Right and Wrong

[Hababi]

How do you determine what's right and what's wrong, both for individuals and a society? And how do you relate that to laws?

[GreyHam]

how do i personally do it, or how 'generally' should it be done?

The foundings of my sense of morality obviously come from a combination of biblical teaching and British law, although my core principles come down to:

treat people as you want to be treated
respect the autonomy of man

everything spins from that. i dont agree with every law that exists and some of them i will happily break in the comfort of my own home, but these are generally laws that i feel conflict with what ive said above.

[Hababi]

how do i personally do it, or how 'generally' should it be done?

Both :p

[PerpetualBurn]

Every day I recite scripture from the Lord's good book.

[T_L_H]

Every day I recite scripture from the Lord's good book.

:rolleyes:

For me, I get my sense of right and wrong, morals, and ethics from the Bible, (Call me archaic. I frankly don't care.) and then specified, or furthed, by the Holy Spirit. In a perfect society, this would also be how you determine what is right and wrong, but unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. So, I think the way to determine what right and wrong for a society would be to see what hurts others, and define that as "wrong" and build our laws around making sure that those who do "wrong" or hurt others are punished.

[PerpetualBurn]

Bible!?!?!

I was talking about the Koran, you heathen.

[T_L_H]

Bible!?!?!

I was talking about the Koran, you heathen.

I never inplied that it was the Bible. I simply :rolleyes:ed at your sarcasm.
Oh, and isn't the correct word your looking for infidel?

[PerpetualBurn]

I never inplied that it was the Bible.

Okay, but the explicit mentioning of the Bible was what led to my hilarious sarcasm.


Oh, and isn't the correct word your looking for infidel?

No.

[Dr Hooch]

Will of the majority, rights of the minority.

[VomitStainedCretin]

At heart I'm an Emotivist - i.e. ethical statements are just expressions of approval/disapproval - but I consider a utilitarian approach (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) to be more practical when ethical issues, e.g. euthanasia, are at stake.

[gregulus]

treat people as you want to be treated


That's a flawed philosophy. Not everyone wants to be treated the same.

Right and wrong is a very grey subject. I'd like to say that right and wrong comes directly from rationally thinking through the subject using facts, logic, and reason. However, holding the whole of society to such requirements is extremely idealistic.

Since I am sort of disillusioned by the blatant idiocy I see in society, I think that certain acts of morality should be left up to the individual. Laws completely banning the "grey" issues could quite possibly cause more harm than good. However, the more cut and dry issues like rape, murder, armed robbery, etc are justifiably prohibited by laws.

[Hababi]

Will of the majority, rights of the minority.

What would those be?

[lfantwister]

basic ones like security and autonomy of person to start; society-oriented ones like the ability to choose as well

[PerpetualBurn]

At heart I'm an Emotivist - i.e. ethical statements are just expressions of approval/disapproval - but I consider a utilitarian approach (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) to be more practical when ethical issues, e.g. euthanasia, are at stake.

Utilitarianism is pretty crappy since it pretty much just rapes individual rights. Unless you go for some kind of rule utilitarianism, but then if you're going to presuppose a few morals when utilitarianism doesn't suit you, it seems like a pretty shaky way to go.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Utilitarianism is pretty crappy since it pretty much just rapes individual rights. Unless you go for some kind of rule utilitarianism, but then if you're going to presuppose a few morals when utilitarianism doesn't suit you, it seems like a pretty shaky way to go.Well, I wouldn't go for full throttle utilitarianism as I know that has its flaws but a moderate form respecting subjective views would be more pragmatic than throwing morality out completely and judge right/wrong based on what is generally predicted to be the best outcome, not some antiquated scriptures.

[GreyHam]

That's a flawed philosophy. Not everyone wants to be treated the same.



of course they dont, its a very simple concept but its one that generally works in day to day living, and without going into massive details ive yet to see anything better. of course you get the BDSM people who, by that idea, would go around smacking people with 12 inch black rubber cocks, but, thats a bridge ill cross when i come to it...

[Meatplow]

Morality is full of so many grey areas, but as gregulus pointed out there a few cut or dry issues that are rightfully banned as they are harmful to the general good of society.

To determine if something is right or wrong, i look at every side of it i possibly can with the people involved then come to a compromise with a conclusion. In regards to laws i think they should be more pragmatic when it comes to certain issues, such as cases where people intrude into someones home to rape someone, get shot in the arm then end up sueing the people who own the home.

[Reaganista]

How do you determine what's right and what's wrong, both for individuals and a society? And how do you relate that to laws
IM RITE UR RONG!

Utilitarianism is pretty crappy since it pretty much just rapes individual rights. Unless you go for some kind of rule utilitarianism, but then if you're going to presuppose a few morals when utilitarianism doesn't suit you, it seems like a pretty shaky way to go.
not really tho

[GreyHam]

i used to be quite a fan of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number is an ace idea

unless your not part of that number

[AA-12]

To be fair, there is no right or wrong really, as pretty much EVERYTHING has effects in both directions. The only way to really decide if an action is good or bad is asking does this action affect the ability of others to continue their strive for life and happiness in a way they can not avoid.

[Reaganista]

i used to be quite a fan of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number is an ace idea

unless your not part of that number

that's quite a compelling argument that was never addressed by any utilitarians

[Mr. Ron]

How do you determine what's right and what's wrong, both for individuals and a society? And how do you relate that to laws?
Right and wrong is totally subjective and situational. So there's not really an across the board "good and bad" in my mind.

[Mr. Ron]

:rolleyes:

For me, I get my sense of right and wrong, morals, and ethics from the Bible, (Call me archaic. I frankly don't care.) and then specified, or furthed, by the Holy Spirit. In a perfect society, this would also be how you determine what is right and wrong, but unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. So, I think the way to determine what right and wrong for a society would be to see what hurts others, and define that as "wrong" and build our laws around making sure that those who do "wrong" or hurt others are punished.

Appointing what is good or bad based solely on your point of view can be dangerous to others.

[AA-12]

Anything based on Christianity law-wise is a major fail.

[PerpetualBurn]

not really tho

Yeah really though.

[Mr. Ron]

Anything based on Christianity law-wise is a major fail.

Whats the matter with you? You don't like to hurl rocks at hos? Pagan bitch!

[AA-12]

I hurl boulders of Odin fool!

