First of all Lolo…if you think rape is funny…you may well be on your way to sadism. Channeling the Marquis De Sade**
Corrado…and if we lose doctors, writers, physicists, Nature will replace them if they’re needed.
Why do we put such a value on being alive? There are already too many people on the planet, and plenty of talents are being wasted because of the glut of humanity.
Think of all the writers, doctors, actors, philosophers, SDMB Mods that are out of work, simply because there are too many of them…why not rid the world of the old ones, or even new ones, to balance the scale?
Wolves may create a society, but it’s for their own gain. That’s why de Sade believes there is HONOR among theives. In Justine the DuBois/De Fer crime team trusted each other only because their gains were greater working together. If DuBois discovered she could gain more wealth without De Fer, she would have killed him on the spot.
If you must construct bonds of trust, make sure it’s with other Libertines, and make sure they can’t afford to screw ya.
Oh, true. That’s why among the non-social animals all the critters are all equally “strong”, and are never sick or weak or hungry or the victims of unfortunate incidents.
The “weak” won’t ever go away, barring a nearly unimaginably efficient method of killing all those deemed “weak” immediately (even a strong becomes “weak” at times). Few “weak” would instantly die without social support. As long as they are able to eke out a living (perhaps by killing, theft, prostitution, etc.) there will continue to be the “weak”, though the “strong” may take advantage of their superior power. Perhaps some of the cleverer “weak” will form a mutual assistance pact and beat the crap out of the “strong”, until the strong are gone and all that is left is a bunch of “weaks” who help each other out a bit.
Sorry, not particuarly impressed with DeSade. He is also wrong about there being a lack of an instinct to care for others. We would hardly have made it long as a species of we abandoned all our kids on the hillside at birth.
However, Nature also seems to have equipped us with a counterbalancing set of instincts towards mutual aid. I cite here the example of Mr. Corrado who seems not to have any particular interest in raping or killing (forgive me if I’m being presumptuous). I would venture to guess that most of us would be pretty put out by the reality of trying to kill someone, even if the fantasy of it can be appealing.
Does the direction you’re going, jarbaby, connect with that recent movie where a group of young men lived as “wolves”??
I’d like to raise one argument – one cannot logically infer that Lolo doesn’t have the moral stamina to be a valid Sadist – since the implication of an external morality other than “Nature” is foreign to its implications.
Congratulations, Lolo, you may have found your niche!
Supposing you’ve freed yourself from the untruth of religion, thusly your actions are no longer accountable to God, and you have no parental responsibilities… should you then indulge in a decadent lifestyle?
If that’s what you want, sure.
Should you abuse and destroy what you like–all the while remaining lawful?
As long as you remain lawful, sure why not? If you WANT to wreck your own stuff, well, I think you’re a nutcase, but WTH, you’re not hurting anyone else - go for it. I take my old computer equipment out to the shooting range and punch holes in it with bullets, then pack it back out and dispose of it properly. I suppose I could sell that stuff for a few bucks, but I choose to use it for target practice instead, just because I enjoy doing so. Is that evil? I would say it’s neither inherently good nor inherently evil.
If you have nothing but yourself to live for, what then is to stop you from indulging in any and every perverse fantasy and whim?
Nothing except yourself and whatever beliefs you have left after purging religious dogma from yourself. Funny thing, though… although I’m an athiest and don’t believe in god or heaven or hell, I’m still a pretty nice person. I think, the truth is, I like other people. No real reason for it, I just do. And so I want to be nice to them. Also, experience has taught me that if I am nice to other people, they tend to be nice to me. Far more often than they screw me over. Hence it is in my own self-interest to be a “good” person - I gain a selfish benefit from doing so.
This is the basis of the social contract. We can all agree to cooperate because it benefits us all. We all do so willingly. Now, sometimes the social contract concept can be abused - take socialism, for example. I don’t think compelling people to be “good” works very well. Fear is no a motivator I think should be employed. Enlightened self-interest is a lot stronger a drive, and people will enforce it on themselves much better than you could ever hope to by putting a gun in their back.
