Your life is a lie and it's all your fault. Be selfish and unethical instead.

[blossom]

What you are saying here would foster greater self-reliance though wouldn't it? Sort of like the Spartans?

Originally Posted by Mounds

Lets consider for a second a society of people who have no morals... sociopaths if you will.

Should I send my child to school with lunch today?

Should I feed the dogs today?

Should I go see my dying family member in the hospital?

Welcome to a world of complete inefficency. A world where you fend for yourself and no one will help you. Every single decision that you would normally take for granted you will now mull over. We will fall from gods to insects in this percieved utopia.
Am I wrong here?

[Karanime]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Lets consider for a second a society of people who have no morals... sociopaths if you will.

Should I send my child to school with lunch today?

Should I feed the dogs today?

Should I go see my dying family member in the hospital?

Welcome to a world of complete inefficency. A world where you fend for yourself and no one will help you. Every single decision that you would normally take for granted you will now mull over. We will fall from gods to insects in this percieved utopia.
Am I wrong here?

Uh, yeah, you're wrong here.

What about following arbitrary rules that we don't want to makes us gods?

Why do you have a child? You love him. So you WANT to take care of him. No-brainer.

Why do you have dogs? You enjoy them. So feed them. No-brainer.

Should you see a dying family member? Well, if you're not a freak like me and actually care about said family member, it's probably also a no-brainer.

If anything, it makes decisions easier, because they're based on what YOU want to do, rather than figuring out what society wants.

Then again, for those who know the rules of society and don't understand themselves, I can see why following the rules may be more efficient.

Also, fending for yourself is easier for those who find they can do things quicker and better that way. I'm like that.

/<3

[Cado]

Originally Posted by IamAlsoThat

It relates to the ancient question if God can do anything can he create a stone that even he could not lift...

If humans are omnipotent could they create a stone they could not lift. If it is the most important thing for me to lift a stone that I created such that I could not lift it. Reality with omnipotence falls apart.

I don't know that I ever claimed that humanity is omnipotent but we are surely free. Free to do what? Evolve as we will, whether it's by strengthening individual consciousness or melding with the all.

Although as a divine entity there's a certain logic to creating a boulder one cannot lift. It's both a means of reflection and growth. Limitations force one to be more creative than he would otherwise be.

Psychopaths experience no psychological toll from killing people. Hence they are psychopaths. Once again we said in a world with no ethics and morality there would be no legal code. Thus psychopaths would have no reason not commit crimes.
Also, if no one had morals they would not be disturbed by psychopathic killing or murder in general just as some today are more or less disturbed by things depending on how strongly they hold the "social construct" of morality. In other words thank source I created the legal system and morality, because that is what keeping society from general anarchy. People don't murder either because they themselves think its "wrong" or because they fear that society thinks its "wrong".
only because they think its wrong.

Psychopaths are very complicated, I won't pretend to understand them or what drives them. However, there's nothing to stop an intelligent psychopath from doing as they will within society as it exists today. "Morality" is a limitation inasmuch as people allow it to limit them.

Which brings me to your second point: it's a strawman. I'm presenting morality as a societal construct and not an ingrained behavior. What I'm saying is that if you took morality out of the picture the vast majority of people would still act in a "moral" way. Without the complicated rules which have sprung from this primal drive there would likely be chaos, however on a basic level it's still a bad idea to kill anyone from the same species. Barring extreme stress, most people would feel no inclination to do so anyway.

Your argument still says known murderers and the majority of murderers walk free at least at present.
But if humans are omnipotent then they are definitely able to kill without it being known. And without psychological effects. Omnipotent means they can do anything including for example, preventing detection, psychological effects, and any ramifications what so ever of murder.

Freedom=/=omnipotence. I don't recall using the word omnipotent myself. Karanime is extremely intelligent and she makes some good points but I don't agree with everything she says 100%. Do not assume our stances are the same.

What caused the universe to come into being?

Why does it constantly need to progress why can't it just be at the perfect place NOW. All that exists is NOW therefore constant progress means you always have to have more. In such a case the world must never be perfect because then there would be no reason to progress.

