Subject 1 (9:47:34 PM): what's your source of ethics?
Auto Response from Subject 2 (9:47:34 PM): I have to find you... tell you I need you......
Let's go back to the start
Subject 2 returned at 9:58:05 PM.
Subject 2 (9:58:13 PM): my source of ethics?
Subject 2 (9:58:32 PM): now do u differentiate between ethics and morals?
Subject 1 (9:58:59 PM): Not sure, they seem to be generally the same thing. google time...
Subject 2 (9:59:02 PM): lol
Subject 2 (9:59:06 PM): someone says ethics are learned
Subject 2 (9:59:10 PM): morals are inherent
Subject 2 (9:59:22 PM): hence why it's bu
Subject 2 (9:59:31 PM): 'business ethics' and not 'business morals' etc...
Subject 1 (10:01:18 PM): It appears to vary depending on who you ask/read.
Subject 2 (10:01:21 PM): lol
Subject 2 (10:01:25 PM): well on that, then
Subject 2 (10:01:50 PM): i learned them from my parents/family, from the generally good parts/laws of society, my own standards, religion plays a part
Subject 1 (10:03:24 PM): interesting, but how did you decide which ones were good, and which weren't?
Subject 2 (10:04:41 PM): personal standards
Subject 2 (10:04:42 PM): lol
Subject 2 (10:04:50 PM): and mostly, if it's not publicly admitted, s'not good
Subject 2 (10:04:50 PM): lol
Subject 1 (10:04:56 PM): And all I can get on the distinction, is that they're essentially the same thing, but from different roots (greek and latin)
Subject 2 (10:05:33 PM): well some ppl differentiate, lol. i never did
Subject 1 (10:06:14 PM): do you think there's anything inherently good about any of them, or that their 'goodness' is externally defined, and even mutable in social context?
Subject 2 (10:06:36 PM): meaning?
Subject 1 (10:09:24 PM): do you think that any or all of the ethics you've adopted are intrinsically good, or that they are good because that is the general consensus? ie, do you think that it is invariably good to refrain from murder (except possibly in defense of self or others), or that this is dependent on circumstance and/or the values of the society?
Subject 2 (10:09:46 PM): murder is one I think that is inherently programmed, aside from sociopathy
Subject 2 (10:10:04 PM): thinking in evolutionary terms-- it does no benefit to kill of another human in terms of fitness
Subject 2 (10:10:17 PM): partly because mates are numerous and we mostly practice monogamy
Subject 2 (10:10:28 PM): and secondly because society would shun you and ud lose out on any potential mates, lol
Subject 2 (10:10:35 PM): so we're selecting for peaceful people
Subject 2 (10:10:45 PM): but that is a very scientific approac
Subject 2 (10:10:46 PM): h
Subject 2 (10:10:48 PM): lol
Subject 1 (10:12:36 PM): sure it could be beneficial: murdering others can increase the resources available to yourself. And whether society would shun you for it may depend on whether they participated in it, or whether they thought it was in their interest. The best groups are not necessarily the largest, and some 'pruning' could at time be useful, no?
Subject 2 (10:13:07 PM): no, but fitness (not fit, theresa diff) in strictly in terms of reproduction
Subject 2 (10:13:15 PM): and murder does not increase your chances of reproduction
Subject 1 (10:15:13 PM): murder all the males, and there's a chance I'm both the most fit, mentally and/or physically, and I'll have all the females to myself. Likewise, these females could do quite a bit, if not all, the work the men did, AND there would be more natural resources per capita, including for the inevitable (I would hope) new offspring.
(unless of course, they go the way of the lesbian lizards)
Subject 1 (10:15:35 PM): (in which case I'm [sadly] NOT fucked, but fucked all the same...)
Subject 1 (10:15:55 PM): (ie, schrödinger's fucked...)
Subject 2 (10:16:06 PM): yes, but the energy expenditure you'd have trying to murder all males would probably leave you unable to mate, especially if you died in the process
Subject 2 (10:16:13 PM): it's more beneficial to peacefully find a mate
Subject 1 (10:18:37 PM): that depends on the size of the population. If the population concerned is a few hundred on some number of acres, it would not be too considerable an expenditure. You're also assuming it all would have to be done at once, but the expenditure could be spread over time such that the net is still the same, but the average is lower. Further, ratios could be far enough off (eg, via sex-related disease) that (in this example) females could be a rare commodity.