Moreover, is it, can it be considered, one’s duty?
By my way of thinking, ones only duty is to make sure that your actions do not harm others. This is simple reciprocality - they also agree not to harm you. You do not have a duty to actively do anything in particular. You only have a duty NOT to do things that harm others. If you want to lie down on your floor and starve to death slowly, that’s your right. You do not have a duty or obligation to keep living just because I personally would like to see you alive and well.
if not one’s self-truth to act upon impulse and desire? would denying the self all desires and fantasy be like living a lie?
Now you’re getting far too philosophical for me. I don’t know, and I don’t care. Do whatever you feel like. If you want to live impulsively, do so. If you want to plan everything carefully, great. If you want to live as some mixture of the above, beautiful. As long as you don’t hurt anyone else in the process.
-Ben
Really? Then what incentive does he have to actually take notes, given that he knows that if he takes notes, he’s going to be roughed up for it. But if he doesn’t take notes, he may do worse in the class, but he avoids getting daily beatings, so why take notes?
Therefore, logically, the girl should just bide her time until shortly before the big test, then kill him and grab the notes- thus gaining all of the notes possible. After all, killing him earlier would mean getting less notes, as well as scaring the other students into not taking notes. Of course, the longer she waits, the more risk she runs that someone else will kill him and take the notes, possibly someone too strong to take the notes from. Thus, in all likelihood, she’ll kill him early so as to guarantee having any notes whatsoever. And thus is the problem of Leviathan.
A. All animals die. Not all animals are killed. Assuming, then, that “nature’s way” is for everything to Be Killed is wrong.
B. What the hell does Nature’s Way have to do with it? If one posits that there is no God, then Nature’s Way by definition has no divine order to it; rather, it is merely the happenstance in which the state of affairs begins. Why swear by something with no plan, no guidance, no thought to it, when one could instead build something with a plan, with thought, and with a goal towards a better result? To worship “Nature’s Way” simply because it was around for a while and didn’t result in the mass destruction of all is akin to worshipping a rock because it managed to get through an Ice Age.
Will it? What guarantees does Nature give us? Nature is, by nature, chaotic and wild. Why should it provide anything for us when need arrives? No food appears in the winter unless we till the ground and make our own stores. Likewise, no doctors etc. shall appear unless we prepare the society for their arrival.
So long as there is no guarantee of anything beyond this life- and in fact, we begin with the premise that there is nothing beyond this life- why should we not put the highest value possible upon being alive?
Ain’t no SDMB Mods out of work that I know of.
Anyways. But to ‘rid the world’ of the old ones or new ones would imperil the current ones. 'Twould be impossible for me to continue my Moderation duties were I to be constantly working to ensure my position against schemers and backstabbers; thus, I- and any other Mods- would have no chance to actually Moderate at all.
Ah, but if De Fer knew that, how soon until De Fer killed DuBois regardless? After all, De Fer must have known that there was always the chance of DuBois finding a way of making more money; as soon as that happened, DuBois would kill De Fer, and De Fer would have no chance to defend himself. Thus, in order to merely survive, De Fer must kill DuBois first; obviously, he does not make as much money, but he keeps his skin.
And in fact, this arrangement is what I’m talking about; the idea that the social compact allows people to work together to create better gains. But the risk of the social compact is that when safety is removed, the individuals fall back to murder and anarchy in and attempt to achieve personal safety. Therefore, rules must be instituted and enforced to ensure the general safety of the public, and those who act against others’ safety must be removed and/or punished in order to keep up the bargain of safety.