Who said I believe everything is perfect? As a matter of fact I loathe perfection because it implies a static existence. I want my romance with the universe to be more than a mere candle flame snuffed upon my inevitable death. I embrace my conscious self because in doing so I may love it longer and in time become so refined that I am as the creative force which brought me into being.

No, you can keep perfection. I'd rather have passion.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Illustro Cado

Not morality per se but morality without regard for bettering the human condition. Sam Harris gave an excellent talk on the subject: YouTube - Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

Again I want to point to this talk. It's a great way of thinking about and discussing morality as people within a global culture.

Morality as a set of rules which we blindly adhere to won't work, it hasn't worked, and it's not sustainable. Morality which can evolve to meet people's needs and promote optimal human experience on rational rather than religious terms is our way forward. The first step toward that is realizing it is a construct and if we can't convince every human being that that's all it is we can at least alter the terms under which it functions for the betterment of all.

[Karanime]

IAmAlsoThat is confusing, ain't he? He quoted both of us in the same reply so I don't know if he was referring to you or me in some of that.

/<3

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Karanime

IAmAlsoThat is confusing, ain't he? He quoted both of us in the same reply so I don't know if he was referring to you or me in some of that.

/<3

I'm completely baffled. I responded as best I could but there's really no way to go further with the discussion if he keeps using the same technique.

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Karanime

What about following arbitrary rules that we don't want to makes us gods?

Can you give me a few examples of these rules? I can think of at least one... The Lacy Act. It states that we can't collect any wildlife materials within the US. That means bugs too. Of couse, no bug collector actually respects that law because it's ludicris (short of protected species). Maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Are we talking about the pressures of society to do the right thing?

Why do you have a child? You love him. So you WANT to take care of him. No-brainer.

Why do you have dogs? You enjoy them. So feed them. No-brainer.

Should you see a dying family member? Well, if you're not a freak like me and actually care about said family member, it's probably also a no-brainer.

It's all a no-brainer for someone with a conscience. A sociopath (a person with no morals) makes all these decisions consciously. If we only look out for ourselves and have no right or wrong, then why wouldn't you let your children or dogs go hungry? Read the book "The Sociopath Next Door" for more information.

If anything, it makes decisions easier, because they're based on what YOU want to do, rather than figuring out what society wants.

Then again, for those who know the rules of society and don't understand themselves, I can see why following the rules may be more efficient.

If were talking pressures of society (dress this way, don't say the wrong thing, what will people think), then that's easy. Just stop caring. In fact, I've never been able to truly fit in socially. Not for a lack of effort. It's just that I'm a mismatch. When I'm in a social setting, I either can't keep up with what's going on or I overcompensate. I like things that most people don't. I don't watch any TV (except Supernatural!) so I can't discuss Survivor, American Idol, The Bachelor, ect. Not by choice, I live outside of the confines of societies pressures. Someone could easily make that choice and enjoy the same benefits.

Also, fending for yourself is easier for those who find they can do things quicker and better that way. I'm like that.

Here's where I must disagree. Everyone has 24 hours in a day, from the President to a street bum. That means that if you spend your time doing menial tasks, your time is gone. If you spend it doing top level stuff, your time is gone. This is where the magic of delegation comes in.
When I trained for my paramedic certificate, they drilled this into our heads. Delegate, delegate, delegate. If you come on a scene, see a person who appears to have taken a fall, you get the EMR to hold the head (possible cervical spine injury, if the person moves their head, it could result in paralysis). Students have made the mistake in scenarios where they do it themselves and the scenario is failed. You can't let go of that head until it is secured. If the highest ranking member of the team is doing a menial task, who is doing the upper level tasks?
It's kind of the same thing at my work. I can do each individual task faster and more accurately than anyone else (grading, bagging, stapling and boxing). It doesn't make any sense for me to do this though. Instead, I delegate to nine other people. Four graders, two baggers, two staplers and one boxer. Production per minute goes from under 1 bag to over 30 bags. Best of all, in a way, I still work alone. I give the orders and then I disappear to make plans. Time well spent
I used to think as well that I can get everything done faster on my own. There are many people who would simply rather work by themselves. I'm one of the as well. If I were in a co-supervisory position, I wouldn't like it. But technically, since there is no one else in my position, I work alone. I just delegate tasks instead of doing everything myself.
Karamine, don't get me wrong with my posts, what your saying has merit. I'm trying to help expand your view a bit. That's how we learn from each other.