Subject 2 (10:19:07 PM): but they arent
Subject 2 (10:19:09 PM): lol
Subject 2 (10:19:13 PM): you werent asking a hypothetical
Subject 1 (10:19:17 PM): yes, I was
Subject 2 (10:19:20 PM): but even if that were true-- ur showing that murder is inherent
Subject 1 (10:19:41 PM): why is it inherent? just because it seemed like the thing to do?
Subject 2 (10:19:42 PM): because nature would select for the murderous males because theyd be more likely to mate with more women-- greater fitness
Subject 1 (10:19:52 PM): aha
Subject 2 (10:20:04 PM): ?
Subject 1 (10:20:49 PM): but then we throw competing groups into the equation...
(the 'aha' was acknowledgement that you answered the question)
Subject 2 (10:21:06 PM): lol
Subject 1 (10:23:58 PM): examples: Lions. Males tend to compete to be the sole male in the pride (though the women, generally, do not), and
Wolves. Several males and females, arranged in a hierarchy.
Both are approximately equally successful, but different ethics (as it were) of murder (murder, for this discussion, only regarding others of the same species).
Subject 2 (10:24:39 PM): (we were only talking humans)
Subject 2 (10:24:44 PM): and murder refers to murdering in cold blood
Subject 2 (10:24:46 PM): does it not?
Subject 1 (10:25:50 PM): indeed, but I was making a distinction between (for, eg, a human) murdering another human, and murdering a cow.
Subject 2 (10:26:02 PM): lol
Subject 2 (10:26:15 PM): but s'not murder in that case, lol, ur doing it to eat
Subject 2 (10:26:17 PM): lol
Subject 2 (10:26:27 PM): that's killing
Subject 1 (10:26:28 PM): As for why I used other species in a topic relating to humans, it has to do with the evolutionary argument
Subject 2 (10:26:32 PM): haha sematnics, yay!!
Subject 2 (10:26:38 PM): semantics*
Subject 1 (10:26:43 PM): that depends on which tree-huggers you talk to.
Subject 2 (10:28:22 PM): hahaha
Subject 1 (10:28:26 PM): (eg, the popular slogan "meat is murder!")
Subject 2 (10:28:26 PM): notice tree huggers dont hug cows
Subject 2 (10:28:30 PM): meat is edible
Subject 2 (10:28:31 PM): lol
Subject 2 (10:28:40 PM): yet they save plenty of animals that kill for meat
Subject 2 (10:28:40 PM): hahaha
Subject 1 (10:28:43 PM): so are trees.
Subject 1 (10:29:04 PM): yeah, I never said ANYTHING about their sanity...
Subject 2 (10:29:20 PM): hahahahaha
Subject 2 (10:29:20 PM): \
Subject 1 (10:31:30 PM): but back on topic, still holding that an ethical law against murder is evolutionarily beneficial?
Subject 2 (10:33:00 PM): no, u asked if the law wasnt there would we still not do it
Subject 2 (10:33:09 PM): but yea, it is evolutionarily beneficial
Subject 2 (10:33:14 PM): it weeds out aggressors, in a way
Subject 2 (10:33:17 PM): and preserves the species
Subject 1 (10:34:58 PM): No, I asked if it was inherently good, or defined by circumstance and the norms of society. (though whether we're programmed for it, or would tend towards it, is an interesting topic).
::takes a quick look at the rap sheets:: say again?
Subject 2 (10:35:10 PM): lol
Subject 2 (10:35:15 PM): we are inherently good, I think
Subject 1 (10:35:17 PM): And I believe I got that last one the working model of the lions
Subject 2 (10:35:27 PM): although we got in to a discussion on child abuse the other day
Subject 2 (10:35:52 PM): and did you know that statistics show a SIGNIFICANT portion of child abuse is by step fathers to their spouse's children from another man?
Subject 1 (10:36:16 PM): No, but neither am I surprised.
Subject 2 (10:36:26 PM): i wasnt surprised
Subject 1 (10:36:32 PM): evolutionarily, they have less inherent worth to the guy.
Subject 2 (10:36:35 PM): but for things like that, i mean, it was negating all other variables
Subject 2 (10:36:40 PM): income, etc...