[Reaganista]

Yeah really though.
yeah but not really

[PerpetualBurn]

Expand with specific reference to my original comment.

[GreyHam]

Anything based on Christianity law-wise is a major fail.

what like not killing people, not nicking stuff and not banging your mates missus?

[AA-12]

Yep

[Mr. Ron]

what like not killing people, not nicking stuff and not banging your mates missus?

Well it depends on what kind of POV you have on monotheistic law.

[GreyHam]

im not really concerned with wether these ideas came from God - that is completely irrelevant in my opinion. its more the fact that not every idea that came out of the bible is trash - some of them are fantastic.

[Reaganista]

Expand with specific reference to my original comment.
mill not bentham

[spitfirejunky]

It can be anything depending on how people want to govern society.

[T_L_H]

Appointing what is good or bad based solely on your point of view can be dangerous to others.

Notice that's why I said that for our inperfect society, we need to base our good and bad on what is detremental to others.

[PerpetualBurn]

mill not bentham

Okay now explain how that gets over the problem of arbitrarily presupposing moral absolutes whilst choosing other moral issues to be solved in a utilitarian way.

[Reaganista]

or i guess you could explain where mill does that

[PerpetualBurn]

No I'd rather you made a point to discuss. Otherwise it's just me and a textbook, and that's really not the point of a dicsussion forum.

[Reaganista]

ok my point is he never does that

[Illmatic]

what like not killing people, not nicking stuff and not banging your mates missus?

we shouldn't be creating laws with the mindset that people are born evil

[GreyHam]

i never said we should

but

people kill people

and nick stuff

and bang each others missus'

and those are bad things mkay?

[spitfirejunky]

They're "bad", but not because the Bible said so.

There's a difference between drawing your rights and wrongs from the Bible and agreeing with it.

[Mr. Ron]

i never said we should

but

people kill people

and nick stuff

and bang each others missus'

and those are bad things mkay?
I wouldn't say killing is bad 100%.

[GreyHam]

They're "bad", but not because the Bible said so.

There's a difference between drawing your rights and wrongs from the Bible and agreeing with it.

its not something i agree with BECAUSE the bible says it, but the bible DOES say it and theres a lot of good shi in there. Its a holy book for christians, not for me. theres no divine wisdom in there - just some musings from some bloke that got piled on for some reason, and some groovy war stories.

I wouldn't say killing is bad 100%.

i would, but thats a point thats very subjective so i think its safest to leave it there :thumb:

[Mr. Ron]

Killing in defense is ok in my eyes.

[spitfirejunky]

its not something i agree with BECAUSE the bible says it, but the bible DOES say it and theres a lot of good shi in there. Its a holy book for christians, not for me. theres no divine wisdom in there - just some musings from some bloke that got piled on for some reason, and some groovy war stories.

Well this is exactly the distinction Wotan is making. Basing your rights and wrongs on the Bible implies that you drew them from it.

[AmericanWeiner]

How do you determine what's right and what's wrong, both for individuals and a society? And how do you relate that to laws?

I do not.

Humans naturally place values on whatever strikes them and work towards achieving merit in those values. This statement does not discriminate against any actions.

Societies act on the common values of those in the society.

Laws are the mean of a society's collected values.

[Rosca]

How do you determine what's right and what's wrong, both for individuals and a society? And how do you relate that to laws?

Unless a higher being (such as god) comes down and personally tells us what is right and wrong, we won't know. I agree that certain rules should be set in place, but ultimatley we won't know it is right or wrong.

[lfantwister]

Unless a higher being (such as god) comes down and personally tells us what is right and wrong, we won't know. I agree that certain rules should be set in place, but ultimatley we won't know it is right or wrong.

except that we make up right and wrong. So whatever we say it is is necessarily right (or wrong)

[Hababi]

except that we make up right and wrong. So whatever we say it is is necessarily right (or wrong)

What do you mean by 'we'? Nazi Germany said it was right to exterminate the Jews; Pol Pot said it was right to enslave his population and murder 1/3 of it. Actually Pol Pot probably never concerned himself with what was 'right' :p

Centuries ago, European society basically as a whole felt it 'right' to subjugate the Jews and make them second-class citizens. If 'right' is only the establishment of generally accepted principles of a civilization/culture, does that then mean that it was right?

[Iskandar]

What do you mean by 'we'? Nazi Germany said it was right to exterminate the Jews; Pol Pot said it was right to enslave his population and murder 1/3 of it. Actually Pol Pot probably never concerned himself with what was 'right' :p

Centuries ago, European society basically as a whole felt it 'right' to subjugate the Jews and make them second-class citizens. If 'right' is only the establishment of generally accepted principles of a civilization/culture, does that then mean that it was right?And what higher authority is going to rule that those actions were wrong?

[lfantwister]

What do you mean by 'we'? Nazi Germany said it was right to exterminate the Jews; Pol Pot said it was right to enslave his population and murder 1/3 of it. Actually Pol Pot probably never concerned himself with what was 'right'

Centuries ago, European society basically as a whole felt it 'right' to subjugate the Jews and make them second-class citizens. If 'right' is only the establishment of generally accepted principles of a civilization/culture, does that then mean that it was right?

not to really encourage moral relativism, but we as a society create the concepts of right and wrong. Without a god (or even with conflicting ones) there's no real right or wrong except what's dictated by a culture. I dont mean to say that I personally would look to validate Pol Pot (although that was his personal vendetta, not the society's) or anything, because I've been raised in a culture that has ingrained certain rights and wrongs in me.

[Hababi]

And what higher authority is going to rule that those actions were wrong?

(The Christian) God :cool: :D

I don't see any alternative to accepting that there is a Moral Law that is universally applicable.

not to really encourage moral relativism, but we as a society create the concepts of right and wrong. Without a god (or even with conflicting ones) there's no real right or wrong except what's dictated by a culture. I dont mean to say that I personally would look to validate Pol Pot (although that was his personal vendetta, not the society's) or anything, because I've been raised in a culture that has ingrained certain rights and wrongs in me.

It seems though that by that outlook, you're left either to say that our culture has a superior outlook on morality, or that we can not make moral judgments about others...but then, that's why many military operations occur: because of moral judgments. We fought the Civil War over the moral judgment that the expansion of slavery was wrong, therefor, we believed that one culture had a superior moral code than the other. Unless you're merely going to say that might makes right...if so, you'd better hope that we never lose the might :p

[Iskandar]

(The Christian) God :cool: :D

I don't see any alternative to accepting that there is a Moral Law that is universally applicable.Problem is that not everybody accepts the (Judeo-Christian-Muslim) God as a moral arbiter.