**
B. What the hell does Nature’s Way have to do with it? If one posits that there is no God, then Nature’s Way by definition has no divine order to it; rather, it is merely the happenstance in which the state of affairs begins. Why swear by something with no plan, no guidance, no thought to it, when one could instead build something with a plan, with thought, and with a goal towards a better result? To worship “Nature’s Way” simply because it was around for a while and didn’t result in the mass destruction of all is akin to worshipping a rock because it managed to get through an Ice Age.**
well, “nature’s way” is really a vague and useless term–aside, of course, for the purposes of semantics and digression.
if, however, we(humans) are a product of nature are not all our thoughts then natural and a part of nature’s way?
then, if our thoughts and urges our natural, we should act on them?
the problems, the deterent, the rubb, are the consequences, no?
I’m going to have to call my mommy after this discussion
This is the point John. Why should we follow any system of law or order when Nature doesn’t? What is so important about humanity that it must be maintained? If in the wild, chaotic world of Nature, humanity can no longer sustain itself, and we die out, is that not Nature’s Way?
Another problem is that everyone is assuming that following Nature automatically equals rape, arson and murder.
It could very well mean knitting, making pancakes from scratch and marrying one man (although Marquis would slap me for saying it)
But, it could also mean rounding up virgin girls and cutting them into 24,000 pieces after raping them. Becoming a sadist doesn’t require becoming a monster.
We should put value on keeping OURSELVES alive, not anyone else. The greatest value is MY life, not yours. I shouldn’t spend a minute of time worrying if you’re alive, because that takes away from MY pleasure in being alive.
Let’s ask him:
My Italics. De Fer and Du Bois need each other to commit the best crimes. Plus, they enjoying having sex with each other…don’t leave out that important part.
In short, let me end with a quote from Justine which I think sums it all up:
“In a perfectly virtuous world I would recommend virtue…in a totally corrupt world I would never recommend anything but vice.”
As long as I have to worry about the girl behind me stabbing me to death for my chemistry notes, I might as well be ready to shoot her in the head to protect myself.
Because she keeps up the threat that she WILL kill him if he DOESN’T take notes
I prefer to sit behind pretty young things rather than the other way around. Makes for more pleasant view (you get a crick in the neck doing all that turning round! )
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but didn’t Nature make man a social being? I always felt that a respect for one’s fellow members of society came naturally to us. True, worrying about other people’s lives does detract from the pleasurable living of my own life. But my life is made more pleasurable by the presence of other people in it (be they as remote as John Corrado). I don’t believe in the afterlife, so I want to live my current life as fully and happily as I can. The participation in society of millions of worker drones is what makes any kind of comfort, let alone decadence, possible. It seems to me that Nature urges man towards progress as it urges most species to best ensure the survival of the species, and not merely the survival of each individual member.
Also, do people who worship Mother Nature count as atheists?
I sometimes look at people coming home after 13 hours of work/commuting and think a similar thing: Capitalism/consumerism f**king its disciples. I suppose they do have a choice though, if they get past the brainwashing.
But then I’m relatively free from religion (Capitalism or any other) and kids so I can think/do almost any lawful thing I want. I suppose that’s decadence, but not in a capitalist/consumer sense.
Morality doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with believing in God. It just happens that because of the extent which Christianity is practiced in the Western World (and most of the rest for that matter) that most people’s moral code replicates that of Christianity.
moral adj.
1 a concerned with goodness or badness of human character or behaviour, or with the distinction between right and wrong. b concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behaviour. 2 a virtuous in general conduct.
or as a noun
Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong
The social contract got a mention earlier and is clearly at the heart of the argument. In my view, the existence of laws is clear evidence that the social contract is in place. We have duties to our fellow citizens because the alternative is Hobbes’ State of Nature. And as well as life being nasty, brutish and short, the State of Nature means bad haircuts and limited fashion choices - see survivalists for details.
After that, I’m basically with Mill. Do what you want as long as it doesn’t harm others.
I know it was jest (as was the title of my post in reply). I only commented on it because it is a question I often get asked when I have to tell people I don’t believe in God.
I was trying to contribute to the general theme of the thread too - what we generally regard as moral behaviour, and therefore presumably what the Marquis was rebelling against, HAS been dictated to some extent by the Christian religion.