Subject 2 (10:36:53 PM): you'd figure somewhere down the line, after all these years, that some factor could affect that
Subject 1 (10:36:57 PM): kinda like fine porcelain, or a paper plate. much more careful about one than the other.
Subject 2 (10:37:01 PM): true
Subject 1 (10:38:31 PM): Some factors DO affect it. While the greater part of child abuse may be conducted in such relations, it may be, on a whole, less than it would otherwise be.
Subject 2 (10:38:47 PM): no, but i mean
Subject 2 (10:38:59 PM): it wasnt like, it decreased in level for stepfathers with more money
Subject 2 (10:39:02 PM): or of a different race
Subject 2 (10:39:04 PM): that didnt lower it
Subject 2 (10:39:09 PM): it was just... random
Subject 2 (10:39:09 PM): lol
Subject 1 (10:40:49 PM): ah. That I do find interesting to a degree. It is also possible that the tendancy may be inherent (I'm getting to use that a lot lately. whee!) in the person, so whether the paper plate is red or blue, or paper or plastic, may not matter so much as that it is not porcelain. (how's that for stretching an analogy?)
Subject 1 (10:41:39 PM): Did you notice if there were any correlations with whether the children were at some point adopted by the non-blood father?
Subject 2 (10:43:02 PM): i dont remember the entire discussion
Subject 2 (10:43:07 PM): ill have to look up the details he gave us
Subject 1 (10:45:07 PM): oh well. Anyway, my hypothesis is that such a circumstance may correlate with a decrease in occurence (though it may still be higher than the blood fathers), because it may signify a greater valuation of the children. This could be offset, however, by social or personal pressure (eg, the spouse)
Subject 2 (10:45:20 PM): i dont think adoption made a difference
Subject 2 (10:45:32 PM): it was completely that the child wasnt a genetic relative
Subject 1 (10:47:03 PM): how would you know if it wasn't taken into account?
Subject 2 (10:50:11 PM): lol i dont remember
Subject 2 (10:50:14 PM): id hafta look up the notes
Subject 2 (10:50:18 PM): it was a random convo one day
Subject 1 (10:50:24 PM): ah.
Subject 1 (10:53:48 PM): Do you think laws that defy your ethics should be disobeyed?
Subject 2 (10:54:48 PM): that is by circumstance... but id draw the line at "it personally effects me".... meaning if i were anti abortion, it can still be legal, but if it were "murder for self defense is illegal" id still kill some guy that points a guy at my head, lol
Subject 1 (10:55:49 PM): what if he points a handsome guy at you?
Subject 2 (10:55:56 PM): hahahahahahaha
Subject 2 (10:56:02 PM): then id prolly hug him, haha
Subject 1 (10:57:08 PM): Ok, so what if it were made illegal to be a brunette? Doesn't really affect you, since you be blonde..
Subject 2 (10:57:24 PM): lol that doesnt violate my ethics
Subject 2 (10:57:26 PM): but it IS stupid
Subject 2 (10:57:35 PM): and, unfortunately, being stupid isnt unethical
Subject 2 (10:57:36 PM): haha
Subject 1 (11:00:19 PM): hmm....maybe it should be....ok, thoughts of suits for spilling coffee on yourself being cause for you to go to jail aside, what about another:
making being Jewish, or Buddhist, illegal, you being a good christian and all?
Subject 1 (11:01:01 PM): Though I should prolly rephrase the original question given the examples I'm using.
Nah, better use better examples...
Subject 1 (11:01:06 PM): (one moment)
Subject 2 (11:01:40 PM): if one made religion illegal, that's personally affecting, id practice anyway
Subject 2 (11:01:40 PM): lol
Subject 2 (11:01:49 PM): but u see the diff?
Subject 1 (11:03:05 PM): No, because in both instances, NEITHER is personally affecting to you, since the options that were made illegal were specifically chosen to NOT be you.
Subject 1 (11:03:22 PM): ah, unless you mean religion vs. the examples I gave
Subject 1 (11:03:28 PM): in which case, yes.
Subject 2 (11:03:45 PM): i mean, that where i buddhist, id practice anyway
Subject 2 (11:03:52 PM): were*
Subject 1 (11:07:34 PM): Anyway, I've been (poorly, in hindsight) to lead into:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Subject 2 (11:08:00 PM): very nice
Subject 1 (11:08:29 PM): - Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)
Subject 2 (11:08:44 PM): that's good
Subject 1 (11:09:37 PM): yeah, well, first the came for the brunettes...