The alternative is subjective morality, of course.

[lfantwister]

It seems though that by that outlook, you're left either to say that our culture has a superior outlook on morality, or that we can not make moral judgments about others...but then, that's why many military operations occur: because of moral judgments. We fought the Civil War over the moral judgment that the expansion of slavery was wrong, therefor, we believed that one culture had a superior moral code than the other. Unless you're merely going to say that might makes right...if so, you'd better hope that we never lose the might
we fought the civil war to keep the country together, not for slavery

basically it's all relative. Most countries believe that killing innocent people is wrong, so when it happens they intervene to stop it. I guess you could blame their reliance on a superior power for their consensus on some moral issues, but it's certainly not the only or the right source for morality

[Hababi]

Problem is that not everybody accepts the (Judeo-Christian-Muslim) God as a moral arbiter.


That is true, but most people, at least most moral people, accept the basic tenements of Christian law. CS Lewis actually gets into this in Mere Christianity, btw ;) :D The difference is in actually affirming that this, yes, is the universal Law of Morality.



The alternative is subjective morality, of course.

And I sure don't think that's a good thing :p

[Hababi]

we fought the civil war to keep the country together, not for slavery


What right did the Union have to force its view on the country on the South?
(I'm not actually defending the South; I think they were entirely wrong)

We fought to keep the country together, yes, but why? Because of the issue of slavery. Without the issue of slavery, there would have been no civil war, and when Lincoln put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery became the moral issue of the war.


basically it's all relative. Most countries believe that killing innocent people is wrong, so when it happens they intervene to stop it. I guess you could blame their reliance on a superior power for their consensus on some moral issues, but it's certainly not the only or the right source for morality

So what is? ;) :D

Take the situation in Darfur. Doubtlessly you think the genocide is wrong, right? So it's a matter of how much force you support being used against the Sudanese government, to stop it. Either way, we're not true believers in subjective morality, because we're referencing our moral code to say that what's going on there is wrong and needs stopped. Even if the whole rest of the world sat by and said it was ok, we would still say it was wrong.

[Reaganista]

you don't need god to have a moral code that can be applied equally to all humans ffs

[AmericanWeiner]

the concept of god does not change the fact that morality is bullshit

[Iskandar]

That is true, but most people, at least most moral people, accept the basic tenements of Christian law. CS Lewis actually gets into this in Mere Christianity, btw ;) :D The difference is in actually affirming that this, yes, is the universal Law of Morality.
Not really. Plenty of people favour pro-choice, same-sex marriage, etc.
And I sure don't think that's a good thing :pWhy?

[Hababi]

Not really. Plenty of people favour pro-choice, same-sex marriage, etc.


Well they just misunderstand the abortion issue, and with marriage, I think one can be a Bible believing person and support changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, if they have that (distorted) opinion about the nature of the institution. My objection, and the objection of many, to gay marriage is a secular one.



Why?

That's what leads to justifying immoral acts.

[i am a robot]

How do you determine what's right and what's wrong, both for individuals and a society? And how do you relate that to laws?

if it benefits me and improves my own situation or feelings then it's right

if it doesn't then it's wrong

same thing in society if it benefits society and improves the standing of society then it's right

laws though are unbiased (lol) and represent a neutral view of right and wrong so i don't always agree with them and i tend to break those laws on a regular basis :I

[lfantwister]

What right did the Union have to force its view on the country on the South?
(I'm not actually defending the South; I think they were entirely wrong)

We fought to keep the country together, yes, but why? Because of the issue of slavery. Without the issue of slavery, there would have been no civil war, and when Lincoln put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery became the moral issue of the war.
It was about keeping the union together: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. "


So what is?

Take the situation in Darfur. Doubtlessly you think the genocide is wrong, right? So it's a matter of how much force you support being used against the Sudanese government, to stop it. Either way, we're not true believers in subjective morality, because we're referencing our moral code to say that what's going on there is wrong and needs stopped. Even if the whole rest of the world sat by and said it was ok, we would still say it was wrong.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. This isn't really an example of moral absolutism at all. If anything it shows how different cultures perceive the same event

if it benefits me and improves my own situation or feelings then it's right

if it doesn't then it's wrong
since everyone else clearly thinks like you, and would benefit from the same things

[Iskandar]

Well they just misunderstand the abortion issue, and with marriage, I think one can be a Bible believing person and support changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, if they have that (distorted) opinion about the nature of the institution. My objection, and the objection of many, to gay marriage is a secular one.Okay. We've progressed into purely ideological ground here, so I say we drop this part of the discussion.
That's what leads to justifying immoral acts.Only if there is an objective standard of morality, which I don't believe there is.

[i am a robot]

since everyone else clearly thinks like you, and would benefit from the same things

i don't care what anyone else benefits from it's up to them to take care of themselves

i consider right and wrong to be entirely subjective ideas

[Interviewer/surveyer]

I would say how it affects that persons ability to be happy vs. the person that he may be affecting by doing things that could be determined as right or wrong.

[gregulus]

Watching this forum argue morals is probably the most mind-numbing thing ever.

[croniun]

What right did the Union have to force its view on the country on the South?
(I'm not actually defending the South; I think they were entirely wrong)

We fought to keep the country together, yes, but why? Because of the issue of slavery. Without the issue of slavery, there would have been no civil war, and when Lincoln put forth the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery became the moral issue of the war.

Wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation just a publicity stunt though...or maybe just political move that had nothing to do with morals...I may be completely wrong about this and correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the EP only applied to those states still under the control of the Confederacy and NOT to the southern states that the Union had taken control of...meaning that the EP didn't free a single slave. I remember my professor saying that the south had been negotiating an alliance with I think England and France (since both largely depended on the cotton that the south produced) and the EP was simply a political move to discourage England and France from allying with the south.

[lfantwister]

i don't care what anyone else benefits from it's up to them to take care of themselves

i consider right and wrong to be entirely subjective ideas
yes, they are. But if killing 10 people a day somehow benefited you, it wouldnt necessarily be right. Right and wrong are determined by an entire society, not an individual.

