Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK I think we have worked this point as far as it merits.
Is it really impossible to escape making a moral judgement?
Ice climbing in winter is dangerous, extremely dangerous and yet no one thinks of it in terms of morality. Its viewed almost exclusively as an extreme sport. A challenge and a source of recreation. Yet to those who value the sanctity of life one must of necessity make a moral decision re ...[text shortened]... but one can state without reservation that its extremely dangerous and that with some certainty.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt depends. I could find myself judging as moral failure, a 35 year old father of 4 whose wife is home schooling the kids, who goes with his buddies to try ice climbing. But putting the well being of his family at unnecessary risk is the failure. It could be something other than ice climbing. I guess it depends, for me, on the risk of harm to innocent others. What do you think?
so is ice climbing moral or immoral, or neither?
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357yes it becomes at once an issue of morality in such a circumstance, for it puts not only his own life but the well-being and prosperity of his family at risk which is morally reprehensible, although, ice climbing is not something one does on a whim, it needs equipment and training, but of course that not the point. Does it become less morally reprehensible for a single man with no family and years of experience?
It depends. I could find myself judging as moral failure, a 35 year old father of 4 whose wife is home schooling the kids, who goes with his buddies to try ice climbing. But putting the well being of his family at unnecessary risk is the failure. It could be something other than ice climbing. I guess it depends, for me, on the risk of harm to innocent others. What do you think?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei like to think my experience counts for slightly more than anecdotal evidence. but then i guess you are not really interested in the truth, you are much more interested in painting a simple, tabloid like conclusion that fits with your preconceptions.
Anecdotal evidence, conjecture and downright silly analogies masquerading as facts. Is there no end to the slobber and drool?
Originally posted by stellspalfiedude, dont be like that, its not so bad.
i like to think my experience counts for slightly more than anecdotal evidence. but then i guess you are not really interested in the truth, you are much more interested in painting a simple, tabloid like conclusion that fits with your preconceptions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm just reporting on my gut reactions, I'm not trying to justify them. I think I'd feel less disgust at a guy who wasn't risking anyone else's well being, either by not having dependents, or by being experienced, or both. But at least in the US, typically, if there were a rescue needed, somebody would be put at risk. However that's their free choice, to rescue him.
yes it becomes at once an issue of morality in such a circumstance, for it puts not only his own life but the well-being and prosperity of his family at risk which is morally reprehensible, although, ice climbing is not something one does on a whim, it needs equipment and training, but of course that not the point. Does it become less morally reprehensible for a single man with no family and years of experience?
So getting back to the point -- morality aside, what's wrong with something being "artificial?"
Originally posted by JS357its not real
I'm just reporting on my gut reactions, I'm not trying to justify them. I think I'd feel less disgust at a guy who wasn't risking anyone else's well being, either by not having dependents, or by being experienced, or both. But at least in the US, typically, if there were a rescue needed, somebody would be put at risk. However that's their free choice, to rescu ...[text shortened]...
So getting back to the point -- morality aside, what's wrong with something being "artificial?"
Originally posted by Great King RatIs a horror movie a substitute for werewolves and vampires to watch while they should be out howling at the moon and gorging themselves on freshly acquired ladies who leave their bedroom windows open at night! EPIC FAIL man! EPIC.
A horror movie is also not real but artificial. Is it therefore bad? A musical is about as artificial as things can get. Is that bad?
(incoming answer: “This thread is about pornography, not horror movies nor musicals.” )
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Its not the artificiality that is the issue per se, although clearly if one is substituting artificiality for healthy relationships and meeting 'real people', and doing, 'real things', rather than existing in a kind of virtual world then that is not good, because its second rate at best. Its simply not possible to get the same sense of grandeur of a mountain peak by watching it on TV as when you climb the mountain yourself, surely?
You are avoiding the ultimate statement.
It's "artificial."
Its wrong because it's "not real."
Suppose that is granted.
So?
Get to it, robbie.
It's, it's... c'mon...!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou’re the one babbling about how the fact that it’s not real is why it’s bad.
Is a horror movie a substitute for werewolves and vampires to watch while they should be out howling at the moon and gorging themselves on freshly acquired ladies who leave their bedroom windows open at night! EPIC FAIL man! EPIC.
People who watch horror movies get a temporal scare from what they see. People who watch porn get temporally aroused by what they see.
If anything, porn - while fake - is a lot more real than horror.
People can imagine themselves in the place of the porn actor a lot easier than in the place of the schoolgirl being chased by a werewolf.
Explain again why one is bad while the other isn’t.