Controlling the spirits: Enslavement?

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

TeaDidikai

Your concept of morality reads as non-existent.

Not really, how to put it simply...what I see as moral or not isn't necessarily fixed because I acknowledge that I don't know everything, yet it takes a damn good argument to manage to shift me to believe that my current stance is incorrect. If someone can show me a situation in which it would be moral to take an action that I previously believed was immoral, I'd consider that situation, whether or not it being moral is justified, and if so amend my previous belief on the action's immorality accordingly. It's not a matter of any time anyone says something is moral it becomes moral, it's a matter of convincing me of its morality.

Quote:

Basically, when it comes to imposing your will on another, there is no time when doing so is okay, yes?

No. If said other is fine with it/doesn't care/wants it, it would be morally neutral/good depending on which one of those three it was. If it was somehow necessary, say, forcing one's will on another unwillingly to stop them from committing murder, it would be justifiable, but morally bad, and at that point it comes down to weighing which bad is greater and thus should be stopped.

I think I found the schism.

Since morality is "relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" a la Merriam Webster, I see the justifiable (hell, the call to proper action) to thus make the action moral.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Cyrus the Elder

TeaDidikai

Your concept of morality reads as non-existent.

Not really, how to put it simply...what I see as moral or not isn't necessarily fixed because I acknowledge that I don't know everything, yet it takes a damn good argument to manage to shift me to believe that my current stance is incorrect. If someone can show me a situation in which it would be moral to take an action that I previously believed was immoral, I'd consider that situation, whether or not it being moral is justified, and if so amend my previous belief on the action's immorality accordingly. It's not a matter of any time anyone says something is moral it becomes moral, it's a matter of convincing me of its morality.

Quote:

Basically, when it comes to imposing your will on another, there is no time when doing so is okay, yes?

No. If said other is fine with it/doesn't care/wants it, it would be morally neutral/good depending on which one of those three it was. If it was somehow necessary, say, forcing one's will on another unwillingly to stop them from committing murder, it would be justifiable, but morally bad, and at that point it comes down to weighing which bad is greater and thus should be stopped.

I think I found the schism.

Since morality is "relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" a la Merriam Webster, I see the justifiable (hell, the call to proper action) to thus make the action moral.

Yup, that'd be where the wires are getting crossed ninja I only count justifiability as one of the aspects of a moral action. It's necessary, but not encompassing.  

[TeaDidikai]

Man, I'm doing my best to understand, but it really looks like you're redefining the concept of morality to justify your appreciation of subjective morality with your desire to be objective.  

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Man, I'm doing my best to understand, but it really looks like you're redefining the concept of morality to justify your appreciation of subjective morality with your desire to be objective.

To be frank, I kinda agree here. If something is absolutely necessary, i.e. in order to preserve oneself or another or in the cause of some other morally good purpose one must do something and there exists no alternative but this thing, it is morally justified if not good. I do not know that one can do what is absolutely necessary and justified and still be called "evil."

This is not to say that you're wrong in your idea, but that whatever code you have present defining how you view those actions isn't morality, at least not as that term is currently used or defined.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Hrmmm...
Sticky wicket we are playing with here.
Almost deserves it's own thread... ninja  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

Man, I'm doing my best to understand, but it really looks like you're redefining the concept of morality to justify your appreciation of subjective morality with your desire to be objective.

I don't really see how. A moral action is doing that which is right. An act that is merely less evil than another isn't right it's just not as evil. It may be more right, it may be accepted by society, but that doesn't make the act itself right confused

I guess the problem here is that I'm acknowledging not that morality is necessarily subjective, but that breaking morality can, and is, unavoidable in some circumstances. In a no win situation, where two actions are both wrong (murder 1 to save 10, save 1 let 10 die) neither action is moral, yet one can be justified.

As for the subjective part, I don't see how I'm being very subjective. My morals are rather objective unless I'm shown ways in which my belief is flawed. For instance, I used to believe "Slavery is wrong" then came along "But wait, not all slavery it chattel slavery" which led to the amendment "Slavery of an entity against its will is wrong", and, if I'm proven to be wrong on that preponderance of a moral stance, I shall amend it again accordingly.

I'm not omnipresent (yet ninja ) and as such, I can only judge based on my flawed incomplete knowledge, and fill in the gaps as they come up.

I guess in the end, what it comes down to is I'm very much an "Ends never justify the means" kinda guy ninja  

[Gho the Girl]

Cyrus the Elder

TeaDidikai

Man, I'm doing my best to understand, but it really looks like you're redefining the concept of morality to justify your appreciation of subjective morality with your desire to be objective.

I don't really see how. A moral action is doing that which is right. An act that is merely less evil than another isn't right it's just not as evil. It may be more right, it may be accepted by society, but that doesn't make the act itself right confused

I guess the problem here is that I'm acknowledging not that morality is necessarily subjective, but that breaking morality can, and is, unavoidable in some circumstances. In a no win situation, where two actions are both wrong (murder 1 to save 10, save 1 let 10 die) neither action is moral, yet one can be justified.

As for the subjective part, I don't see how I'm being very subjective. My morals are rather objective unless I'm shown ways in which my belief is flawed. For instance, I used to believe "Slavery is wrong" then came along "But wait, not all slavery it chattel slavery" which led to the amendment "Slavery of an entity against its will is wrong", and, if I'm proven to be wrong on that preponderance of a moral stance, I shall amend it again accordingly.

