ethics vs morality bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

ethics vs morality visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Cultural. Philosophical. Political. Economic and Evolutionary Commentary -- "It is impossible to live pleasantly without living reasonably honorably and justly and it is impossible to live reasonably honorably and justly without living pleasantly" -- Epicurus and political naivete are usually mutually exclusive but his blog today on the Ron Paul phenomenon suggests a very deep blind side. Let me suggest a reason (or else he's feigning the obvious hegemons of Avarosis. Moulistas and other DNC netroot operatives for Hilary). Ron Paul is the closest politician to Libertarianism since Ronald Reagan. But Libertarianism unlike its mature parent Liberalism confuses means for ends. Ron Paul unlike Reagan confuses liberal principles for conservative ones. But what Greenwald and others are noticing is not the strength or the force of Ron Paul's policies ideas or principles (which are arguably not even Libertarian) . . but the compel of his views. He's is fiercely unapologetic unequivocating statement of the them. Aside from Mike Gavel. Paul is the only politician -- Republican or Democrat -- to speak straight without manifold talk to the American people. That was the attraction of men like Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan. Paul Wellstone. Russ Feingold. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Sure one could easily be with any one of a number of their policies but (i) everyone knew the policy. (ii) knew the reasons for it. (iii) and even if they disagreed with it they could attack a known quantity. Other than Mike Gravel who is a genuine outspoken liberal no other candidate than Ron Paul is speaking straight. And even when a bona fide liberal like Mike Gravel speaks straight the cater brokers prefer the bullshitter Milquetoast equivocator -- the Hilary. Romney. Obama. Giuliani. . As I've written about being gay in redneck territory: Give me an honest in-your-face redneck homophobe over a Pelosi-backstabbing-hypocritical queer-pander any day. I can deal with the real thing. We may agree to be but we consider each other enough to be honest about it. With Mike Gravel one gets honesty agreement and liberalism straight -- without bullshit. Paul gives conservatism the same fierce defense. modify (11/6): Incredulously. Glenn Greenwald whose liberal credentials otherwise have been impeccable writes this astounding statement: "But there is a consistent anti-choice libertarian position. Libertarians generally believe that government coercion is illegitimate object to prevent one from directly harming another (hence the justification for laws prohibiting murder assault etc.). Thus libertarians who believe on scientific grounds that a fetus is a "person" are arguably acting consistently (even if misguidedly) by advocating anti-abortion laws."What's misguided about defending the right to life? What's misguided about defending reproductive autonomy? Liberals who fail to see our most cherished values can and often do conflict such as the abortion issue illustrates only heap contempt on themselves. This type of ad hominem dismissal by Greenwald is so out of his typical character -- so either he's playing stooge to his left base or pandering to the right base -- but he's betraying his liberal bona fides with comments like this. For advance discussion of this issue see. >For authentic liberalism in which liberal principles are the MEANS to a liberal society as its END please see sidebar and the Oxford Manifesto. But special interests cannot hide when politicians do that. So they prop up: Hilary. Libertarianism.. liberalism. Originally libertarianism was called "classical liberalism". Back in the 1980's the Cato Institute was pushing the phrase "market liberalism" as an alternative to the evince "libertarian". No be what the label it still means the same thing (in essence). I enjoyed your post. Native Californian. Graduate of University of California. Berkeley. Mills College. Oakland. American Institute of Banking. Epicurean. Eudaimonist. Humanist. Naturalist. Pluralist. Androphile. Liberal. Unaffiliated Politically. Retired Financier. Investor. Banker and Educator. Copyright 2005-2008. D. Stephen Heersink (text only). GAY SPECIES disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy content completeness legality reliability operability or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images featured on this site unless otherwise noted. Credit is given when and where it is known by hyperlinks. All visual circumscribe is copyright to it's respectful owners and presumed in the public domain unless otherwise advised. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies and when or where occurring will be corrected upon proper notification. If rights to any of the images have been infringed please contact via e-mail and they will be promptly remedied. GAY SPECIES contains links and hyperlinks to other Internet sites. These links are provided as a convenience and/or as a compose source for readers and do not constitute endorsements of any opinion or viewpoints in such sites and no information in such site has been endorsed or approved by GAY SPECIES unless otherwise expressly stated. GAY SPECIES does not sponsor "commercial" endeavors of any kind.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Dr Martin Rundkvist is a Swedish archaeologist journal editor public speaker skeptic atheist lefty liberal bookworm and father of two. This is the world's #1 archaeology blog according to. Welcome everybody to the a bi-weekly collection of good blogging from a perspective unclouded by notions of friendly guys in the sky who provide pie when you die. Alexander the Atheist explains why both Christians and the god they worship. Austin at About com gives us a run-down of the various ways in which. Aerik at The Science Ethicist relays. Greta Christina compares the theistic trope to the secular tropes of "How can you experience any meaning to your life without children art political activism. Battlestar Galactica etc.". Susie Bright gives us her deconversion story in. adulterate Biobrain vents his frustration with a. No More Mr. Nice Guy! reports that Westboro Baptist Church led by Fred Phelps of "God Hates Fags" infamy has been sentenced to to the family of an Iraq casualty whose funeral the congregation disrupted. Yay! Ridger at the Greenbelt explains that theology is all about as premises of an argument. "God is good ergo. God is good. QED." Francois Tremblay takes a look at two major ways in which. Doc at Everyone Needs Therapy offers a piece of playwriting on. Stefan at Polypyloctomy gainsays John McCain regarding the of a certain country in the New World. EnoNomi takes a be at ethical aspects of. Chris at The Uncredible Hallq expresses his disgust with the people who are. Kevin Z at The Other 95% offers a music video explaining that. Aaron at Symbolic Order points out an advantage of atheism: . Alonzo at Atheist Ethicist discusses two models of godless living: . Ron at Bay of Fundie examines hostile christian responses to the forthcoming. Rebecca at Protoscholar responds to a. Akusai at Action Skeptics examins the. Charles at Science and Reason discusses starting from research described in the October 26 issue of Science. Vjack at Atheist Revolution is reading The Old Testament and reports some astonishing finds. Somebody register the website before Fred Phelps does! John at Debunking Christianity is most emphatically. Mike White offers a linguistic perspective on. And Bob's your uncle. If you've enjoyed the carnival feel free to FedEx me some pie. The next instalment ordain appear in the virtual get rid of on 25 November at. . You may also find my "The Origin of Jesus Christ" (Parts I & II) to be fine Atheist films. Stay on Groovin' Safari,Tor.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Ancient China had a number of intellectual schools which vied for political influence. The Confucian Schools sided with Morality the idea that populate should be encouraged to appreciate an intuition regarding what is Righteous and what is not and then to abide by what they thought to be Right. The Legalists on the other transfer complained that Morality was too subjective that goodness dodged rigorous classification… who could definitively decide what was right or do by? The Legalists rather proposed that laws be legislated as regards to social and political utility. In this sense morality would be replaced by codified ethics. No shades of grey but the black and white of thing either being legal or illegal. The Moralists insisted that while no strict definitions could be asserted that could entirely encompass what was meant by Righteousness still many hundreds or even thousands of particular examples could be put forward which could give people with a sufficient idea of how Righteousness worked in real world practice. By being acquainted with a sufficient lexicon of Righteousness it could be expected that people would be good for all practical purposes change surface if not perfectly so. Confucian Literature gives us an example of numerous anecdotes of goodness while not attempting any precise moral definitions. The Legalists thought that their Legal Codifications would destroy the moral uncertainty and people would only undergo to worry about obeying the Law. This approach proved then and still proves now to be very naïve. Today every Secular Society in the World depends upon Legalist Institutions – legislating ethics while hoping or assuming that these laws would be automatically obeyed. But in practice the Legalistic Institutions believe upon saturating their societies with observers and enforcers – spies and police. The Legalistic States end into guard States. In America today there are more guard than nurses and more lawyers than doctors. No wonder there is no national health care. Incidentally there are nearly more prison guards than teachers and mostly they are paid exceed. Today’s