A life of decadence?

[John_Corrado]

*Originally posted by Lolo *
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?

Well, philospohically, the problem is the assumption that merely because something is natural, it doesn’t mean it is innately better or more wholesome. Being a product of nature does not mean that nature is in any ways important to our being; otherwise, we must demand that the child of two accountants therefore devote his own life to accountancy. And that’s a fate I’d wish upon none.

Therefore, I reject the ‘natural order’. It is a situation of happenstance and circumstance, the end product of which has been to give humans a magnitude of intellect, but such a product is the result of randomness, not any kindness or worth upon the part of nature. Our resolve, then, should be to use what the randomness has provided us in order to build something that fits us better; why worship something simply because it’s been around for a while without making a complete mess of things?

Originally posted by Marquesse de Jar
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?

But again, you bring up Nature as if it is something useful or important. Humanity is important to me because I am human; should humanity be doomed, so then am I. Whether the wild, chaotic world of Nature survives or is doomed makes no immediate difference to my own survival. Therefore, as my survival is paramount, I must do what I can to ensure my survival. And the system of Order and Law best ensures such. Nature’s Way is, in the end, irrelevant to the human.

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.

But again, I bring up the point of consent. Should those virgin girls freely and fully consent to being cut up, then the system of Order and Law does not necessarily prevent such a thing (let us not confuse the system of Order with Christian morality). But when you cause harm to one who does not desire it, then you break the social order.

The Social Order is there, in the end, to protect you because you are weak. Because we are all weak. Because no individual can ever be strong enough to fully express their Will and Dominance in the system of Nature you propose- their life shall be quick and painful. Perhaps for a time they shall have strength and fulfill their desires, but they cannot maintain their strength and protect themselves for their entire life, and thus they will be snuffed out by someone else who wishes to prove themselves strong.

Now, were we to know of an afterlife, of a reincarnation or of any continuation of the soul beyond this life, then one could make arguments towards this brutish life’s end not being such a burden; but when we argue from the point of view of those who do not believe in any continuation, of those who believe this existence is the sole being, then the quick and brutish end to all that live is a terrible crime.

originally posted by Izzardesque
Because she keeps up the threat that she WILL kill him if he DOESN’T take notes.

Ah! Good strategy! Except that by stating her intentions as such, he may plot to kill her to ensure his own safety. Therefore, he may demand instead that a bargain occur- that she protect him from being killed, and in return, he provides her with notes. Now they both have a reason to see to the survival of the other- him for his own survival, her for the notes- but now we get into the area of the beginnings of the Social Order, which is my point.

originally posted by pennylane
And some are mockers (someone had to say it)!

That’s a grotty thing to say, now, inn’t?

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.

Hmm. I’m not really an expert, but when I took a Developmental Psych class years ago, they discussed that a sense of empathy doesn’t really develop until one reaches at least eight or nine. Before then, it’s very unusal for a child to be able to understand situations where they have to comprehend how other people are feeling.

Given that, I’d wager that the natural state of a human is to have no real empathy for others; rather, such an empathy is taught to children by society. After all, society wants people who feel a common bond to the society, thus making the society stronger. But that’s speculation on my part, and certainly worth arguing against.

But my life is made more pleasurable by the presence of other people in it (be they as remote as John Corrado).

I’m honored!

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.

Agreed.

Also, do people who worship Mother Nature count as atheists?

Well, do you worship Mother Nature as a personification? That would be theistic; revering Nature’s Way as stated by jarbabyj seems to me not a reverence or belief in a Higher Power, but rather a Philosophical devotion to what they believe to be a higher order of being, which means that atheism can still apply.

[Lolo]

supposing, however, your actions do hurt others–regardless of giving you pleasue.

to who or whom are you amenable?

Supposing I, hypothetically, raped a prostitute with a crucifix. If I have affected her, and only her, am I then only accountable to her for my actions?