Subject 1 (11:09:40 PM): *they
Subject 2 (11:10:15 PM): lol
Subject 2 (11:10:22 PM): i didnt say i wouldnt speak out against it
Subject 2 (11:10:25 PM): just that I wouldnt violate it
Subject 2 (11:10:26 PM): big diff
Subject 1 (11:10:53 PM): indeed. Which is why I said I needed to rework either the examples or the question.
Subject 2 (11:11:10 PM): lol
Subject 2 (11:11:15 PM): rather ask
Subject 2 (11:11:31 PM): "if you knew a law was unethical, but it didnt directly affect you, would you still try to change it?"
Subject 1 (11:13:58 PM): perhaps. But most people would say yes, whether or not they actually follow through, because they may have different views of how to go about changing it. I was looking more to things along the line of the underground railroad type of defiance of the law.
Subject 2 (11:14:34 PM): lol
Subject 1 (11:15:51 PM): So, seeing what I meant, what would you say?
Subject 2 (11:16:03 PM): underground rebellion? if i believed in the cause, yea
Subject 2 (11:16:16 PM): id pass wigs to brunettes, haha
Subject 1 (11:18:38 PM): but then we come to another dilemma: red, blonde, white, or purple? ô.o these are the decisions upon which FUTURES are staked!
Subject 2 (11:18:56 PM): :-)
Subject 2 (11:18:58 PM): indeed
Subject 1 (11:22:42 PM): and if they were going to arrest you for it? armed rebellion, or just go with it?
Subject 1 (11:22:50 PM): (or something else, of course)
Subject 2 (11:22:57 PM): um... peaceful protest
Subject 2 (11:23:03 PM): MLK Jr said it best, baybay
Subject 2 (11:23:04 PM): lol
Subject 1 (11:23:30 PM): quote(s)?
Subject 1 (11:24:23 PM): and what if the penalty were more than just a short time in jail? perhaps life, or the loss of it?
Subject 2 (11:24:49 PM): um, if we were talking about something more serious than hair, perhaps
Subject 1 (11:27:56 PM): substitute the persecution of choice.
Subject 2 (11:28:41 PM): lol
Subject 2 (11:28:44 PM): perhaps
Subject 2 (11:28:45 PM): lol
Subject 2 (11:28:49 PM): im human, i wont die for much
Subject 2 (11:28:49 PM): lol
Subject 1 (11:29:21 PM): the essence comes to this: would you die for your ethics? only some of them? none?
Subject 2 (11:32:59 PM): some
Subject 2 (11:35:15 PM): lol
Subject 2 (11:35:17 PM): odd i know
Subject 1 (11:35:18 PM): Do you know which ones?
Subject 2 (11:35:26 PM): not off the top of my head
Subject 1 (11:37:30 PM): Not really. Some just aren't worth it considering they're results. Eg, I value humans more than dogs, and though I think it unethical to mistreat a dog, if I were given the choice between saving the dog and myself dying, or know the dog suffered a cruel death or continued suffering, and myself live, I would choose the latter.
Subject 2 (11:37:57 PM): true
Subject 1 (11:41:08 PM): I'd be in a bit of a dilemma if I had to choose between myself and another human though, or even a group of humans. (ideally of course, this wouldn't happen, but...)
How would you choose?
Subject 2 (11:42:12 PM): i dunno
Subject 2 (11:42:14 PM): depends on the cause
Subject 1 (11:44:19 PM): to be dramatic - death, on someone's arbitrary say-so, for one of the groups.
Subject 1 (11:44:31 PM): Volunteers accepted
Subject 2 (11:46:22 PM): lol
Subject 1 (11:47:55 PM): Is it a personal ethic of yours to not get drunk/otherwise intoxicated on foreign substances?
Subject 2 (11:48:02 PM): it's not an ethic
Subject 2 (11:48:05 PM): i just dont do it
Subject 1 (11:48:16 PM): because?
Subject 2 (11:48:51 PM): other substances-- are illegal, they do no good, only harm
Subject 2 (11:49:04 PM): alcohol- i dont want to be so drunk i get sick or cant remember stuff or act like an ass
Subject 2 (11:49:12 PM): and i dont like the taste of most alcohols anyway
Subject 2 (11:49:25 PM): alcohols meaning vodka, beer, etc... s'all ethanol
Subject 2 (11:49:26 PM): lol
Subject 1 (11:50:32 PM): do you think those "other substances" should be illegal?