[Der Übermensch]

Wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation just a publicity stunt though...or maybe just political move that had nothing to do with morals...I may be completely wrong about this and correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the EP only applied to those states still under the control of the Confederacy and NOT to the southern states that the Union had taken control of...meaning that the EP didn't free a single slave. I remember my professor saying that the south had been negotiating an alliance with I think England and France (since both largely depended on the cotton that the south produced) and the EP was simply a political move to discourage England and France from allying with the south.

Pretty much. It only applies to areas where the Union has no ability to enforce it.

[Hababi]

It was about keeping the union together:


What was driving the Union apart?


I don't understand what you're trying to argue. This isn't really an example of moral absolutism at all. If anything it shows how different cultures perceive the same event


What I'm arguing is that if you support some sort of intervention, be it only economic sanctions, or military force, you're not truly believing in subjective morality, because you're wanting to hoist yours, or perhaps better put, the collective morality of our society, on them.




Only if there is an objective standard of morality, which I don't believe there is.

You believe in no objective moral issues? What about rape?

Wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation just a publicity stunt though...or maybe just political move that had nothing to do with morals...I may be completely wrong about this and correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that the EP only applied to those states still under the control of the Confederacy and NOT to the southern states that the Union had taken control of...meaning that the EP didn't free a single slave. I remember my professor saying that the south had been negotiating an alliance with I think England and France (since both largely depended on the cotton that the south produced) and the EP was simply a political move to discourage England and France from allying with the south.

Your professor was right, and yes, it was a publicity stunt--it was said that where Lincoln could stop slavery (the south), he would, and where he could, he would not. But it still morphed into being purely about slavery.

[PerpetualBurn]

Deciding that something should be enforced doesn't necessarily require a moral agenda.

[Hababi]

Deciding that something should be enforced doesn't necessarily require a moral agenda.

Deciding that what should be enforced?

[PerpetualBurn]

if you support some sort of intervention, be it only economic sanctions, or military force, you're not truly believing in subjective morality

Basically, this is a lie.

[Hababi]

Basically, this is a lie.

How so?

[PerpetualBurn]

Deciding that something should be enforced doesn't necessarily require a moral agenda.

[Hababi]

Deciding that something should be enforced doesn't necessarily require a moral agenda.

:confused: Deciding that what should be enforced?

[Iskandar]

You believe in no objective moral issues? What about rape?It's immoral because humans have decided it is through reason.

[PerpetualBurn]

:confused: Deciding that what should be enforced?

"some sort of intervention"

It's immoral because humans have decided it is through reason.

What are the criteria which define what is reasonable within the confines of moral choice?

[Iskandar]

What are the criteria which define what is reasonable within the confines of moral choice?I have no interest in getting into this with you. Sorry.

[Hababi]

It's immoral because humans have decided it is through reason.

What reasoning is that and what is it based on?


"some sort of intervention"


That's not enforcement of something other than our moral code over theirs.

[lfantwister]

What I'm arguing is that if you support some sort of intervention, be it only economic sanctions, or military force, you're not truly believing in subjective morality, because you're wanting to hoist yours, or perhaps better put, the collective morality of our society, on them.

who says i'd want to intervene in darfur? i can think it's wrong without suggesting we invade or something

[PerpetualBurn]

I have no interest in getting into this with you. Sorry.

Okay. Just have it with Serenity and I'll interject when you say something logically invalid.

That's not enforcement of something other than our moral code over theirs.


Not if it doesn't involve a moral agenda.

[Hababi]

who says i'd want to intervene in darfur? i can think it's wrong without suggesting we invade or something

Sure, you can, but do you think we ought to do nothing about Darfur? :\



[QUOTE]
Not if it doesn't involve a moral agenda.

How doesn't it?

[PerpetualBurn]

Because I can think genocide is stupid and wasteful and think it's beneficial or desirable to stop it without referencing a moral code.

[lfantwister]

Because I can think genocide is stupid and wasteful and think it's beneficial or desirable to stop it without referencing a moral code.
this

[Hababi]

Because I can think genocide is stupid and wasteful and think it's beneficial or desirable to stop it without referencing a moral code.

How is it beneficial to us, in non moral terms, to stop a genocide in a desert?

[gregulus]

How is it beneficial to us, in non moral terms, to stop a genocide in a desert?

oil contracts in sudan.

[Hababi]

oil contracts in sudan.

China controls them; it doesn't really benefit us either way.

[gregulus]

China controls them; it doesn't really benefit us either way.

i know this, i was simply implying that there could be potential reasons that don't deal with morality.

[Der Übermensch]

China controls them; it doesn't really benefit us either way.

We want them though.

[Hababi]

i know this, i was simply implying that there could be potential reasons that don't deal with morality.

If it was conceivable that we'd actually take the contracts from China.

We want them though.

Sure, but there's no way that we're going to take them from China, even if we'd go in and take out the rather vile Sudanese government.

[Der Übermensch]

Well if we take out the government, we would get the contracts, since thats whom they are with... but it would put us in a proxy war with China, which I don't think would be seen as cost effective.
And since the genocide benefits China, who I believe also is the weapons supplier... the Sudanese are ****ed...

[Hababi]

Well if we take out the government, we would get the contracts, since thats whom they are with... but it would put us in a proxy war with China, which I don't think would be seen as cost effective.
And since the genocide benefits China, who I believe also is the weapons supplier... the Sudanese are ****ed...

If we'd allow China to continue to have rights to the oil contracts, we could take out the Sudanese government without creating some very awkward broader hostilities.

[Der Übermensch]

Yeah, but then our incentive to do anything would be gone... Nice little Catch-22.

[Reaganista]

What are the criteria which define what is reasonable within the confines of moral choice?
greatest good greatest number noob

[PerpetualBurn]

How is it beneficial to us, in non moral terms, to stop a genocide in a desert?

Well we could debate the validity of the non-moral terms and decide whether or not to involve ourselves. It doesn't really matter what we conclude from that, the point is that it's not necessary to refer to a moral standard.

greatest good greatest number noob

Okay, so we'll just trample over individual rights then.

[Reaganista]

Okay, so we'll just trample over individual rights then
or not seeing as worthwhile individual rights bring great good to great numbers

[PerpetualBurn]

You can't really give blanket statements like that.

[Reaganista]

yes i can

freedom of speech for example

[angry armadillo]

i dont really define right or wrong, i just work out if the outcome of my action will be positive or negative, and then if there is any negative impact i decide will the responsibility come back to me or not and work from there.

