quote:

ORIGINAL: pompeii
Does the BDSM D/s dynamic have any appeal for you outside the sexual?

For me, the whole D/s thing has no value outside sexual overtones. Just curious if most others are similar ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot
For example Nazis thought that it was virtuous to kill Jews, Gypsies and to do many other horrible things.
They perfectly adhered to their own ethics....

quote:

It's a bit of a misconception that everybody thought it was virtuous to kill Jews.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Jef4, you did not go to that river this morning.  That river is in England.
 

quote:

So again, if you happen to know of an ethical system that CAN be used universally, I'd like to hear about it...
I'd love to find one, it would make my life a whole lot easier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally (directed toward SN)

And here is where the theory falls down, is the intimacy you feel with your mum the same that you felt with your last partner?

If so it would explain some of your attitudes to sex, and maybe you should read more Freud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

Holy Man Claims to Have Lived Without Food, Water for 70 Years

If we exclude those who are holy, my claim is still true. BTW, this is either utter bullshit, or supernatural miracle, or some unexplained scientific mystery, none of these three
things apply to theories that try to explain needs and behavior of ordinary people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

So again, if you happen to know of an ethical system that CAN be used universally, I'd like to hear about it...
I'd love to find one, it would make my life a whole lot easier.

What about the simple Golden rule - "Do unto others what you wish them to do unto you"
If you are not suicidal and if you genuinely follow this rule, in most cases you won't be wrong.

For example, Hitler and other Nazis, never wanted Jews to kill them, so by following golden rule they would avoid the genocide of Jews.
Also, Inquisitors never wanted other people to prevent them from reading any books, even heretical ones, and they never wanted their books to be burned,
so by following the golden rule, they would avoid book burning.
Also, Inquisitors never wanted to be interrogated or burned alive, even if they disagreed with the opinions of the church, so, by following the golden rule they would avoid interrogating and burining people.

When it comes to your baby, the father probably didn't want to be killed, so he would keep the baby alive or try to make her silent in some other way instead of killing it.
Or maybe he would genuinely want to be killed as means of saving other people's lives, so he would do to the baby the same thing that he would like to be done to him in the similar situation - which is to kill it.

Really, there are very few really bad things that can be done if someone genuinely follows the golden rule and does not assume what would other people want, but do to them what he would really like to be done unto himself.

quote:

I've been considering how the golden rule doesn't really work for sadomasochists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

I've been considering how the golden rule doesn't really work for sadomasochists.

This is true, but there is a modified  version of the golden rule which says:
"Do unto other what you would like them to do unto you if you were in their position."

This works perfectly for sadomasochists. If you are a submissive, even though you don't want to be obeyed, you will obey a dominant, because you know that if you were a dominant you would like to be obeyed.
The dominant, even though he don't want to be dominated, will dominate the submissive, because he knows that if he was a submissive he would like to be dominated.

However, this extended version of golden rule can more easily be abused if you start to assume what would other people like.
For example if Nazis assumed that Jews would like to be killed because they hate themselves, it could serve as a justification for killing Jews.

However, if they applied this modified version of golden rule sincerily, they wouldn't kill Jews, because they would use correct assumption that Jews don't want to be killed.

So with the modified golden rule, it depends on correctness of your assumptions - if they are correct, you will never do wrong, if they are not - you will. However, you can't be sure, unless you can read other people's minds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

Really, there are very few really bad things that can be done if someone genuinely follows the golden rule and does not assume what would other people want, but do to them what he would really like to be done unto himself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

However, this extended version of golden rule can more easily be abused if you start to assume what would other people like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

This is true, but there is a modified  version of the golden rule which says:
"Do unto other what you would like them to do unto you if you were in their position."

This works perfectly for sadomasochists. If you are a submissive, even though you don't want to be obeyed, you will obey a dominant, because you know that if you were a dominant you would like to be obeyed.
The dominant, even though he don't want to be dominated, will dominate the submissive, because he knows that if he was a submissive he would like to be dominated.

quote:

::: sigh ::: Lance says, thinking "How many times have we gone around this circle?"

The proactive version of the Golden Rule appears mostly in Chrisstian renditions.  That is "Do unto others what you wish them to do unto you," has often been used as a basis for missionary work.  As noted above - lots of projection going on.

I like the more Oriental casting of the Golden Rule which reads: "Do NOT do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

Under this version, Nazis don't kill Jews because they certainly don't want the Jews coming to kill them.

Under this version, missionaries don't get to go and convert, because they certainly don't want other religions to come and convert them.

This version of the GR is closer to "Live and let live."  And maybe "Live and let live," is the simple, ethical, one-size-DOES-fit-all version asked for above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

"Do NOT do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

Under this version, Nazis don't kill Jews because they certainly don't want the Jews coming to kill them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

Actually it is hard to find ANY ethical system that would effectively justify punishment of criminals, while at the same time preventing harm to innocent people.

quote:

Lol, are you arguing my point or your own? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SocratesNot

quote:

Lol, are you arguing my point or your own? 

In this case, it seems that I am arguing for your point, but I said that it is hard to find such system, but not impossible.
I think that it is impossible to sum such system in one sentence, but if you made an ethical system that consists of several statements
for example 5-6 sentences or maybe even more, which include a lot of "if... then" , "only if", "unless..." and "in case of" formulations ,
then such system could probably be universally applicable, but it would demand a lot of thinking to effectively invent such system.

quote:


With this little black book, Alain Badiou sows the seeds of intellectual revolt in the fields of contemporary ethical theory. He argues that the bedrock of present-day ethics--the normative conception of human rights--is morally bankrupt. "It amounts to a genuine nihilism, a threatening denial of thought as such," he writes. As Badiou sees it, current ethics has been enlisted in the army of capitalist-liberalism: "The theme of ethics and of human rights is compatible with the self-satisfied egoism of the affluent West, with advertising, and with service rendered to the powers that be." In support of his startling claim, he sketches a history of ethical theory and argues that today's ethics--the traffic not only of philosophers, but of politicians and professionals--is rooted in Kantian origins and a facile understanding of evil.

Badiou proposes a positive doctrine that he calls "The Ethic of Truths," ultimately arguing that "there is no ethics in general." Instead, there are only "processes by which we treat the possibilities of a situation." The book's main failing is its length. It is simply too short to do justice to the panoply of literature on ethics or to inoculate Badiou against a host of objections that are lurking nearby. Nonetheless, his reasoning is powerful and surprising, marking some of the best writing in current European philosophy, and his credentials are impeccable. He teaches at the École normale supérieure in Paris and is author of a half dozen well-regarded books on a range of philosophical topics. --Eric de Place --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Review
It is hard not to feel some sympathy for Badiou's intuition. -- Times Literary Supplement

This bizarre pamphlet is often willfully perverse, but none the less has a scouring force to its arguments. -- The Guardian, 30 November 2002

[A]ims at the very heart of politically correct 'radical' intellectuals, undermining the foundations of their very mode of life! -- Slavoj Zizek