do jedi kill their prisoners

[Darth Vader]

To me, death is the ultimate punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Na...the ultimate punishment is to have to listen to celine dion because your manager loves it....

[metadigital]

... Like ANY cult, the jedi/sith have their views of the world in wich they live and they act according to their convictions.

Like ANY cult, if they only see in one direction, they'll be blind to all other sides and extremist behaviour starts to appear. ... As for the actions of the jedi council: they ARE NOT saints and they'll never be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's interesting, in all this time I had never considered to Jedi to be a cult (in the meaning of the word you are using).

 

Perhaps there are other FSs who view the Force in a third (or fourth, etc) way ... another cult. And the Jedi are no more the authority on Right and Wrong than this hypothetical third group. (Obviously the Sith are just evil and out for their own self-aggrandisement.)

 

I still want Kreia to be the Great Propheet who first recognised that the Force is a malevolent diety that controls the beings of SW universe for its own selfish needs, whilst giving the beings the illusion of free will. Bring on the Anti-Force Force! Death to the tyrant Force! :cool:

[kid]

Cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

 

How do the Jedi fit that description at all? Their "religion" is more grounded in (their) reality than ANY religion in the real world. If you view the Jedi as a cult, then I suppose you'd have to view any "real world" religion as a cult as well. So either you're really, really anti-religion, or you subscribe to a set of beliefs that does not leave any room to consider any other possibility or point of view....

 

 

 

 

Not that I'm referring to any specific doctrine... *cough*

[vl182]

when we look at the jedi sith thing the jedi are just some terorist who fight, or pretend to fight for the good. but they are still killing many people. the sith on the other hand are at least honest in what they do( i think atton said something similliar in the game)

[Cloris]

Again we have the "End justifies the means" Chaotic Good versus "Do no conscious wrong to anyone under any circumstances" no-hypocrisy-brooked Lawful Good argument. This is a dilemma which means that there is no absolute right answer (otherwise it wouldn't be a dilemma) and that means that everyone who faces the dilemma will have to s9olve it on its merits, everytime.

Yes, but I've never been a supporter of that results-justifiies-methods tenent, which is why I have trouble here. Mical's rants about the Jedi would make a lot of sense in reference to this discussion, in my opinion.

 

Well, sure, anything else is a shortcut to thinking...

 

Well, it is always going to be difficult to contain a philosophical debate to one small area; it sometimes helps to frame one problem with another -- although that was a blatant tangent to shoot off on.

Blatant plug for my other post: (<{POST_SNAPBACK}>) 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was the obvious route, true. Thanks for the thread pointer -- that was one of the threads that helped me decide to stop lurking and start posting. :cool:

 

Cloris

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

To me, death is the ultimate punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Na...the ultimate punishment is to have to listen to celine dion because your manager loves it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chained in a locked room with a bored kender listening to Celine Dion would be worse.

[Volourn]

Celine Dion is kewl; you fools.

[metadigital]

Celine Dion is kewl; you fools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I can think of few others capable of filling the role deployed by the FBI/BATF* in nullifying combatants like those Branch Davidians at Waco.

 

 

 

 

*What a cool government department: Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms. (Cool in a George Orwell kinda way.)

[jedipodo]

O, yeah, that assignment: it is impossible to cite a universally (across countries, cultures, and timelines) accepted moral stance, even on extreme issues such as infantacide, canibalism, and incest. I don't want you to think I was trying to trick you, though, it really is an eye-opening exercise, and I think that it's great that you tried (screw Yoda, sometimes trying is more important than doing!). Thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I have to thank you. Our discussion really awakened my interest in philosophy.

[metadigital]

O, yeah, that assignment: it is impossible to cite a universally (across countries, cultures, and timelines) accepted moral stance, even on extreme issues such as infantacide, canibalism, and incest. I don't want you to think I was trying to trick you, though, it really is an eye-opening exercise, and I think that it's great that you tried (screw Yoda, sometimes trying is more important than doing!). Thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find it difficult to understand that there are cultures where incest and p

[jedipodo]

Does the "Golden Rule" belong to "moral universalism" in your opinion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

 

*Contemplative thoughts*

 

Deep dive into Meta-ethics!

 

I like the sound of Moral Universalism, but, truthfully I hadn't thought about this aspect before. I guess I would subscribe generally to moral anti-realism, and specifically I am a Moral Skeptic. This means that I think there are absolute moral essential values, just we don't know what they are and can't determine them.