[Nadinus]

Oh great I just wrote a load and then it didn't post. My main points were:

Morals= something extrernal + higher than ourselves (can't be explained where our "conscience" actually comes from)

Treat others...ect= good principle generally, but has to be adapted in order to establish equilibrium with different people

Law= good generally, but imo regulations are going past the point of keeping morality.

me= tired, not thinking properly, probs not making sense.

[Lotus_Position]

Morals= something extrernal + higher than ourselves (can't be explained where our "conscience" actually comes from)
That assumes the existance of a higher being, ie either the morals themselves or God. The conscience is not necessarily a higher being because it is part of the other being, and it is only higher morally because it is morality itself.

[MegaPhony]

That assumes the existance of a higher being, ie either the morals themselves or God. The conscience is not necessarily a higher being because it is part of the other being, and it is only higher morally because it is morality itself.

Your definition assumes the non-existance of a higher being.
What's your point.
There are laws that are within the nature of man more or less.
Or else there would definitely be a lot more murderers and serial killers based upon the world we live in today and the intense amount of dishonesty and corruption.

[Lotus_Position]

Nothing, but that conception takes a limited approach in defining the external or subjective conscience, because it assumes that it is external and ignores that the subjective defining that externality is subjective in itself. We are always led back to the subjective experience. That's all I assert, nothing more about laws or the substance and justification of morality.

[Smokey D]

Well, it is possible there are external norms for morality that exist, our incapability of objectively observing them notwithstanding.


There are laws that are within the nature of man more or less. Or else there would definitely be a lot more murderers and serial killers based upon the world we live in today and the intense amount of dishonesty and corruption.

That's a terrible argument.

[Reaganista]

Your definition assumes the non-existance of a higher being.
What's your point.
well one is a pretty safe assumption and the other is completely ****ing insane

[VomitStainedCretin]

Your definition assumes the non-existance of a higher being.
What's your point.
There are laws that are within the nature of man more or less.
Or else there would definitely be a lot more murderers and serial killers based upon the world we live in today and the intense amount of dishonesty and corruption.Societies in which serial killers etc are allowed to run rampant without restraint and where the majority of their members do not work towards a common good are less likely to survive long term than those who disapprove of aforementioned acts of violence and in which individuals generally aim to support the society's continued existence. Therefore societies with a so called 'moral code' are fitter for survival than otherwise.

[Orange Piggy]

Societies in which serial killers etc are allowed to run rampant without restraint and where the majority of their members do not work towards a common good are less likely to survive long term than those who disapprove of aforementioned acts of violence and in which individuals generally aim to support the society's continued existence. Therefore societies with a so called 'moral code' are fitter for survival than otherwise.

There was once a day when killing the men and children, raping the women and stealing the capital of the neighbouring village was the best thing you could do to encourage your village's survival. Its not difficult to see echoes of this in the modern world.

Our conception of moral code completely fails when you base it on survival of the fittest.

[VomitStainedCretin]

There was once a day when killing the men and children, raping the women and stealing the capital of the neighbouring village was the best thing you could do to encourage your village's survival. Its not difficult to see echoes of this in the modern world.

Our conception of moral code completely fails when you base it on survival of the fittest.Attacking outside communities is not attacking your own society; different rules have always applied for how you treat those within your own society and those outside.

[RunAmokRampant]

I have a question: If someone has lived in complete isolation from society and other human beings, does he have a sense of right and wrong? Is society completely responsible for how someone is brought up?

[Lotus_Position]

Society is not wholly responsible for morality, if it were, that would mean the individual which is a part in its society has no morality of its self. Much of the individual's morality, however, exists for other individuals.

[italic zero]

I have a question: If someone has lived in complete isolation from society and other human beings, does he have a sense of right and wrong? Is society completely responsible for how someone is brought up?
He would have impaired cognition to the point that he would not be able to remotely comprehend the concepts.

[Reaganista]

I have a question: If someone has lived in complete isolation from society and other human beings, does he have a sense of right and wrong? Is society completely responsible for how someone is brought up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children

[pedro durruti]

You'd have to be emotionally, physically and psychologically numb to not have any morals.

[Reaganista]

no you'd just have to be a feral child

[pedro durruti]

How did they not have any morals?

[Reaganista]

they were incapable of thought?

[pedro durruti]

Well, first off, they aren't incapable... they are still humans. But the point is that morality is not a purely rational thing.

[Reaganista]

no you have to be taught how to think

But the point is is that morality is not a purely rational thing.
what

[Smokey D]

emotionally, physically and psychologically numb to not have any morals.

they were incapable of thought

Aren't these pretty much the same thing?

[pedro durruti]

Saying "incapable" implies that their faculties lacked the ability to think whatsoever.

Morality is also instinctive and sentimental.

[Reaganista]

Aren't these pretty much the same thing?
no...

Morality is also instinctive and sentimental.
no not really

[pedro durruti]

Why don't you think so?

[Reaganista]

because it's certainly not instinctive at all and calling it sentimental seems to imply that you think it varies from person to person and i disagree with that

[RunAmokRampant]

Morality isn't instinctive, its culturally founded. Feral kids don't know the concepts of right or wrong or morality but act upon their emotions and feelings whatever they may be. Well that's what I think anyway.

[Smokey D]

no

Being psychologically numb means you don't have higher cognitive function.

[VomitStainedCretin]

:rolleyes:I know, lets stop thinking rationally about morality's origins and posit a metaphysical explanation.:rolleyes:

[Smokey D]

There's metaphysics in every decision.

[sweboy]

no not really

Yes really. Humans have intrinsic morals, conscience, or whatever you wanna call it. Feral children can still feel remorseful.

Morality isn't instinctive, its culturally founded. Feral kids don't know the concepts of right or wrong or morality but act upon their emotions and feelings whatever they may be. Well that's what I think anyway.

Yeah, and sometimes they will feel that something is wrong.

[Orange Piggy]

Attacking outside communities is not attacking your own society; different rules have always applied for how you treat those within your own society and those outside.

I can understand this from a perspective of law and rules, as there is no over-arching sovereign to govern behaviour between the two parties. Regardless, this is an issue of morality; most normative ethical theories would find such action abhorrent. If I were to inflict intense suffering upon another human being then it would be immoral.