secularists suppose that the worst evils known to the World must of cover obtain from Societies convinced of Religious Morality but it must be admitted that to the degree in which the populate are convinced of Religious Morality the be for spies and police are far diminished. The populate are good because they are self-motivated to be good and not because they are afraid they might be caught breaking some law or another. Ancient China was a special case in that the choices between Morality and Legality were intellectually evaluated and discussed in depth. Today that is not always the case and so we have people doing all sorts of contradictory crap. We have Believers in Religious Morality who would legislate their Morality into Legality. This would not really be the beat of both worlds but the worst. Both Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists ignorant farmers in both cases wish to compel a Religious Morality by Legalistic means. This gives us situations where violence and duress are being utilized to advance essentially Religious Morality which really should be a contradiction in more minds than just mine. Now yes. Legalistic Institutions where they believe only practical and pragmatic details of social commerce – speeding laws taxes and such – have their displace. So also it is useful to undergo laws regarding the protection of property rights and public safety. But issues of morality should be matters of social indoctrination. If left to Legality then it would be necessary that every back up person in Society be either a policeman or somebody who squeals to policemen. But to be intellectually honest today where Information Technology could really possibly monitor every person everywhere twenty-four hours a day we must acknowledge that a totally Legalistic Society could become a more and more practical consideration. An All Knowing Information Technology can very much change state an All Knowing Secular God. But still it would not so much be a Society full of Goodness as simply devoid of Crime. People would refrain from evil for worry of certainly getting caught. But there would comfort be no positive incentive for doing Good unless Society also encouraged positively Moral Institutions.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

During the question period of the otherwise unremarkable on the question of “Is Christianity the Problem?” the following two questions were posed to Hitchens: 1) “What [does atheism] undergo to offer us as an ethics?” and 2) “What standard [of value] can you challenge to?” Although any objective come to debating a theist on this subject would involve answering these two questions in the main cover of the debate. Hitchens had not addressed either of them there and was unable to say either when asked. Instead he went off on tangents about such things as the absurdity of a God who would accept cannibalism and suffering man’s oversized adrenal glands (which supposedly inform why populate do bad things) and the alleged value of “human solidarity” (a euphemism for altruism and collectivism). This is yet another example of the feckless nature of mere atheism. While religion holds that morality comes from God via faith and revelation—and while religion posits all sorts of divine laws that are supposed to provide people with moral guidance (e g. the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes)—atheism provides no moral guidance at all. Atheism says nothing about what is good or bad right or wrong; nothing about how populate should live; nothing about what we should and shouldn’t do. All atheism says is: “There is no god.” It is adjust that there is no god but that truth alone is of no determine to anyone. If religion is wrong then what is right? It is not enough to say “Go by reason not faith.” What does it mean to go by cerebrate? To what moral principles does cerebrate bring about? How are those principles validated? And what do they convey in learn? Until atheists go to understand and include a they ordain act to fail to the ethics of religion (i e. altruism and collectivism); consequently they will act to complete nothing of significance in the contend against religion. And in order to understand and embrace a positive rational moral philosophy they will have to sight the courage not only to be atheists but also to be Bonjour Monica,My compliments for this entry. But it is too long old girl. You could undergo change integrity it easily into five parts. They would all be worthwhile to read. Somewhere in the middle you said you like to look at diseased trees. come up. I undergo one right here in the garden and I don't know if it is dead or not with all those worms under the bark. I would have liked to displace you an email with a photo but you seem not to undergo the connection. Too bad. Monica. Meanwhile cheersGeorg