[Karanime]

Originally Posted by Mounds

Can you give me a few examples of these rules? I can think of at least one... The Lacy Act. It states that we can't collect any wildlife materials within the US. That means bugs too. Of couse, no bug collector actually respects that law because it's ludicris (short of protected species). Maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Are we talking about the pressures of society to do the right thing?

Ludicrous*

Yeah, we are. I proposed to get rid of the notion of a "right" thing.

It's all a no-brainer for someone with a conscience. A sociopath (a person with no morals) makes all these decisions consciously. If we only look out for ourselves and have no right or wrong, then why wouldn't you let your children or dogs go hungry? Read the book "The Sociopath Next Door" for more information.

I'll elaborate on my earlier point.

Why would you have a dog or a kid if you were a sociopath? Seriously? If you don't have morals then you're obviously pro-choice, so if you didn't want the kid, you could just kill it. And sociopaths aren't obligated to go look at puppies every weekend (but wouldn't that be an awesome law?), and even if they were, they're still not obligated to purchase them.

So in what situation would you find a sociopath having to make these kinds of decisions?

If were talking pressures of society (dress this way, don't say the wrong thing, what will people think), then that's easy. Just stop caring. In fact, I've never been able to truly fit in socially. Not for a lack of effort. It's just that I'm a mismatch. When I'm in a social setting, I either can't keep up with what's going on or I overcompensate. I like things that most people don't. I don't watch any TV (except Supernatural!) so I can't discuss Survivor, American Idol, The Bachelor, ect. Not by choice, I live outside of the confines of societies pressures. Someone could easily make that choice and enjoy the same benefits.

Good stuff, innit?

The thing is, a lot of people are able to make the choice, but think something awful will happen if they do. They try to fit in, much harder than you've tried. They spend years lying to themselves, wasting their potential. What if the mind that can cure cancer is trying desperately to fit in with a group of jocks or supermodels? What if it's drinking itself away because the relationship they had because they thought they should was playing out the only way it could?

Meep.

Here's where I must disagree. Everyone has 24 hours in a day, from the President to a street bum. That means that if you spend your time doing menial tasks, your time is gone. If you spend it doing top level stuff, your time is gone. This is where the magic of delegation comes in.
When I trained for my paramedic certificate, they drilled this into our heads. Delegate, delegate, delegate. If you come on a scene, see a person who appears to have taken a fall, you get the EMR to hold the head (possible cervical spine injury, if the person moves their head, it could result in paralysis). Students have made the mistake in scenarios where they do it themselves and the scenario is failed. You can't let go of that head until it is secured. If the highest ranking member of the team is doing a menial task, who is doing the upper level tasks?
It's kind of the same thing at my work. I can do each individual task faster and more accurately than anyone else (grading, bagging, stapling and boxing). It doesn't make any sense for me to do this though. Instead, I delegate to nine other people. Four graders, two baggers, two staplers and one boxer. Production per minute goes from under 1 bag to over 30 bags. Best of all, in a way, I still work alone. I give the orders and then I disappear to make plans. Time well spent
I used to think as well that I can get everything done faster on my own. There are many people who would simply rather work by themselves. I'm one of the as well. If I were in a co-supervisory position, I wouldn't like it. But technically, since there is no one else in my position, I work alone. I just delegate tasks instead of doing everything myself.
Karamine, don't get me wrong with my posts, what your saying has merit. I'm trying to help expand your view a bit. That's how we learn from each other.

XD I know my posts have merit. Thanks for saying it, though.

Remember, I'm not afraid of being proven wrong. If I am, all the better.

