I like to THINK I would use it only for good, but let's be realistic.
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
Tell that to war 'heroes' where the morality of PEACE is superceeded by the morality (Decided upon by politicians) to go to war. As for theft, what if it was to steal the medicine you could not afford to cure your AIDs or something.
I tend not to let politicians define what is moral to me /shrug
that question is utilitarian, not moral though
do I think stealing is wrong? yes
would I steal to ensure my survival? yes
whether or not I would get caught is not a variable that would change my action, rather, my method. If I could just walk into a pharmacy and steal the cure, rather than planning an elaborate theft, sure it would be easier, but if it is a matter of me living or dying of aids, I'm going to get that medicine.
You see this is where we differ, you don't let a politician decide your morality. I don't let a collective set of rules define mine. My ethics are flexible as we have shown are yours, e.g. it's wrong to steal; however, you would to ave a life. It's wrong to kill; however, i'm sure you would to save a life. Thing is, why is it wrong to steal or kill? Because a shared cultural agreement has made it so, what if for my own reasons in a given situation i disagree with that shared view for personal gain. Why would I be wrong and the majority right? You have Nietzsche in your sig, he might agrre with me......
you aren't describing amorality though, you are describing a different set of morals that you follow versus those of society.
To be amoral, you would have to do things that you know to be wrong, in terms of your own moral compass, with no regard for the moral consequences one way or another.
he would agree that morals are often culturally created in order to restrain natural behaviour, yes...
even the quote in my signature suggests that he does believe there are "monsters" and an "abyss". Nihilism and Nietzsche are more nuanced than simply "there are no morals", but that another thread
Amoral doesn't mean you know its wrong it can mean no moral Restraint or not involving right and wrong. You see I 'choose' to see amorality not as a choice (hehe) but as a calling. So Zarathrusta is a monster? Nietsche always failed to live up to his own ideals i.e. the horse, it didn't make him stronger or kill him ;-)
Last edited by ThAnus_ofTITass on Nov 5th, 2010 at 02:20 AM
However being indifferent to right or wrong is Amoral, i.e. nothing is moral or immoral, merely subjective and in this case based on my subjectivism. :-) I am skeptical that morality is real and not just a meme.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 5th, 2010 12:49 AM