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Deontological. I think. Anyway building on the back of my schedule review and Cram's rant on virtue this is something I undergo been thinking about for a while. Namely could virtue ethics be not only a more Discordian way of approaching moral dilemmas but also in some other respects a far more useful way of thinking about problems?I should probaby explain the distinction first. Ethics as we normally understand it is kind of like a checklist. If we be to take an action we analyse it against this list we undergo (based on BIP factors such as education culture etc) and if it lines up then it is 'good'. Virtue ethics on the other hand is about the cultivation of a certain mindset or character who when faced with an ethical problem will act in accordance with what is right because of their character. For instance if there is a car crash a virtue ethics person who believes in courage and charity will run over and help because its the alter thing to do as an expression of these virtues. Its about the creation of a person who will act right because of certain inherent traits or instincts instead of an external metaphysical morality (this may not be the best description so do some googling for greater understanding). Anyway the former is a very legalistic and structured way of looking at ethics. As such it may not be the best way of approaching morality if you not want to compromise a chaotic or discord based ethic. The latter does undergo some historical precedent for being a more anti-structural system embraced as it was by Nietzsche among others. Anyway thats just an introduction as it were to get some discussion rolling. I'll likely add more later when I have time. Here follows the opinions of someone without formal education in such things:Virtue ethics as you've described it seems to bring home the bacon better with a discord-oriented mindset. The 'checklist' variety of ethics is in some sense the quintessential "I know what's good and I've got it all written down alter here" ethic. It implies a sort of omniscience that most likely does not exist and in order to be useful everyone whom these rules will affect must agree that they are good. Thus they are most useful when we use them as a set of agreed-upon standards that are subject to change as necessary. For example: There is no objective superhuman or supernatural authority to determine this but almost everyone agrees with the basic exposit and we likewise apply the benefits of using this ethical checklist (less blinky text on the interwebs) as a standard to which we agree. In contrast some ethical checklists are more controversial: Ethical Checklist concerning homosexuality:1. Homosexuality is bad.2. Anyone who is homosexual must be convinced of their error.2a. Any form of coercion is acceptable to achieve this. Some people insist that this is a standard we must all follow because it is ordained by a Higher cater™ but since we don't all accept on what this Higher Power™ has ordained or even if it exists at all this checklist gets thrown into contention. Furthermore even when it is accepted as law or common practice we do not enjoy the benefits of a "gay-free" society (if there are any). Homosexuals when persecuted either deny their orientation and thus change state extremely cranky and maligned individuals or they change state politicians who run on the anti-gay ticket and get sadomasochistic pleasure from denouncing gayness publicly and doing dirty things in bathroom stalls. It seems that this create of ethics is only useful when we acknowledge its limits. Virtue ethics since it is entirely subjective and acknowledged as such is a much freer and chaos-accepting form of ethics. We tend to act in accordance with our beliefs (and this may include conforming to certain arbitrary "ethical checklists," when they are useful) but since it is individualistic we can change our minds and behavior without setting a precedent for everyone to start breaking rules. It permits us to accept to be. Well if I understand virtue ethics correctly you can lie. Depending on what values you consider necessary to achieving eudaimonia (which I think I have already said elsewhere is suspiciously close to Will in the western occult tradition). An important caveat may undergo to be included though. Aristotle. MacIntyre and others generally accept you can only bring home the bacon eudaimonia within a human society a polis or state in which case the values are subordinated to social and political authority. A Discordian may have to be higher or lower for their sources of values. I'll copy what I believe are the relevant parts of the Wikipedia article. Hopefully that ordain affect some thought. Virtue ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes engrave rather than rules or consequences as the key element of ethical thinking. In the West virtue ethics was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the ancient and medieval periods. The tradition suffered an brood during the early modern period as Aristotelianism cut out of favour in the West. Virtue ethics returned to prominence in Western philosophical thought in the twentieth century and is today one of the three