By "absolute moral essential values" do you mean something like a devine truth or a law of nature?

 

For example, I would hold that Killing a person is wrong, but not absolutely in all cases. If a person was about to kill a busload of children and the only way to stop him (and the statistics tell us it would be a him) is to shoot him just beforehand, then I have no ethical qualms with that. Methinks a deontological moral absolutist definitely would, but I would argue we wouldn't know the true Moral Universalist position because of my Moral Skepticism.

Yes, I agree. A deontological hardliner would definitely make a very lousy policeman.

 

I've found a definition of moral universalism on the web. It seems to be a compromise between moral absolutism and moral relativism. And is more secular.

 

Does that help?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes.

[metadigital]

"Congratualtions. You've taken your first steps into a larger world."

 

Welcome fellow seeker of truth.

 

Asimov did another hort story about the after-life, told in first person narrative from the POV of a man who had just died. Naturally enough, after the initial shock of still existing post-death, he had a conversation with God about what was going on (as you would imagine). Why was he still alive?

 

 

God had the same question: God wanted to understand why God was here, and everyone that had lived and died was now helping to discover that truth. :cool:

 

 

Very clever man, Mr Asimov.

[atomic]

Cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

 

How do the Jedi fit that description at all?  Their "religion" is more grounded in (their) reality than ANY religion in the real world.  If you view the Jedi as a cult, then I suppose you'd have to view any "real world" religion as a cult as well.  So either you're really, really anti-religion, or you subscribe to a set of beliefs that does not leave any room to consider any other possibility or point of view....

 

 

 

 

Not that I'm referring to any specific doctrine... *cough* 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Every point of view is valid. And, yes, I'm anti-religion.

But even an anti-religion guy belongs to a religion. My religion is anti-religionism "

 

But I really don't think that the "greater good" as some other members said could be used as an excuse for doing certain actions.

Hittler used the "greater good" excuse to wipe out millions.

[kid]

O, yeah, that assignment: it is impossible to cite a universally (across countries, cultures, and timelines) accepted moral stance, even on extreme issues such as infantacide, canibalism, and incest. I don't want you to think I was trying to trick you, though, it really is an eye-opening exercise, and I think that it's great that you tried (screw Yoda, sometimes trying is more important than doing!). Thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find it difficult to understand that there are cultures where incest and p

[Imperialist]

Yep, kid is correct. Pedophilia was also common practice among the Romans. It is interesting, however, that homosexual relation between men of the same social rank was considered tabu, whilst it was seen as common to penetrate slave boys.

[metadigital]

Surely you jest. 

Incest: any number of royalties across countless civilizations. 

Pedophilia: Greeks.  (I'm sure there are other cases, just not familiar)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I wasn't joking ()

 

I was familiar with the Royal prediliction for incest (after all, everyone else is too common), but that could be explained as a pre-civilized civilization. (Work with me here; the explanation would continue to posit that no civilization now would deem it acceptable.)

 

Sort of starts a new line of deliniation, moral "civilizations" and pre-moral societies (which might even cover less formal groupings, as between higher primates -- that's the apes, not the Arch Bishops).

 

I didn't think the classic civilizations buggered toddlers and babies (did they?). So there is at least one general rule we can take ...

[Cloris]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find it difficult to understand that there are cultures where incest and p

[metadigital]

Pedophilia often times is dependant on a culture's definition of the life-phase "child" and is therefore difficult to even quantify in a way that is inclusive of all cultures and histories. Someone made a reference to Greco-roman practices, and in some African cultures there is the practice of the elders of a family introducing the children to the rites of marriage in order to better prepare them for the day that they, too, will start their own families.  But even today, my definition of child and yours may not be the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are arguing semantics. I think we might have a moral universality with people not molesting children under some young age (even if it is only a couple of years).

 

Also, even though there is cannibalism, I doubt whether anyone eats young babies (or even younger).

Please keep in mind that I do not condone either of these practices. However, to hide behind the moniker of "modern" or "civilized" in order to sperate ourselves from the embarassing practices found in our history is to deny the opportunity to learn valuable things about ourselves and the evolution of our cultures.  We do not have to understand or approve of these practices in order to acknowledge them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was trying to make some arbitrary deliniation, not ridicule the earlier peoples.

