Not that I can think of, nope. Once I've evaluated the potential losses and gains of a given action, I'll either decide to do it or decide it isn't worthwhile, and that's all there really is to it.
Is there anything you wouldn't do?
I see morality as a specific idea of which things should and should not be done, I only see what leads to desired results (none of which do I think are any better or worse than any other results, just the ones I'd personally prefer to encourage to occur), and what must be done to achieve them, and in the case of multiple options leading to the same end, whichever I'm most inclined to do. Ultimately, I do pretty much whatever the hell I want, not caring one way or the other whether people would call it good bad or otherwise. In short, **** yeah Chaotic Neutral!
Ah I understand. However, that is still your own morality as it guides your actions and choices. Morality is not in the sole domain of belief or faith. There are those outside of faith, which would then be philosophy. But then you may say those are based on some small level of faith. Yet, no matter what, if it guides your actions in life then it is a moral code. That is a presupposition.
Not nescessarily, not as I define it at least. I define morality as a concept of good, bad, right or wrong. A theory which attributes allignment to people and ideas. I believe in no such allignment. My way of seeing things serves a similar purpose to a moral code, but is much less limitting, and is dictated by logic moreso than what others believe, which is what seems to be the guiding force for any concepts of morality I'm familiar with.
But does not your "way of seeing things" your own type of morality?
The creation of the oath may have been based in morality, but it serves a practical function. As does the concept of morality as a whole. The rest of the world doesn't see things my way, so they may reequires a code of morals to keep from creating chaos, I however do not. The concept of morality, and law enforcing it mainly exists to prevent chaos. Human experiments are bound to opposed, and where there is opposition, chaos will follow. As to whether human expierimentation itself is alright, I have no global opinion of it one way or the other, my stance would vary by situation. In a case in which the potential gains would be worth the chaos, or the chance of chaos, I'd likely be in support of a human experiment on an unwilling subject, if and only if there were no alternatives less likely to create chaos.
You say morality has no place in science. Is not the Hippocratic Oath an oath of morality? Thus creating a contradiction in your view. As you find morality having no place in science are you ok with scientists using people without their permission in experiments? Edit: Also I understand what you are talking about with what you said in response to Aerif's post about her grandpa. I think it takes a true sense of the understanding of "selfishness" in order to comprehend your words in that part of your post.
Gotta love the sickness >.< Though not sick, I definitely feel like it. My allergies strongly dislike this season.
Besides an unique individual whom is currently sick - nothing.
Wow, this never happened when I befriended other people o.O, did I win something?
Zargabaath gained a friend. *trumpets blare*
Probably for the best, I'm sure I wasn't the last one to post, if they hadn't deleted it I probably would've gone and fanned the flames more.
I see the mods deleted a few posts in that thread. Haha.
Yeah, I'm sure you've noticed by now, pretty much any thread i touch turns into a flame war at some point. I've got the whole Reverse Midas Touch thing going.
