majority of people, does not give it any clout. The shifting moral zeitgeist, if moved about 200 years back, would mean the majority of people approved of slavery! Its not a good argument for an objective morality.

You see right past me though ;D I just pretty much borrow most my arguments from him. If you had sex with her, no telling what could of happened. Might of been a new life experience. Live life

Last edited by Kalister1 on 19 Jan 2008, 8:29 pm, edited 4 times in total.

dunno how much you're friends with him... but if he finds out you knew what she was like when she does cheat on him in the future... he might hold it against you.