I'm not omnipresent (yet ninja ) and as such, I can only judge based on my flawed incomplete knowledge, and fill in the gaps as they come up.

I guess in the end, what it comes down to is I'm very much an "Ends never justify the means" kinda guy ninja

How is it possible for something that is absolutely necessary to still be "wrong"?

Why do the ends NEVER justify the means?  

[Gho the Girl]

Fiddlers Green

Hrmmm...
Sticky wicket we are playing with here.
Almost deserves it's own thread... ninja

I wonder. What exactly is morality? How is it constructed? When is a code of proper conduct or code of good actions not morality?  

[Cyrus the Elder]

Gho the Girl

How is it possible for something that is absolutely necessary to still be "wrong"?

Why should it be right merely because it's unavoidable? Is, say, child rape "right" if you have no other choice?

Quote:

Why do the ends NEVER justify the means?

Because the means are still wrong, and merely because they lead to a good outcome doesn't change the fact that the means themselves are immoral. Murdering 1 to save 1000 doesn't stop the means from being murder.  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

Why should it be right merely because it's unavoidable?

This isn't the question though. There is a way to avoid the enslavement of said beings. You merely have to allow them to continue to do that which is immoral.

Quote:

Because the means are still wrong, and merely because they lead to a good outcome doesn't change the fact that the means themselves are immoral. Murdering 1 to save 1000 doesn't stop the means from being murder.

It does though. In cases where the execution of one individual spares the masses the lawful action is the sanctioned execution. It literally becomes "Not Murder", but justified killing.

That said, I hate the redux to absurdity moral questions. The Street Car Kill One Save Ten situation doesn't happen and my Philosophy 101 course burned me out on that kind of bull. I'd rather look at honest and real situations.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

This isn't the question though. There is a way to avoid the enslavement of said beings. You merely have to allow them to continue to do that which is immoral.

In which it becomes a trade off between which is less immoral. 3nodding

Quote:

It does though. In cases where the execution of one individual spares the masses the lawful action is the sanctioned execution. It literally becomes "Not Murder", but justified killing.

But the action of taking a life itself still isn't a good action. The outcome it creates is more desirable than not taking the action, but that doesn't make the act good, merely the outcome of the act. Lying to stop a friend being fired is still lying, the act doesn't become good merely because the outcome is good.

My point is that whilst an outcome can be more desirable, and even more moral, than the other outcome, the actions used to achieve that outcome are a separate matter altogether. An immoral act can bring about a moral end. Take for instance Robbin Hood. Stealing from the corrupt rich to give to the starving poor is all well and good, but does that stop it being immoral to illegally deprive someone of what they own against their will?

Quote:

That said, I hate the redux to absurdity moral questions. The Street Car Kill One Save Ten situation doesn't happen and my Philosophy 101 course burned me out on that kind of bull. I'd rather look at honest and real situations.

You provide some and I'll get right on addressing them.  

[TeaDidikai]

Cyrus the Elder

In which it becomes a trade off between which is less immoral. 3nodding

If morality is a function of acting appropriately, then there isn't a "less immoral". There's the proper action and then there's the incorrect action.

If Morality was instead defined as "The measure by which sensibilities are least affronted" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:

but does that stop it being immoral to illegally deprive someone of what they own against their will?

Yep. It does. Because when the law itself becomes immoral, acting against the immoral thing is the moral thing to do.  

[Cyrus the Elder]

TeaDidikai

If morality is a function of acting appropriately, then there isn't a "less immoral". There's the proper action and then there's the incorrect action.

What if you're unable to act "appropriately" in a given situation though?

Quote:

Yep. It does. Because when the law itself becomes immoral, acting against the immoral thing is the moral thing to do.

And at this point, I can see that we're just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. ninja  

[Fiddlers Green]

What authority determines what is appropriate?

For my part, I Know it was hardwired into the creation of the Cosmos.
However, my gnosis can not, and more importantly, should not, convince anyone else.

In the absence of a dictating authority, how can a moral system be objective. When created by an external authority, does it not become merely subjective on a different level? Unless that Authority is also bound.

Fun times this.

Now, about spirit slavery...
How do y'all feel about binding the soul of a defeated foe as punishment for whatever you killed them for?
what if you don't enslave them, what if you just force them to exist in a urinal cake in a truck-stop somewhere?
Is this better or worse than doing the same thing to a spirit that is not human in origin?

How about this?
Can a thoughtform ever really be free?
In creating a thoughtform, are you not giving birth to a slave?
Forming it from your own vis, does this make it okay to keep it as property?
Could the same be said of physical offspring?
How about clones?
Can you enslave yourself?
Where does separate identity begin and end?  

[Gho the Girl]

Fiddlers Green

How about this?
Can a thoughtform ever really be free?
In creating a thoughtform, are you not giving birth to a slave?
Forming it from your own vis, does this make it okay to keep it as property?
Could the same be said of physical offspring?
How about clones?
Can you enslave yourself?
Where does separate identity begin and end?

In my practice, my thoughtforms are soul infused extensions of myself. We share the same soulstuff, although they may be of a different character. If a thoughtform I know desired to be free of me, and it seems that one of the ones I used to know seems to be acting in this manner, I'd let it go. But when you create a thoughtform, one usually creates it with a desire to serve, so if the servitude is chosen, without punishment or requirement for it to stay, is it really slavery?