Subject 2 (11:50:48 PM): yes
Subject 2 (11:51:10 PM): one of my democratic traits is when you know society will only fuck itself over in an aspect, u try and prevent it
Subject 2 (11:51:15 PM): lol
Subject 1 (11:52:22 PM): lol, nice way to put that (and I AM going to come back to it), but how about alcohol?
Subject 2 (11:52:33 PM): i thought it was well worded
Subject 2 (11:53:02 PM): we will never outlaw alcohol, but if we did it wouldnt hurt
Subject 2 (11:53:09 PM): but alcohol isnt detrimental in moderation
Subject 2 (11:53:14 PM): so why make it illegal? no real reason
Subject 2 (11:53:49 PM): i think cigarrettes should go, first
Subject 2 (11:53:54 PM): lol. theyre disgusting and do no good
Subject 1 (11:54:22 PM): and marijuana, often lauded to be as harmless, or nearly so, as alcohol?
Subject 2 (11:54:34 PM): marijuana isnt harmless
Subject 2 (11:54:45 PM): thats bullshit, im tired of people buying it
Subject 2 (11:55:05 PM): it does NO good, impairs judgement, they find traces of the THC in user's bodies 20 yrs after theyve stopped using... how the hell is that healthy? lol
Subject 2 (11:55:14 PM): alcohol in moderation doesnt impair memory, pot does
Subject 2 (11:55:23 PM): you cant smoke "just a little pot" and not get high
Subject 2 (11:55:28 PM): sorry, it's a big issue for me
Subject 2 (11:55:54 PM): pot has tons more carcinogens than cigs, is mentally addictive (not physically, albeit), and ppl are always like "cigarretes are more harmful than pot" BULL. lol
Subject 2 (11:56:39 PM): again, sorry
Subject 1 (11:56:43 PM): no prob, I like the long responses, esp. the ones that are well-supported.
Subject 2 (11:56:46 PM): it's always funny when people touch a nerve
Subject 2 (11:56:51 PM): lol this one is
Subject 2 (11:57:09 PM): and on the idea of medicinal marijuana use?
Subject 2 (11:57:12 PM): i used to support it
Subject 2 (11:57:35 PM): then i discovered that there are 13 naturally occurring cannabinoids in plants, 4 in the human body, and that we can synthetically create them
Subject 2 (11:57:53 PM): -- you can have the same affects medicinally without the side affects of pot-- no need to legalize it
Subject 1 (11:57:53 PM): (speaking of medicinal, is morphine still legal?)
Subject 1 (11:58:03 PM): really? interesting...
Subject 2 (11:58:08 PM): yes it is, with monitoring. as it should be-- overdoses kill
Subject 1 (12:02:04 AM): Now, back to that oh-so-interestingly-put statement....
Does that only apply to society as a whole, or to individual persons as well?
Subject 2 (12:02:14 AM): what do you mean?
Subject 1 (12:04:05 AM): Do you think a person should be restricted from, say, being homosexual, because it's not in the best interests of society? Or their own best interests, whatever you may think them to be?
Subject 1 (12:04:31 AM): or the mentally deficient from procreating?
Subject 2 (12:04:33 AM): homosexuality doesnt affect society, i dont think its my business whatsoever
Subject 2 (12:04:38 AM): mental deficiency isnt genetic
Subject 2 (12:04:43 AM): and no, i dont believe in genetic cleansing
Subject 1 (12:04:54 AM): sorry, it was meant to read genetically deficient
Subject 2 (12:05:04 AM): see above
Subject 2 (12:05:31 AM): ex-- arent we seeing the incredibly untapped talents of autism? which many people would choose to eradicate?
Subject 2 (12:05:35 AM): or rather, beginning to see*
Subject 2 (12:05:49 AM): i meant social aspects of health or status, mostly
Subject 2 (12:05:56 AM): as in, you need a leg up, there are food stamps
Subject 2 (12:06:13 AM): i dont believe in welfare as it stands, in that im slightly more republican, but i believe in the principle
Subject 2 (12:06:14 AM): etc...
Subject 2 (12:06:20 AM): but ive g2g to bed, we'll discuss this later