[tiny_ham]

*Originally posted by John Corrado *
Well, philospohically, the problem is the assumption that merely because something is natural, it doesn’t mean it is innately better or more wholesome.

But if something is natural, tt is TRUE, and honest, it is in it’s purest form. I don’t go out and rape little boys because everything AROUND me has told me that it’s wrong and disgusting, but if I didn’t listen to those social constraints I could experience the true joy of following my basest instincts and having sex with whoever I wanted.

sadists do not WORSHIP anything. (except a lovely ass ), but they do take note of the patterns of Nature, which are inherently selfish.

A tree’s roots will upend a sidewalk or destroy a basement without care, because it has to to survive.

it doesn’t have that meddlesome CONSCIENCE to tell it that it’s destroying something.

Whether the wild, chaotic world of Nature survives or is doomed makes no immediate difference to my own survival. Therefore, as my survival is paramount, I must do what I can to ensure my survival.

Right. The choice is whether you do that Simply for yourself OR to bring others along with you. As a Sadist, I must take the coat off of a freezing child to keep myself warm. I can’t worry myself with other people. If I don’t care about them, I can’t expect them to care about me.

[QUOTE But when you cause harm to one who does not desire it, then you break the social order.[/QUOTE]

But I don’t give a rat’s ass about the social order. I care about MY order. And I get off on chopping up little girls. So i have to do it.

Because no individual can ever be strong enough to fully express their Will and Dominance in the system of Nature you propose- their life shall be quick and painful. Perhaps for a time they shall have strength and fulfill their desires, but they cannot maintain their strength and protect themselves for their entire life, and thus they will be snuffed out by someone else who wishes to prove themselves strong.

So you’d better live life to excess while you can, because living said life will bring you to a quick end. Pack everything you can into being alive right now, experience everything with everyone, because after this, you’re worm meat.

jar

[pennylane]

That Mother Nature thing was just a mindless joke, actually…

*Originally posted by John Corrado *
Hmm. I’m not really an expert, but when I took a Developmental Psych class years ago, they discussed that a sense of empathy doesn’t really develop until one reaches at least eight or nine.

True; very young children don’t experience empathy, but is this because they need to be taught it or because it is acquired at a later stage in the natural developmental process? Some scientists believe that even non-human primates have theory of mind. Of course, this could be something which they too are taught, as opposed to acquiring naturally. Some primates appear to demonstrate a need for social contact, from an early age. If this is true for us as well, could it mean that certain social behaviours may come naturally to us?

[tiny_ham]

*Originally posted by Lolo *

Supposing I, hypothetically, raped a prostitute with a crucifix. If I have affected her, and only her, am I then only accountable to her for my actions?

You are accountable to no one, not even her. Women, especially to deSade, are here on earth to serve and please men in any form, so don’t worry about her. You are your own god, your own religion, your own law. If YOU hadn’t raped that prostitute, you’d regret it, because it would have brought you pleasure. A pleasure that you’d denied yourself.

jar

[Lolo]

fuck…

society and humanity are taking away from my pleasure.

let the sadism… begin!

[JRDelirious]

[aside]
jarbabyj, I am impressed. It takes some effort (or at least some time – man was he long-winded! – and a strong stomach) to plow through De Sade in depth (and he DID have something about arses, didn’t he …)

[/aside]

[hawthorne]

This is the best ethics thread I’ve seen here. Awesome job, jarbabyj. I guess John Corrado is trying to find a way out of the Hobbesian situation by appealing to empathy and to long-term satisfaction of desire rather than a social situation imposed by a leviathan. Part of this is to invoke the naturalistic fallacy - that just because something is natural doesn’t mean it’s right - and part of it is to deny that people are naturally as opportunistic as de Sade suggests.

But the problem remains: where is our duty to contribute (at minimum by self-denial of our basest tendencies)? To paraphrase Heller’s Catch 22 retort to Kant’s categorical imperative “What if everyone acted like that?” “Then I’d be a fool to do otherwise.”

Time to switch back to my old sig.