PsiPog.net
View topic - Your ethical standpoint
PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » Your ethical standpoint
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
| Your ethical standpoint | |||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:39 pm | |||||||||||||||
Evan
Joined: 30 May 2006 |
I'd like to clear this up for you, if I may. It's not quite so simple as 'Adam was manipulating me because he told me so'. He would tell me that he was doing something, yes, not necesarilly what he was doing, just that he -was- indeed doing -something-. I wouldn't know what he was doing until I had described what had been happening to me, whereas he would say something along the lines of, "That's what I was going for." Now, I admit he could've just been pulling my leg, but I see no reason in why he would do that. Things also had happened, very similar to what had happened with me, to a few other people whom he -didn't- tell he had been messing with. I was also not aware that there were others until recently. So, in conclusion, if my subconscious really was doing all of this, then everyone else's was too. And I'd have to have some sort of... er... psychic subconscious for it to have figured out what he was trying to get me to do and to do it itself, which would eventually just inadvertently wind down into telepathic suggestion anyway.  I'm going to assume that you know what I'm trying to say there. Also, no disrespect taken, and you put up an excellent point.
Anyway, I give my regards, and look forward to reading more about everyone's ethical standpoint on this matter. Keep it up, guys. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:11 pm | |||||||||||||||
infected
Joined: 28 Jun 2006 |
Is there a site where I can read a full story about this Psisoldier organization and about this Adam of which you speak so often? Or can someone please explain all this to me, because I'm apparently new. And I'm getting confused reading all this.
And besides I thought shields work good towards these kind of things. My point of view is that TPS, if it is ever to be used, should be used wisely and with good intentions. I think we all do that some time or another and we don't even know or recognize it. peace out |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:51 pm | |||||||||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
I'm glad you made this point, as it's something I was thinking on last night and it brings up an important ethical question that is pertinent almost exclusively in psionics - is someone being de facto unethical if they are accidentally Suggesting to people? Do people who naturally Suggest to others live in a perpetual state of original sin? I think not. The issue becomes, again, one of intent. While most human acts require intent to harm another (one must bring their body to perform an action, and therefore the act is almost always voluntary) with telepathic things, it is not always the case. In some people, the mere act of thinking is enough to set the act in motion, when it comes to psionics. While the individual is surely morally responsible for themselves, and must take lengths to avoid the problem, some people (e.g., natural sending telepaths) have ultimately little choice. If the act is benign and unintentional, then the act itself is still wrong, but the actor cannot be held at fault, the same as a person with AIDS who does not know it can't be faulted for spreading it. However, when a person with AIDS does find out about it, there becomes a reasonable expectation to avoid spreading it. Telepathic abstinence is virtually impossible, so it becomes necessary to use telepathic protection - shields, mantras, or whatever else works to solve the problem. With a full intent to not perform an act, should it occur accidentally, the actor is not fully absolved of responsibility, but that responsibility is greatly diminished. While the act remains nefarious, the actor is not necessarily accountable. This of course assumes the actor is truly attempting to prevent the act in good faith, and not simply using it as a cover. Hmm. A book on this might not be so bad. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:56 am | |||||||||||||||
Ultimaduck
Joined: 30 Jun 2006 |
As long as you aren't hurting anyone, who gives a crap? All I would do is guess people's Christmas gifts, play card tricks without a deck, just mess with people to freak them out. | ||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:25 am | |||||||||||||||
sined911
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 |
i think its ok to go as far as you wanna go as long as you dont hurt anyone in the process. that includes physicly as well as mentaly.
whats that wiccan rule i read a while ago? "An it harm none, do as you will". |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:38 am | |||||||||||||||
Jael
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 |
You sound like you enjoy using Telepathy. That's different than Telepathic Suggestion (aka TPS).
Sined911, this is why (non-consensual) TPS crosses the line of decency and hurts someone. The normal filters and associations we have on our thoughts is 'skipped' with TPS. Many of you (clearly PazarX as s/he's said so) would like this skill to be able to be used for good, beyond immediate life and death situations. The only way I can see TPS to be used beyond those is by having it be consensual. Consensual TPS is a very different story. If you and a friend are consenting to use TPS (as mentioned earlier), the ethical question is answered, because both people still have their rationality intact. I'll use smoking as an example, since it's simple and many of us know people who have tried to quit at some point.