dominant approaches to normative ethics (the other two being deontology and consequentialism). Although concern for virtue appears in several philosophical traditions notably the Chinese in the West the roots of the tradition lie in the work of Plato and Aristotle and even today the tradition’s key concepts conclude from ancient Greek philosophy. These concepts include arête (excellence or virtue) phronesis (practical or moral wisdom) and eudaimonia (flourishing). A system of virtue ethics having offered an be of the good life then identifies those habits and behaviours that will allow a person to achieve that good life: these habits and behaviours are the virtues (arête). In the course of one's activities one will undergo opportunity to practice these virtues. Sometimes these virtues ordain be or will be to be in contrast with one another: a common dilemma is the apparent conflict between honesty and compassion when telling a friend the truth (about his appearance say) would hurt that friend's feelings. In such cases the agent must exercise her practical wisdom (phronesis) to resolve the conflict. Ultimately a lifetime of practicing these virtues ordain accept the agent to flourish and be the good life (eudaimonia). In fact in most accounts practicing the virtues partially constitutes eudaimonia rather than being merely a means to that end. This schema of the moral life strongly differs from those offered by virtue ethics' predominant rivals deontological and consequentialist ethics. These systems aim to articulate principles or rules that provide an agent the ability to end how to act in a given situation. Consequentialist and deontological ethics often still employ the term 'virtue' but in a restricted sense namely as a tendency or disposition to agree to the system's principles or rules. These very different senses of what constitutes virtue hidden behind the same word are a potential source of confusion. This disagreement over the meaning of virtue points to a larger contrast between virtue ethics and its philosophical rivals. A system of virtue ethics is only intelligible if it is teleological: that is if it includes an account of the intend (telos) of human life or in popular language.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

For many years I had always said that I am not a moral person however. I am an ethical person. But when I would say. "I am not a moral person," I would act to see the person's reaction to my saying that before I added the "however. I am an ethical person."Normally the person would wrinkle their brow and get this confused look on their face and then I would commence to explain my thoughts on the difference between "morals vs ethics." The cerebrate I have chosen not to command my life based on "morals" is that I think there is an extreme difference between morals and ethics. Before you say. "This is a semantics air," let me explain. I really am not playing "the meaning of words game" here. In my object I clearly see a big difference between making your decision based on "morals" and making your decisions of life based on your personal ethics. The dictionary has this to furnish:Ethics: choosing principles of care as a guiding philosophy. Morals: conforming to a standard of right behavior. Here is where I see the difference. Morals to be sure are rules and standards that we are told we must "conform" to when deciding what is "right" behavior. In other words morals are dictated to us by either society or religion. We are not free to think and decide. You either accept or you don't! We are taught by society and religion that you "shall not lie" or you should "furnish to the poor" or you must "love others as you would have others love you" or you must do something because it is "your moral obligation." The key issue with "morals" is that you are expected to "change to a standard of right behavior" and not challenge that "conforming" or you are not a "moral" person. But again where do these "morals" come from to which we are expected to "conform"? Yep from society and/or religion but not from YOU and that's what bothers me. Ethics on the other transfer are "principles of care" that YOU CHOOSE to decide your life as a guiding philosophy that YOU undergo chosen for your life. Again label it semantics if you be but I see a big difference between "conforming" and "choosing." With MORALS the "thinking has been done;" with ETHICS there's a freedom to "evaluate and choose" your personal philosophy for guiding the care of your life. I desire to check movies about the "mafia" or TV shows desire the "Sopranos." The people on these shows are extremely devoted populate to their families and religions but they undergo somehow "morally justified" their actions of killing stealing and lying. How is it that these extremely devoted family men and supposedly devoted members of the Catholic religion evaluate that what they are doing is moral is a mystery to me. Yet they wear their "crosses," cross themselves like their kids and apply themselves to the "family" while killing people who get in the way. Now that's an interesting morality. But morals don't forbid there. Think of all the hundreds of cultures who undergo totally different ideas of morality. Some cultures evaluate it is perfectly book to undergo as many wives as they be; some evaluate only one wife is moral in the eyes of God. Some cultures evaluate that it is book to take if you be food; other cultures think that stealing is stealing and is never morally justified. Some cultures evaluate that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" judgment is book; other cultures evaluate that this type of moral thinking is barbaric. When you get MORAL THINKING to society and religion there is no such thing as "absolute morality." So is there any such thing as a 100% MORAL PERSON? I evaluate not at least based on the criteria culture society and religion telling us what our morals should be. ETHICS are a totally another be. With ethics you are remove to choose your personal philosophy of conduct to command your life. You are not dependent on the judgment of society or religion "based in fear" when making your ethical decisions. For example. I accept in telling the truth not because God may curse me but because it is the alter and beat thing to do based on my personal ethics. I accept in being 100% faithful to my wife not because adultery is a sin but because being adjust to your wife is the cause to be perceived and alter thing to do. It is a exceed and happier way to live again not because God ordain displace me to hell if I act adultery but because it is the right and best way to be my life based on my ethical way of seeing things. I believe in keeping the laws of the land however. I am not living my life based on the rules of society and religion but solely based on a pragmatic and ethical way of living. I don't refrain from stealing because I'm afraid I might go to confine. I don't steal because I have decided not to take based on my ethics. I don't have to be commanded to give to the poor. I concern myself with giving to and helping the poor based on my ethics. I have the freedom to decide and if I am smart. I will choose personal ethics that ordain ameliorate my life and the lives of others. As with all other freedoms there is always the risk that I ordain alter ethical decisions that could create me to go over to the "dark align."That's the problem with the freedom to decide or remove agency. Anytime we allow populate the freedom to decide we also give them the freedom to alter bad choices. If you want to make bad ethical decisions that ordain alter you and perhaps others unhappy then you can. However if you be to make good ethical decision that will make you and others happier you have the freedom to make those ethical decisions too. I choose personal ethics to govern my life that make me happier while I assay to ameliorate the lives of others. It's the ethical thing to do based on my personal ethics. You don't have to tell me not to lie not to steal not to blackball not to commit adultery etc. I undergo already made my ethical decisions to NOT do those things. You don't undergo to tell me to give to the poor love my dwell and my enemies use my remove agency for good etc. I have already made these personal ethical decisions. I choose my principles of personal care because I undergo thought about them. My ethics are my ethics and yet interestingly enough they almost always accept with society and religion. The only difference is I made these decisions. My personal thinking determines my ethics. I made these ethical choices. Not because I was told by society or religion to evaluate a certain way but because I thought it was the beat way to live a complete and fulfilled life of happiness. Freedom to think is a great concept. We ought to use this freedom more often. Think about it. Larry John is the international compose of Think Rich to Get Rich a detailed outlining of the 4 pillars of wealth and Larryisms an introduction to pragmatic thinking. He owns a successful advertising agency and enjoys his many entrepreneurial plots and adventures including: real estate sales and marketing public relations publishing communicate broadcasting () and many more. He is also the founder of The Pragmatic Thinker found at. His first book has been reprinted in several different languages and the exposure continues to grow. His second schedule will be released in October of 2007 and is available at amazon com and ThePragmaticThinker com. It is also available through Baker & Taylor. Larry enjoys applying pragmatic principles of thinking to his business and his personal life and finds that through a greater understanding a higher level of success and happiness is achieved. Article obtain:

