Hypocrisy Of People: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Hypocrisy Of People » Hypocrisy Of People

Hypocrisy Of People
Moral And Ethical Paradoxes.

Hypocrisy Of People

SinisterUrge
Misanthrope

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/01/08 - 07:56 AM: Subject: Hypocrisy Of People	#1
Society thrives on the master slave relationship of conquest, subjugation, control and domination of others through disposal. This exists through forms of classism, exploitation, servitude, enslavement and control of other people on a wide social scale where isolation, alienation, mental trauma or desensitization is a consequence of such behavior. It has always been this way through history and I doubt it will ever change. Meanwhile through all this inequality and degradation we have somthing called ethics or morality which pronounces that all people must coincide to narrow definitions of what is seemingly called right in refraining from equally narrow definitions of what is call wrong. Is this even realistic? The paradox lies in the fact that past and present history revolves around inequality in the guise of the master slave relationship in which millions of people have to do things they don't want to do against their veru will where simultaneously those in control tell it's citizens to obey or behave in being moral. Is this not hypocrisy or at the very least a unrealistic perspective on life in general? Those who describe people as moral agents are foolish to me and those who speak of equality in human events have to be some of the greatest liars I have ever known. Edited by SinisterUrge on 05/01/08 - 08:02 AM
The end justifies the means and given the relativity of existence the means can be anything. If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 195

Posted 05/01/08 - 11:08 AM:	#2
You appear to be drawing an analogy from a master-slave relationship to the government-governed relationship. I'll take issue here. [take note of the word collective, it is key] Society is a construct made of individuals, instinctively or deliberately coming together for their common good. Government is a construct of that society to form a fair and organized means to further the common good. Since it is constructed by the society, which is constructed by the individuals, the government itself is subject to the collective will of the governed. If the government no longer holds itself to the collective will of the individuals, and thus no longer forwards its sole end, the common good, it is a broken tool that should be scrapped for a new one. Since the government is of the people, this is as simple as the society collectively willing a new contract. Not only is this the right of the society, it is every individual's duty within that society, as part of that society, to carry this out through any and all means necessary. If the society still functions, this will be entirely bloodless. If individuals do not attempt to change their government, they implicitly agree that the government is carrying out the collective will. Be the change you wish to see in the world. -Ghandi SPQR -Roman Legion
It is what it is.

ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149

Posted 05/04/08 - 08:20 PM:	#3
SinisterUrge wrote: Is this not hypocrisy or at the very least a unrealistic perspective on life in general? Those who describe people as moral agents are foolish to me and those who speak of equality in human events have to be some of the greatest liars I have ever known. First up: Never confuse a proper abstraction, or even an idea of a proper abstraction, with people's actions. By this I mean: Proper abstractions are never flawed. People, however, are far from perfect. In fact people (the majority) are not knowledgeable on the issue. With that in mind; Expecting moral behavior is unrealistic. Worse; Is to expect it when amoral, or immoral behavior is rewarded. An example - sports: There are a lot of steroid stories in the world of sports. The fact is that most athletes who cheat (use steroids to gain an edge they do not naturally possess), are rewarded. Given this, expecting others to play natural, is unrealistic. If they seriously track down and ban those who use them, permanently, then things might change. This applies to all other human endeavors (as always; proper context must be set first) People are not equal. Therefore you must set a proper context by saying "equal rights", or better (and far more accurate) individual rights. All human atrocities are started with the dismissal of the concept of individual rights. This is all under the proper abstraction of morals from any given existent. So the hypocrisy is not in the concept, it is always with man (the individual). No it is not unrealistic to strive for high moral achievement. Morals are abstracted from reality. They are guides to understanding how best to deal with existent reality. It is social artifice that is not based on reality (unrealistic) that is the problem. The sad thing is how twisted things get when contradictions are thrown into the mix. Most people simply can not identify them, let alone effectively respond to them.
An absolute peg in a subjective hole From the desert that is the human intellect. Retired.

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 05/05/08 - 03:31 PM:	#4
SinisterUrge wrote: Meanwhile through all this inequality and degradation we have somthing called ethics or morality which pronounces that all people must coincide to narrow definitions of what is seemingly called right in refraining from equally narrow definitions of what is call wrong. You say it as if 'ethics' is something one necessesarily believes should forcefully be imposed unto other people, when that it's true. I believe in ethecial liberalism, but as a personal belief. I don't believe that because this is my opinion that everyone "should conform" to it, I believe it should be enforced democratically, not 'just because' it's my belief. I think perhaps what you are really saying is that because the government forces people to conform to certian behaviors, it contradicts morality, which I don't think is true, considering morality and ethics are completely relative making it practically impossible to contradict anything given it's lack of explicit definition. Also bare in mind that the people who enslave and murder aren't always the same people who have strong moral ethics. Edited by Bronze on 05/05/08 - 05:30 PM
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 313

Posted 05/05/08 - 05:16 PM:	#5
SinisterUrge wrote: Meanwhile through all this inequality and degradation we have somthing called ethics or morality which pronounces that all people must coincide to narrow definitions of what is seemingly called right in refraining from equally narrow definitions of what is call wrong. I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of "ethics". You are right in one respect, that people are so confused about what it means to be "ethical" or "moral". People want to be good, yet don't know what this means precisely. They fall into the trap of believing that they have certain duties, or certain obligations to be altruistic. This is only a societal fabrication, a bastard child of old-fashioned Christianity and the traditionalist, conservative air that permeates the Western world today. The proper function of ethics, rather, is not to show people what is right and what is wrong. The only way one comes to accurately know these things is by their own cognition and their own reason. If moral imperatives are left to society, society gets to decide these normative issues based on its own whims, or arbitrary postulates. One must see that in this age of "degradation", ethics is not a luxury or something that must be conformed to. It is a complete and utter necessity and what people consider "right" or "wrong" are most often socially given, not based on rational views of the issues involved.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.