Delegation is usually done in exchange. In paramedics, that's how the job is done, and the whole reason they're there is to save lives. In business, you delegate, but you pay them. You give them something in return. Something worth their while. Otherwise, why should they do it? Out of the good will of their hearts?

That's what I mean, here. You're alone, because you can't depend on anyone else. Sure, you sort of depend on your employees, but if one quits, you can just hire another one. You're independent.

/<3

[Mounds]

Originally Posted by Karanime

Yeah, we are. I proposed to get rid of the notion of a "right" thing.

Now I'm picking up what your laying down. If social stigmas were to vanish, we would have a much happier existence.
Regarding the sociopath thing, check out that book. "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. It will give you some really good insight. As for how they end up with a child or a dog in the first place, well, a child is obvious. By reading the news, you will run across sociopaths that have killed their children. For dogs, some people are simply impulsive.

[IamAlsoThat]

The Points remain the same:
Omnipotence is an impossible concept. Assumption there is an omnipotent being. They decide to create a rock even they can never lift. They fail to lift the rock they are no longer definable as omnipotent. (for Karanime)

Whether psychopathic or not moral code is not inherent in people. People gain their moral codes from society, their parents, the media, their friends, themselves. Case in point you believe that the majority of people would not kill another (I could quote that from Illustro Cado). However: in Nazi germany people were led to believe that Jews weren't humans and could be killed and should be killed and they were killed en masse. 6 million people. (You could look at the obedience of soldiers in the war, people drafted for war to kill innocent people or other people--without their choice would go into that war and actually kill people.) Or you could look at the regime of Stalin, or Zedong. For real life examples of people following orders to kill people en masse for no reason whatsoever. Imagine if they actually offered them an incentive like free organs to harvest and profit off of.
Let us look at experimental evidence in which normal people would kill another person to go along with an experimenter's directions: In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Only one participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks below the 300-volt level.[1]Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now these weren't anyone, 65% of Yale undergraduate students--educated, intelligent people-- would kill someone and 100% would believe they are causing pain to another individual if an experimenter told them to do it.

You don't have to be a psychopath to kill someone in this society you just have to have the right person tell you its okay.

If we take out right and wrong from societal laws people will kill each other left and right, front and back. There is absolutely nothing stupid about killing another human being except for moral and legal codes. It is in fact stupid not to kill others for pleasure, money and preferable living conditions. If not for the fact that laws make it so that it causes social ostracization and potential social value loss with jail or a criminal record.

While in general the rule of law is not maintained at 100% of cases, the complete lack of the rule of law will not permit a moment for growth because you would have to always either kill or be killed, run away from or chase.

Sociopaths and Psychopaths, at least according to Freud the father of Modern psychotherapy are a result of them never developing a superego or conscience. If there was no rule of law there would be nothing to develop conscience based on.

Take current day countries in the Arab world where it is actually still legal to stone a woman to death if you caught her cheating on her husband. (Obviously if a man cheats on his wife no problem at all.) In their society the rules state that killing people is fine, and this is the practice. Now our society abhors this behavior however if this was our law this would be our practice.

Moral laws were built for a reason and serve a great wonderful purpose as Karanime states herself everything exists because you built it and you have to take responsibility for it existing. Laws exist.

[Karanime]

Originally Posted by IamAlsoThat

The Points remain the same:
Omnipotence is an impossible concept. Assumption there is an omnipotent being. They decide to create a rock even they can never lift. They fail to lift the rock they are no longer definable as omnipotent. (for Karanime)

Maybe I should have rephrased, then.

Skip the rock example. If a person is truly omnipotent, then they should be able to make themselves not omnipotent. There's a shortcut to your paradox.

You can only do whatever you choose to (consciously or not). You cannot exist while simultaneously not existing. You cannot be omnipotent while simultaneously being powerless.

However, you do have the potential to be one or the other, if you so choose. And in that sense, you're only able to do the one you've chosen.

The semantics and technicalities of omnipotence don't exist. Stop focusing on the isn't and start focusing on the is.

/<3