Sort of starts a new line of deliniation, moral "civilizations" and pre-moral societies (which might even cover less formal groupings, as between higher primates -- that's the apes, not the Arch Bishops).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our household took a good look at the new pontif and immediately starting calling him "Pope Palpatine." *cough*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be appreciated on these boards, but probably nowhere else. Apparently he has been dubbed the Panza Pope by the population at large. "

[FaramirK]

Also, even though there is cannibalism, I doubt whether anyone eats young babies (or even younger).

 

I know that some ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies to the gods, but I can't think of any examples that were any more recent than 500 B.C.

[metadigital]

Also, even though there is cannibalism, I doubt whether anyone eats young babies (or even younger).

 

I know that some ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies to the gods, but I can't think of any examples that were any more recent than 500 B.C.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are referring to the Carthaginians, that is under dispute. (Roman propaganda after the Punic wars to emphasise the victory. Probably a little social jealousy, too, as the Romans were wearing loincloths when the Cathage people had a civilization like the Greeks; it is more than likely that the Romans took a lot of the scientific discoveries, like plumbing, from them.)

 

Anyway, I didn't say sacrifice, I said eat.

[Darth Vader]

I know that some ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies to the gods, but I can't think of any examples that were any more recent than 500 B.C.

No need to go that far...In London it's done every day...(wonder if they don't even use them in kebab shops)...

[metadigital]

I know that some ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies to the gods, but I can't think of any examples that were any more recent than 500 B.C.

No need to go that far...In London it's done every day...(wonder if they don't even use them in kebab shops)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ewww, that's right: there was a police investigation last year that ended up in the Congo, I think. I still don't think they ate him, though (but they aren't a million miles away ).

 

Still that was a young boy. Even if we have to make the definition in months, hedck even days or hours or even pre-natal, I still think we've hit a barrier and therein lies our tenet of moral universality!

[FaramirK]

Also, even though there is cannibalism, I doubt whether anyone eats young babies (or even younger).

 

I know that some ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies to the gods, but I can't think of any examples that were any more recent than 500 B.C.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you are referring to the Carthaginians, that is under dispute. (Roman propaganda after the Punic wars to emphasise the victory. Probably a little social jealousy, too, as the Romans were wearing loincloths when the Cathage people had a civilization like the Greeks; it is more than likely that the Romans took a lot of the scientific discoveries, like plumbing, from them.)

 

Anyway, I didn't say sacrifice, I said eat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I didn't know the Carth's had been accused of it, I was thinking more of the Canaanites and the Jews that worshipped Molech.

[Cloris]

You are arguing semantics. I think we might have a moral universality with people not molesting children under some young age (even if it is only a couple of years).

 

Also, even though there is cannibalism, I doubt whether anyone eats young babies (or even younger).

Well, yes, I am arguing semantics -- we both are. That's where we are when move around the definition of "child" for the sake of this discussion. Now we're not really discussing children, you have moved the age requirement back to infants or even miscarriages -- and I fear that continuing this discussion along this lines may result in me being reprimanded for content, and causing some of the more delicate readers kind enough to view this thread to lose their respective meals...

 

I do want to encourage you to perform your own research, though I fear you will be disturbed by what you find. I can tell you that I did so myself, being initially unwilliing to believe -- just like you.

 

I was trying to make some arbitrary deliniation, not ridicule the earlier peoples.

I only said "distance," not ridicule.

 

That would be appreciated on these boards, but probably nowhere else. Apparently he has been dubbed the Panza Pope by the population at large.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's why I mentioned it here!

 

 

Cloris

[metadigital]

No, I didn't know the Carth's had been accused of it, I was thinking more of the Canaanites and the Jews that worshipped Molech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lots of baby sacrificing, then. Cannibalism was mainly to gain the powers of the eaten, and nullify their evilness, as well, I think -- e.g. Papua New Guinea has a few isolated tribes of Head-Hunters.

 

Of course the Aztecs did their share of human sacrifices, too, but they were late teens I think. (And they got to live literally like a king for year beforehand.) Not sure about the Mayans.

 

Yeah, the Romans really wanted to expunge the Carthaginian civilization from history. I expect the Romans are more an historical checkpoint, in that innovations from all the societies conquered by them were assimilated. They basically invented industrial farming, turning Spain into one big olive plantation (and North Africa into a vineyard, I think).

Now we're not really discussing children, you have moved the age requirement back to infants or ...

 

... I do want to encourage you to perform your own research, though I fear you will be disturbed by what you find. I can tell you that I did so myself, being initially unwilliing to believe -- just like you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus wept.