I think Orn is right. Rationalists are often impossible fantasists leading highly disturbed lives. But if emotions are an ever present as I'd agree, one can deny them to some degree if you can catch yourself (and as importantly others) in them when moral judgement runs afoot. That we are brainless in this area as a general population is obvious from reaction to the UK 'riots' and demands for heavy punishments (our courts are berserk at the moment) for these people but can't even see that we are being looted by the rich and are not even investigating them. I'm an advocate of modern National Service that would involve disciplined work but not necessarily armed service - but we can't pay for it because the rich have looted the money and have disproportionate influence on government through their rotten accumulations. We should be some time to such reactions before deciding, but if one gives power such time it usually steal the moment and the decision for itself.
On Aug 17, 11:45 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > Ohh Rigys, i don't doubt for a second that thoese effecthave every > right to be angry, I question wether or not morality is best served > with any emotional attachment. I have used anger as an example, but > really I mean all emotions. > > A freind of mine posted on facebook something along the lines of bring > back national servic, as a punishment for the looters. This was said > in anger and when it comes down to it, is it a good idea to teach > thugs how to kill? > > On Aug 16, 11:45 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > There must be laws on the books to cover riots, looting, damage to > > property. This isn't the first era of a poor economy for Britain. Has > > networking changed the formulas? > > > Another factor is immigration and clash of cultures and religions. > > What if once cheap labor is no longer needed? It seems to me- though I > > may be wrong- that immigrants rarely return to their original homeland > > and bring their new skills and education forward in third world > > countries. And social programs may quash desires to roll up their > > sleeves once again in their homeland. > > > I learned this weekend from a discussion that one cannot fire upon a > > thief- it's only permitted when one's life is in jeopardy. That seems > > a thin line- wait till the bloke attempts to kill you! Our laws have > > probably changed a great deal- I doubt cattle rustlers were treated so > > mercifully. > > > As to anger, I think shop owners and home dwellers and townsmen had/ > > have every right to be blistering mad at the looters and rioters. > > > I made a long list of non-lethal protective measures. Baseball bats > > were not on the list as they can crack a skull and kill someone. > > > On Aug 16, 6:09 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Paradox, yes agreat frind of mine tells me the same sorta thing, that > > > morality without emotion is somehow lacking. It is partly due to his > > > words and my respect for him that I have started this thread. > > > > However as Rigsy points out to evict a looter from his council home > > > for his looting does not adress any problems, nor does it serve as > > > adiquate punishment, and would I think only make things worse. > > > > This course of actions is a fine example of thinking/talking about > > > morality whilst angry, and is to my mind no good at all. > > > > I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions attached, can > > > you show my why I am wrong? > > > > On Aug 14, 5:31 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Deep question, Lee; not an easy one. One who suffers injury must have > > > > the right of redress, be that restitution or retribution, or else we > > > > live in Hobbes's state of nature. The question of balance and > > > > proportionality is the proper remit of the law courts and great minds. > > > > Where the injury in question falls outside the purview of the > > > > collective good or the legal framework to that end, morality and > > > > values must act to constrain the individual in respect of balance and > > > > proportionality; that is why it's so very vital that we understand > > > > what we do when we tinker with the foundations and structures of a > > > > society's moral compass. > > > > > Personally, i've always felt that emotions are the fuel for the > > > > directed mind. > > > > > On Aug 12, 1:28 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So as we should all know we have had quite a week of it here in the > > > > > UK. Facebook and many other web places have been inundated with all > > > > > sorts of sillyness. > > > > > > Calls to bring back national service, calls to evict those found > > > > > guilty of the rioting and looting, calls to stop their benifits. I > > > > > have witnessed some of my good good friends spew out all mannor of > > > > > sillyness in their anger. > > > > > > I have procliamed in the past that all questions of morality are > > > > > better served sans emotions and I see much this week that has only > > > > > firmed this view. > > > > > > In order to discover though the validity of this thought tell me do > > > > > you agree, or not and why? People of ME sway my opinion with your > > > > > wise words. > > > > > > What good can come of deciding upon a course of action whilst holding > > > > > onto your anger? > > > > > > I ask of course as a self confessed recovered angry man.- Hide quoted > > > > > text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