You: "That's great that you want to stop smoking. I might be able to help a bit. What if I 'thought' at you ideas about other things to reach for when the thought comes into your head to reach for a cigarette? Maybe my thoughts would help you retrain your brain, and you'd be able to stop smoking." Buddy: "Dude, can you do that? That'd be really weird if you could. But, man, I'd be able to stop smoking. Yeah, I want you to do that." In this, you've not 'spilled the beans' about psionics (which can be a nerve-wracking thought for some), yet you've offered to help your friend using TPS. They have agreed to it, knowing that you are going to be trying to help retrain their brain. This is, imo, an acceptable use of TPS. This is rather similar to hypnotism, other than no one is going into a trance when doing the suggesting. (This is why Aphanas included books that talk about hypnotism in his list of suggested reading.) Consensual TPS = rationality still present in both people = good. Non-consensual TPS = loss of rationality in one person = not good. Jael |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:49 am | |||||||||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
The Wiccan Rede. But then again, there's the very issue - even if you use the Wiccan ethical system, you have to admit that TPS is a negative act. It does harm someone. It harms them worse than most other acts, because it doesn't only take away some physical thing, or do some physical harm, it necessarily causes them to lose their free will. Losing your free will is something that not many would consider "harmless." There is no "harmless" Suggestion, just like there is no "harmless" rape. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:42 pm | |||||||||||||||
WhiteRaven
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 |
I think absolute ethics touch on religion, as they require an absolute lawmaker, a god, basically.
I don't really have morals, but I don't do pointless things either. I'm like an aminal. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:02 pm | |||||||||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
Ethics do not touch on religion, nor do they require an absolute lawmaker. Perhaps you should look into the concept of Natural Law? None of the people who have spoken on the subject within the confines of this topic have utilized a Divine Command Theory of ethics and morals - I in fact would reject any attempt to claim that ethics are derivative of a deity by employing the Euthyphro Dilemma. You are an animal - but the lack of any kind of moral judgment strikes me as immature, rather than primitive. Your stance also demonstrates that you are poorly educated in the field of morals and ethics - that's fine, not every man is a philosopher, but the concept that ethics predicates a creator is somewhat foolish. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:30 pm | |||||||||||||||
WhiteRaven
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 |
"Ethics do not touch on religion, nor do they require an absolute lawmaker. Perhaps you should look into the concept of Natural Law? None of the people who have spoken on the subject within the confines of this topic have utilized a Divine Command Theory of ethics and morals - I in fact would reject any attempt to claim that ethics are derivative of a deity by employing the Euthyphro Dilemma."
I'm well aware of the Euthyphro Dilemma, thank you very much, and its problem is that it appeals to the refutal of the incredible stupidity of theologians to prove that it is correct. "you are wrong, therefore I'm right" "You are an animal - but the lack of any kind of moral judgment strikes me as immature, rather than primitive." Really? because it strikes me as Natural, the Wolf does not feel remorse after devouring the rabbit, and the elephant does not cry after trampling the lion. Punch the bear and it eats your face. "Your stance also demonstrates that you are poorly educated in the field of morals and ethics - that's fine, not every man is a philosopher, but the concept that ethics predicates a creator is somewhat foolish." Why should it be? if there are moral laws that apply to everyone, then it stands to reason that there should be a lawmaker that applies to everyone. anyway, no one can even reasonably define good and evil, which are always called the two moral alignments. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:51 pm | |||||||||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
Not really. It creates a logical dilemma which cannot easily be solved within the framework of the question - it doesn't have anything to do with anyone's stupidity.
Ah, but remorse is a human characteristic. Elephants do cry after failing to save their young. Punch me and I'll break your face. Your argument indicates, again, that you did not look up Natural Law, because Natural Law does not mean the "law of the jungle" or any such thing as this. You've demonstrated only that you aren't familiar with ethics.
It does not stand to reason that there is a lawmaker. Natural Law generates from Nature itself. Gravity is a natural law. Not procluding the free will of others is a natural law. There need not be a lawmaker for physical laws, why so for ethical laws? Your point simply does not "stand to reason." And we're discussing ethics - the very thing that we are doing is reasonably defining good and evil, in that we are using our reasoning faculty to assess whether an act is morally right or morally wrong. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:41 pm | |||||||||||||||
WhiteRaven
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 |
"Not really. It creates a logical dilemma which cannot easily be solved within the framework of the question - it doesn't have anything to do with anyone's stupidity."
