Comment

Comment by Liam S. on February 9, 2013 at 2:35pm

One can hope indeed. 

From my own standpoint, I have yet to find a discussion here (before this one) that I felt in any way worked against the ideals of open discussion and mutual education. And it was not Dallas's entries that have been the barrier here. 

Jonas - I look forward to other discussions with you. But I hope this one will stop. 

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on February 9, 2013 at 2:05pm

Be patient with me Jonas. Perhaps one day I'll reach catch up to your profound intellect and bewildering insight. 

One can hope! 

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on February 9, 2013 at 1:27pm

Your vivisectional response isn't really warranted, and certainly isn't appreciated.

Whether you appreciate it or not is irrelevant to me. I simply stated as clearly as I could what I mean. I don't understand why you'd have a problem with that. 

...it didn't really seem to relate to anything I posted about how I, myself delineate the two terms to lessen confusion.

I responded to your post by telling how I delineate the two, in my own mind and experiences. Why would that not be relevant? 

Do you also only use the term apple when engaged in the description of oranges?

No that's just being stupid. I explained why I prefer the term ethical over moral. I did not say that moral never has any applications. I explained my reasoning behind it. 

what you basically have said is that unless one is asocial scientists, psychologists, or the like (these people having of course never being considered hypocritical or snooty, let alone tongue wagging and intrusive as a whole by anyone) then they are merely hypocritical assholes,

What I said is that I tend to associate the use of the words moral or immoral with those kinds of people. I never made a blanket statement to say that ALL PEOPLE who use those words are hypocrites, without exception. 

I still stand by my comment that your response does not foster open discourse on the subject, and the defense thatyou started this group is of little account to me as I have witnessed in my lifetime a great many individuals in the employ of the others to complete a task they were scarcely qualified to perform.

If you feel that I am not qualified to run such a group, you're welcome to press that little button that reads "leave group." Trust me, you won't hurt my feelings. 

Now, for the sake of possibly being able to engage more to the purpose of this group, and leave this playground argument over semantics behind...

You're the one who brought up semantics. 

I would be interested in hearing why you say it doesn't seem appropriate to label a murderer unethical. Or how that relates to calling Hitler an asshole.

I'm not suggesting that a murderer isn't unethical. I'm simply stating it is not the word choice I would use. Clearly murder is wrong, unjust, and yes, even immoral. It's just that I'm more inclined to the word unethical with a company that knowingly violates a law or an employee who steals money. 

As for calling Hitler an asshole, the word quite simply doesn't fit, which is my point. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. Calling him an asshole seems to come up short. An asshole is the guy who cuts you off in traffic. Not a man who exterminated millions of people. 

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on February 9, 2013 at 9:45am

Sorry, while I am new to your group, and chimed in uninvited,

It's a public group open to everyone. You don't need an apology or an invitation. 

So, what you are saying is that the discussion here of morality is a direct admission of being a snooty, tongue wagging, asshole?

No, that's not what I mean. What I'm trying to say is that the word morality has usually carried that kind of association with me, as it is the kind of word bandied around by self-righteous hypocrites who are always peering into other people's windows. For that reason, it is not a word that I normally use myself. I would be more inclined to call a bad politician unethical than I would immoral. It's just not a word I use a lot.  

However, the word morality when used by social scientists, psychologists, or the like, is quite different, and it is hard to avoid the word when discussing human behavior and interactions. 

Doesn't really seem to me to foster the idea of open discussion I've come to expect on AoM.

Not sure how you could jump to that conclusion, considering the fact that I started this group and have posted about 2 dozen discussion threads on the topic. 

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on February 8, 2013 at 10:11pm

IDK, when people start talking about "morality," snooty, self-congratulatory, tongue-waging a-holes are what normally pops into my mind. People who are always in other people's business, always condemning others, and who are essentially only hypocrites themselves. 

Moral or immoral are not words I think I use often. I tend to use ethical or unethical more, but usually in relation to non-violent behavior, like embezzling or lying. Doesn't seem appropriate to call a murderer unethical. That's like calling Hitler an asshole. 

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on October 25, 2011 at 1:00pm

Ethics Matter: A Conversation with Peter Singer

Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer lives up to his beliefs, giving away 25-30 percent of his income to alleviate absolute poverty, and defending animal rights--or as he puts it, "extending equality beyond the species boundary." Here are his thoughts on these topics and more.

Since 1999 he has been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University.

Listen to the podcast here.

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on September 22, 2011 at 3:01pm

Man points for this guy.

Comment by Jeff Kraykovic on January 15, 2011 at 3:22pm

Thanks for the invite Dallas, I am intrigued to say the least.

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on January 4, 2011 at 4:05pm

Thanks Miles. I've updated the homepage.

Comment by Miles R. on January 4, 2011 at 4:01pm

In English as in other modern languages, the word "ethics" and its cognates are singular nouns: "Ethics is," not "Ethics are." The "-s" ending does reflect an original plural, in the Latin noun (of Greek derivation) "ethica"; but like the noun "news" (which also used to be plural), it has been grammatically singular for hundreds of years.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page