Even if you were to ignore its disagreements, its inconsistency and its virtually arbitrary border drawing, 'natural morality' just doesn't always work like it should. Thieves, fraudsters and the like get away with their crime and benefit from it more often than you think. Husbands used to be able to rape and beat their wives freely. The mafia is a criminal organization that has existed for centuries who are not immune to their political squabbles. Treason to put a relation on the throne, the list goes on. Survival of the fittest is not necessarily survival of the most likable.

[VomitStainedCretin]

I can understand this from a perspective of law and rules, as there is no over-arching sovereign to govern behaviour between the two parties. Regardless, this is an issue of morality; most normative ethical theories would find such action abhorrent. If I were to inflict intense suffering upon another human being then it would be immoral.

Even if you were to ignore its disagreements, its inconsistency and its virtually arbitrary border drawing, 'natural morality' just doesn't always work like it should. Thieves, fraudsters and the like get away with their crime and benefit from it more often than you think. Husbands used to be able to rape and beat their wives freely. The mafia is a criminal organization that has existed for centuries who are not immune to their political squabbles. Treason to put a relation on the throne, the list goes on. Survival of the fittest is not necessarily survival of the most likable.When did I imply this? I'm just saying that I believe there is a natural explanation for what is perceived by some as a moral system that can only be explained by appealing to dubious metaphysics.

[RunAmokRampant]

Yes really. Humans have intrinsic morals, conscience, or whatever you wanna call it. Feral children can still feel remorseful.



Yeah, and sometimes they will feel that something is wrong.

Maybe but they wouldn't know that it would be 'wrong'. Would they seek forgiveness or redemption from doing something that is wrong? I don't believe that because although they might feel something emotional, terms of right and wrong are determined by there consequences which are socially constructed.

Feral kids may feel remorseful, but they wouldn't know how to act upon those feelings because they don't know what they are.

[Orange Piggy]

Er, in post 109 you made a pretty strong implication.
Therefore societies with a so called 'moral code' are fitter for survival than otherwise.

Perhaps I should have used "moral" instead of "likable."

I'm just saying that I believe there is a natural explanation for what is perceived by some as a moral system

And I'm saying it makes for a poor explanation. Societies that demand the prevention of certain events for its survival create laws. Morality is too fickle and unenforceable to maintain societies. I can see that perhaps ethics finds refuge and nurture in the law, but the two are distinct. Morality by itself would be crushed.

a moral system that can only be explained by appealing to dubious metaphysics.

Hate to be picky, but utilitarianism appeals to very real concepts of pleasure and pain.

[Reaganista]

Being psychologically numb means you don't have higher cognitive function.
yeah and emotionally numb means you're depressed and physically numb means you're paralyzed good to see we're making progress

Yes really. Humans have intrinsic morals, conscience, or whatever you wanna call it.
no they dont
Feral children can still feel remorseful.
no they can't

[stevensonmat2]

Dogs feel bad about pissing me off when I kick them in the teeth, you can see it on their faces. So why not feral chillens?

[italic zero]

that just sounds like projection to me

[RunAmokRampant]

Dogs feel bad about pissing me off when I kick them in the teeth, you can see it on their faces. So why not feral chillens?

No they feel pain which is a deterrent. You're only conditioning the animal to not piss you off.

[Reaganista]

Dogs feel bad about pissing me off when I kick them in the teeth, you can see it on their faces.
that's not remorse that's fear

[Smokey D]

yeah and emotionally numb means you're depressed and physically numb means you're paralyzed good to see we're making progress

Not being capable of higher cognitive thought means you aren't really capable of thinking. Not in the way we think of when we say 'thinking' anyway.


Hate to be picky, but utilitarianism appeals to very real concepts of pleasure and pain.

And the dubious metaphysical claim that 'pleasure or pain' or 'utility maximisation' are the only relevant yardsticks of morality.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Er, in post 109 you made a pretty strong implication.


Perhaps I should have used "moral" instead of "likable."



And I'm saying it makes for a poor explanation. Societies that demand the prevention of certain events for its survival create laws. Morality is too fickle and unenforceable to maintain societies. I can see that perhaps ethics finds refuge and nurture in the law, but the two are distinct. Morality by itself would be crushed.



Hate to be picky, but utilitarianism appeals to very real concepts of pleasure and pain.I'm denying that morality is an actuality, considering that concepts of right and wrong are set in stone is, IMO, a category mistake.

[Reaganista]

Not being capable of higher cognitive thought means you aren't really capable of thinking. Not in the way we think of when we say 'thinking' anyway.

i'm not getting what any of this has to do with pyschical or emotional numbness

[Smokey D]

Well, it doesn't.

But psychologically numb is sufficient for my point.

[Reaganista]

not really though

there's no reason to think a feral child is depressed or paralyzed

[pedro durruti]

Before anything else is said in regards to my first post, let me clarify what I actually meant. A person would have to be emotionally numb-and it is not
being depressed, because depression is a state of mind fueled by emotion-
that is, devoid of emotion and unable to feel bad or good, to be immoral.
I said one must be physically numb, but I should have just excluded that
because lingering behind what I said I was just thinking emotions- the
physical, neurological aspect of them. By psychologically numb I meant
unable to understand moral concepts. I was thinking too broadly when I said that. All, or both of these things account for morality.
no they dont
Listen, I know you're a troll, but why don't you give some reasoning in
your posts rather than obnoxiously saying "nuh uh."

Of course we do not have an innate sense of what is right or what is wrong, but we all have the capacity to learn, so long as we have at least a semi-functioning brain. We have the ability to learn through emotions or thought that something is wrong, while at the same time those tools that we use to discern what is right and wrong can also be dulled by our experiences or disorders (which can be subsequent to experience).

Think about the "mothers" and "fathers" of the feral children, and the other organisms they lived with. As humans and mammals they had emotions such as love, hate, etc. which they shared with their society, of sorts. With the feeling of love for one of those organisms there would be accompanying positive feelings, composing the love and building upon it. Would the feral children feel good, or right, about killing the organism which they loved?

Furthermore, not all morality concerns others. The individual may have remorse for something it has done to itself. Think of a man who has lived by himself his whole life, away from man, not associating himself with any beasts. Let's say one day he comes across a plant that gets him high. He enjoyed it a lot his first time he got high from it. He continues to do it, but eventually, along with the pleasure, there is an after affect of pain. He begins to become wary of becoming high, and doing this to himself, giving himself a headache or what have you. He feels it is somehow wrong to do this to himself. Is this different from the crackhead, engulfed in society, who realizes that it may be wrong for him to ruin his body and mind?