the argument from euthyphro dilemma: "if good acts are willed by god because they are good, then they are good indepently of god, If good acts are good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God?s goodness or to worship him." I don't really see that as logical. "Ah, but remorse is a human characteristic. Elephants do cry after failing to save their young. Punch me and I'll break your face. Your argument indicates, again, that you did not look up Natural Law, because Natural Law does not mean the "law of the jungle" or any such thing as this. You've demonstrated only that you aren't familiar with ethics." I was not speaking of natural law, but of my own view on how nature works. *sigh* natural law-According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards. There are a number of different kinds of natural law theories of law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms. http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm "It does not stand to reason that there is a lawmaker. Natural Law generates from Nature itself. Gravity is a natural law. Not procluding the free will of others is a natural law. There need not be a lawmaker for physical laws, why so for ethical laws? Your point simply does not "stand to reason."" Ethical laws usually involve some form of punishment for breaking them, not only is that not the case for physical laws, but physical laws simply cannot be broken, if they are broken then the laws are wrong. "And we're discussing ethics - the very thing that we are doing is reasonably defining good and evil, in that we are using our reasoning faculty to assess whether an act is morally right or morally wrong." that's not the point, evil is a word no one can define without saying stupid things. there is no such thing as good or evil, if there is, then prove it, give me a definition and I'll explain why it's crap, I'll even get you started: "omgzorz Teh evil iz sumthing th4t hurtz and g00d helpz" every action both hurts and helps something, nothing can eat without killing, creation must follow destruction. "evil iz frum teh h4te and g00d is teh luv" love and hate are almost identical, both are a long lasting obsession directed to one person, the difference is love you want to kiss, and hate you want to kill http://www.angelfire.com/wa/ThunderRoad/goodevil.html |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:05 pm | |||||||||||||||
Evan
Joined: 30 May 2006 |
I would appreciate it if you kept your debate tactics respectable. I've highly enjoyed this topic so far, and I don't wish to see it go down like that. | ||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:21 pm | |||||||||||||||
WhiteRaven
Joined: 13 Jan 2006 |
sorry, force of habit. | ||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:37 pm | |||||||||||||||
Elliptic
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 |
That's the point. It's not logical. Ergo, the Divine Command Theory, which the dilemma is designed to attack, is not reasonable. Ergo, there is some other form of ethical law which does not descend from a prime mover.
You're correct, there are a number of different meanings of Natural Law. Only a few predicate a first mover. Most acknowledge that there is a natural ethic which derives itself not from some external source, but innately from the nature of things themselves - that is, there is an ethic not because we want there to be one, or because some deity has created one, but because one exists in and of itself. "It does not stand to reason that there is a lawmaker. Natural Law generates from Nature itself. Gravity is a natural law. Not procluding the free will of others is a natural law. There need not be a lawmaker for physical laws, why so for ethical laws? Your point simply does not "stand to reason.""
No, ethical laws do not have punishments. Some philosophers might posit a "correct" punishment for a breach of morality (for example, Hammurabi's Code, which served as both a legal doctrine as well as an ethical one), but ethics as a field does not deal with how acts should be dealt with (except in legal ethics). Instead, it focuses on whether or not acts are morally correct. And, again, you have demonstrated a failure to grasp the basic premises of the field of ethics. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a rather obtuse and complicated field. Very abstract.
Before you do, I would like to let you in on a secret: the arguments you post here are called strawmen. You have created a false point (one which I have never argued) and then soundly defeated it (because, well, you made the point, if you can't defeat it, there's a problem). It only proves that you're able to employ logical fallacies in your rhetoric. And now on to your examples...
For the hell of it, I'm going to respond to this with a Kantian perspective. Kantian rationalist philosophy would argue instead that something is good if (and only if): 1) the maxim of the action is to become by your will a universal law of nature. 2) humanity is being used, in your person or by the person of another, always as an end and never as a means only. This is considerably more advanced than your relatively weak strawman - though the points are debatable, they are in no way "stupid." I might argue, for example, that because of the complex nature of any given situation, a person is "right" to act best in the interest of a majority of sentient creatures. That is to say that we might not ever be able to do right to all persons, but in situations which involve many (for example, something that will affect a city or populous group) it is always best to act in the interest of the majority of sentient beings.
Actually, if you want to get down to the meat and bones of the issue, evil wouldn't necessarily be a hatred driven action. For example, I might hate disease. I might love killing bacteria. So your strawman is simply too weak for me to defend. However, I again wouldn't accept that as a viable ethic. See the Kantian example above, or, hell, for something you'd like more, look into Randian Objectivism, which is a rational egoist ethic arguing that that which is most rational is that which is most ethically correct, and it is always ethical to act in one's own self interests. Now, of course, that particular ethic is problematic because it is always possible to claim someone is acting in their own best interest through altruism, but, again, I needn't defend an ethical viewpoint in order to see it as valid (indeed, if I was able to defend rational egoism, I would use that, rather than my own rationalist utilitarian ethic).
Well enough, I suggest learning better habits. |
||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
PsiPog.net Forum Index » Telepathy and Empathy » Your ethical standpoint
All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.