This may be a poor way of illustrating how emotions account for morality, so hopefully I can expand on it later.

[Reaganista]

A person would have to be emotionally numb-and it is not
being depressed, because depression is a state of mind fueled by emotion-
that is, devoid of emotion and unable to feel bad or good
that's depression

I said one must be physically numb, but I should have just excluded that

k

By psychologically numb I meant
unable to understand moral concepts.
yeah and incapable of thought covers that

Listen, I know you're a troll, but why don't you give some reasoning in
your posts rather than obnoxiously saying "nuh uh."

actually you're the claimant you're required to provide argumentation


Of course we do not have an innate sense of what is right or what is wrong,
k

but we all have the capacity to learn, so long as we have at least a semi-functioning brain. We have the ability to learn through emotions or thought
feral children lack language and therefore cannot think

Think about the "mothers" and "fathers" of the feral children, and the other organisms they lived with. As humans and mammals they had emotions such as love, hate, etc. which they shared with their society, of sorts. With the feeling of love for one of those organisms there would be accompanying positive feelings, composing the love and building upon it. Would the feral children feel good, or right, about killing the organism which they loved?

um affection isn't morality, it's completely parochial

Furthermore, not all morality concerns others. The individual may have remorse for something it has done to itself. Think of a man who has lived by himself his whole life, away from man, not associating himself with any beasts. Let's say one day he comes across a plant that gets him high. He enjoyed it a lot his first time he got high from it. He continues to do it, but eventually, along with the pleasure, there is an after affect of pain. He begins to become wary of becoming high, and doing this to himself, giving himself a headache or what have you. He feels it is somehow wrong to do this to himself. Is this different from the crackhead, engulfed in society, who realizes that it may be wrong for him to ruin his body and mind?

dude that's not remorse that's pain

[pedro durruti]

that's depression
No it's not, depression is an immense feeling of "bad."
yeah and incapable of thought covers that
Being psychologically numb means more than just that, it means being mentally incapacitated, which I did not mean.
actually you're the claimant you're required to provide argumentation
Maybe so, but pretty much all of your posts consist of a sentence or two. And by giving reason to refute me you can further the argument along.
feral children lack language and therefore cannot think
Not all thought is directed by language. And learning is not always a thought process... it's a process directed through experience.
um affection isn't morality, it's completely parochial
Affection isn't morality but it leads to moral decisions [feelings], and hence, morality.
dude that's not remorse that's pain
Here is a moment for expanding. Note that I said it was a drug that gave him a high, and afterwards painful sensations. Let's say that the high is great, and equal if not greater to the subsequent pain. This, then, is a moral consideration. The man is considering whether he should take the drug for present pleasure and subject himself to future pain. He is determining whether it is right or wrong to do this to himself.

[Reaganista]

No it's not, depression is an immense feeling of "bad."

no it's not

Being psychologically numb means more than just that, it means being mentally incapacitated, which I did not mean.

huh
they're incapable of thought

Maybe so, but pretty much all of your posts consist of a sentence or two. And by giving reason to refute me you can further the argument along.

what

Not all thought is directed by language.
yeah it is

Affection isn't morality but it leads to moral decisions [feelings], and hence, morality.

feeling aren't morally based they're parochial preferences
'i shouldn't kill whatever it is that feeds me' isn't a moral judgement


Here is a moment for expanding. Note that I said it was a drug that gave him a high, and afterwards painful sensations. Let's say that the high is great, and equal if not greater to the subsequent pain. This, then, is a moral consideration. The man is considering whether he should take the drug for present pleasure and subject himself to future pain. He is determining whether it is right or wrong to do this to himself.
no that's not a moral judgement it's a sensory one
if the pleasure is greater than the pain he'll keep doing it

[Smokey D]

not really though

there's no reason to think a feral child is depressed or paralyzed

A psychologically numb person is incapable of thought.

[Reaganista]

A psychologically numb person is incapable of thought.

ok allowing that

they're neither necessarily emotionally numb or physically numb

[pedro durruti]

no it's not
Do you know what depression is? It is an intense feeling of sadness. And sadness is an emotion.

huh
they're incapable of thought

yeah it is
Here, I'll quote my psychology textbook:
In the most general sense, thinking is involved in all conscious mental activity, whether it is acquiring new knowledge, remembering, planning ahead, or daydreaming. More narrowly, we can say that thinking involves manipulating mental representations of information in order to draw inferences and conclusions. Thinking, then, involves active mental processes and is often directed toward some goal, purpose, or conclusion.

What exactly is it that we think with? Thinking often involves the manipulation of two forms of mental representations: mental images and concepts.
Good god..
feeling aren't morally based they're parochial preferences
'i shouldn't kill whatever it is that feeds me' isn't a moral judgement
I said morality is based on feeling.

Right, it's a survival instinct. But that's not what I said. Not killing what one loves is a moral decision because they would feel remorseful, guilty, and many things besides for killing something they love.
no that's not a moral judgement it's a sensory one
if the pleasure is greater than the pain he'll keep doing it
The periods of pleasure and pain are distinct and separate. It's like drinking alcohol and having a hangover in the morn. It no longer becomes only a weighing of pain vs. pleasure. The man also considers whether he should sacrifice his future self for his present self, whether he thinks it is right or fair to do so. After the drug's high, he will think "Oh, how could I have done something like that." (Of course, he will not say that, because he lacks a language, but he will still think it). He will probably curse himself, call the man of yesterday bad and possibly unjust for making a decision beneficial only to the temporary. The utilitarian consideration of deciding what exceeds the other is invariably tied in with what action is right for the individual.

[Reaganista]

Do you know what depression is?
yes

It is an intense feeling of sadness. And sadness is an emotion.

no


Here, I'll quote my psychology textbook:

Good god..

um they're wrong?
i'd counter-quote foucault but why bother if he'll just say what i said already


I said morality is based on feeling.

i said that's wrong

Right, it's a survival instinct. But that's not what I said. Not killing what one loves is a moral decision because they would feel remorseful, guilty, and many things besides for killing something they love.

that's a parochial preference
not killing something you don't care for in any way because something else might love it is a moral decision

The periods of pleasure and pain are distinct and separate. It's like drinking alcohol and having a hangover in the morn. It no longer becomes only a weighing of pain vs. pleasure. The man also considers whether he should sacrifice his future self for his present self, whether he thinks it is right or fair to do so. After the drug's high, he will think "Oh, how could I have done something like that." (Of course, he will not say that, because he lacks a language, but he will still think it). He will probably curse himself, call the man of yesterday bad and possibly unjust for making a decision beneficial only to the temporary. The utilitarian consideration of deciding what exceeds the other is invariably tied in with what action is right for the individual.
except him from last night and him from now arent seperate people...

it's a sensory decision it doesn't matter if the pain and pleasure come at different times, if it feels good more than it hurts, you do it

[pedro durruti]

no
Well then, M. Claimant, please tell me what you think depression really is.
um they're wrong?
i'd counter-quote foucault but why bother if he'll just say what i said already
I'd be interested in hearing what Foucault has to say, so please quote it, for he will actually give reasoning to his claim unlike you.
that's a parochial preference
not killing something you don't care for in any way because something else might love it is a moral decision
It still concerns morality because it is a matter of right or wrong. It does not matter if it is selective. The Nazis had a parochial preference for Aryans, but that does not mean they were not completely without morals.
except him from last night and him from now arent seperate people...

it's a sensory decision it doesn't matter if the pain and pleasure come at different times, if it feels good more than it hurts, you do it
I did not say his self was separated into two different people. The only thing that would suggest that is "the man of yesterday" which if you read the rest of the paragraph you would have known I meant the same self but in the past with distinct thoughts and emotions.

That the pain comes at a different time is extremely important. Would you visit hell for ten minutes to experience heaven for 15? You probably would, given your simplistic dedication to utilitarianism in instances like these, but many people would say no.

I'm having trouble furthering along my argument and your reasoning isn't convincing for me, so it'd be nice if someone else could step in and help me see why this is not a moral-sensorial decision or better explain how it is.

[Reaganista]

Well then, M. Claimant, please tell me what you think depression really is.

depression is absence of emotion
and by the way, saying 'no' is not a claim it's disputing your claim


I'd be interested in hearing what Foucault has to say, so please quote it, for he will actually give reasoning to his claim unlike you.

yeah lemme go to the libirary
i don't get what reasoning you need it's a very simple concept

It still concerns morality because it is a matter of right or wrong. It does not matter if it is selective. The Nazis had a parochial preference for Aryans, but that does not mean they were not completely without morals.

what

I did not say his self was separated into two different people. The only thing that would suggest that is "the man of yesterday" which if you read the rest of the paragraph you would have known I meant the same self but in the past with distinct thoughts and emotions.

That the pain comes at a different time is extremely important. Would you visit hell for ten minutes to experience heaven for 15? You probably would, given your simplistic dedication to utilitarianism in instances like these, but many people would say no.

if, to the subject, heaven was equal or greater in goodness to the badness of hell then they would obviously decide to take up the deal

I'm having trouble furthering along my argument and your reasoning isn't convincing for me, so it'd be nice if someone else could step in and help me see why this is not a moral-sensorial decision or better explain how it is.
your main problem is you have a ridiculous conception of what morality is

[pedro durruti]

depression is absence of emotion
and by the way, saying 'no' is not a claim it's disputing your claim
I'm the one that said no to your original claim that emotional numbness is depression. Depression is an absence of emotion except for the sadness that caused that absence.
yeah lemme go to the libirary
i don't get what reasoning you need it's a very simple concept
You can probably find it online.

It's a simple concept that I think is wrong.
what
No matter how many things the feeling of doing right or wrong apply to, or their relationship to the individual, it does not take away from it being a sense of right or wrong.
if, to the subject, heaven was equal or greater in goodness to the badness of hell then they would obviously decide to take up the deal
Yeah, I know your stance on pain and pleasure, and you know mine. I've got something cooking boy! Just wait and let it finish!

[Reaganista]

I'm the one that said no to your original claim that emotional numbness is depression. Depression is an absence of emotion except for the sadness that caused that absence.

no you can't be sad about an absence of emotion that makes no sense

You can probably find it online.

likewise


No matter how many things the feeling of doing right or wrong apply to, or their relationship to the individual, it does not take away from it being a sense of right or wrong.

Yeah, I know your stance on pain and pleasure, and you know mine. I've got something cooking boy! Just wait and let it finish!
I don't believe it's possible for your stance (or anyone else's for that matter) to differ from mine
other people might find pleasure in different things or find things to be more or less painful than I do but that's not really relevant

[RunAmokRampant]

Depression is an absence of emotion except for the sadness that caused that absence.

I thought it was actually a chemical inbalance in the brain. Excesses of cortizol (sp) maybe? I'm not sure on the cortizol thing but thats what stress produces.

[pedro durruti]

I don't know the neurology of it but that doesn't change a thing
no you can't be sad about an absence of emotion that makes no sense
Haha yes you can if many of your emotions are absent you'd be pretty damn sad because sad is all that you're left with.
likewise
I typed in google 'Reaganista and Foucault on thinking theory language sex' and couldn't find it.
I don't believe it's possible for your stance (or anyone else's for that matter) to differ from mine
other people might find pleasure in different things or find things to be more or less painful than I do but that's not really relevant
Maybe because you're arrogant

[RunAmokRampant]

But depression isn't an absence of emotion. It's a mental illness.

because sad is all that you're left with.

I find that hard to believe because sadness is an emotion.

[pedro durruti]

But depression isn't an absence of emotion. It's a mental illness.
Yes but a mental illness characterized by absence of many emotions and an overbearing feeling of sadness.
I find that hard to believe because sadness is an emotion.
I said the absence of many emotions.

[Reaganista]

Haha yes you can if many of your emotions are absent you'd be pretty damn sad because sad is all that you're left with.

you're completely clueless depression has nothing to do with sadness

I typed in google 'Reaganista and Foucault on thinking theory language sex' and couldn't find it.
i charge $1000 a credit hour you can paypal your tuition

Maybe because you're arrogant
no it's because im right
and you've provided no argumentation to the contrary

[RunAmokRampant]

you're completely clueless depression has nothing to do with sadness

feelings of sadness is more of a symptom of depression along with other negative emotions such as pessimism, inadequacy, etc