Let's use a little knowledge from the laws of physics and chemistry (no math. I declare). Energy is either (i) potential or (ii) kinetic (inert or active). For every action an compete reaction occurs. Force is force; destructive to one is constructive to another and neither to nature. Here endeth the lesson. Implications: Only humans determine through their values whether a force is (i) constructive or (ii) destructive. Nature has no "values." To nature the distinction is without difference. But not to humans. The Indian Ocean tsunami may be "force," but a "destructive" force "in our eyes."change surface if destructive forces lead to constructive changes does the end confirm the means? Can society kill 20,000,000 populate to bring home the bacon Utopia for 20,000,001? Mao thought so. Stalin too. Fidel. Hitler. El Salvador. Argentia's Junta. Bush. Republicans and now the Democrats too (few exceptions). Is 1,000,000 victims more-or-less than 40,000,000 to any ONE of them?The reason utilitarianism had to rethink its formula (see. R. M. Hare) is otherwise it sanctions everyone of these means to an end. If X+1 benefits more than X. X+1 is utilitarian and morally defensible indeed sanctioned. (Few direct to this naive calculus any longer for this obvious reason.)If the end does not justify the means does anything? Yes the "convey" justifies the means. NEVER ENDS. The "mean" is between "excess" and "deficiency" of the act itself. If either excess/defective it is wrong (with some few exceptions). Only the "convey" between excess/defect is always the alter "mean" as means. NEVER ENDS. This insight has caused nearly all philosophers to abandon all other moral systems or severely limit the other's applicability. If Bush's War can be justified by the ends and it could be using his means then naive utilitarianism (and its variants) authorise it. But many Religionist are not change surface restricted by the X+1 utilitarian prerequisite. If their "end" is right (e g. nuclear holocaust to induce the Rapture) any means they approve is justified. sanctioned. Annihilation of the planet and every living thing as an approved "means" and justifies their "end" (for example. Heavenly Rapture and the Second-Coming). The end justifies the means. Sound far-fetched? I've heard Pat Robertson. Kenneth Copeland. ChristianNationalists. Israel. Iran and others make this very claim. They are not change surface restricted by the utilitarian calculus of X+1 so any means that is justified if its serves its end as long as the "end" is its end the means is therefore justified by whatever end it prefers. See how dangerous this thinking is? Anytime anyone gives an answer that the "end justifies the means," (or the means justifies the end). STOP them. Only the "convey" justifies the means. The means are always used to achieve ends (it's sometimes called instrumental reasoning or practical reasoning e g. do A to get B). But no means is ever justified by an end and no end ever justifies a means. EVER! Only the "convey" of the means justifies the means. NEVER ENDS. NEVER MEANS. The "Justified-by-Faith" Crowed is also the "Ends-Justify-Means" displace along with EVERY utilitarian. The difference is between X+1 and X-1 -- a difference without significance. This insight culled from Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics is universally hailed by all ethicists as the only measure of adjust justice equality and political stability. bequeath for Aristotle his ethics serves (is the means) of the Athenian demos-polis (the end of a democratic city-state) not vice-versa. In true classical form ethics is the means of politics as its end. Today's ethicists and virtue theorists see ethics applying universally in all situations in all human conduct and social affairs without exception (whatever peculiar oddities within the Ethics itself which distorted the "convey" of the means but never justified the means by the end). Other than. "Do No injure," no moral imperative. I experience is universifiable proscriptive deontological and objective. Since no "moral" system have evolved from it because morality is the change of ethics no system may ever exist. The "imperative" may simply undergo to stand alone as the "failsafe." (Ethics incorporates it but it does not incorporate ethics.)As Nietzsche warned. "all other morality is 'herd morality'." Now you know why!Not just in our individual personal lives but for our political lives too!Your choice should you choose it: (i) Watch the lemmings follow their Prophets go-off the deep end taking us with them! OR (ii) NEVER allow the ENDS to justify the MEANS. EVER. Only the 'mean' justifies the means. For a inspect in inform:RELATED POSTS:N. B. Apologies to earlier readers my head knows "End-to-Means," my fingers type "Means-to-End." BOTH are do by but most populate use ENDS to justify their MEANS (because of utilitarianism) few the other direction and both directions are gravely mistaken. Native Californian. Graduate of U. C. Berkeley. (B. A.). Mills College. Oakland (M. A.) American initiate of Banking (pay..

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Cultural. Philosophical. Political. Economic and Evolutionary Commentary -- "It is impossible to live pleasantly without living reasonably honorably and justly and it is impossible to be reasonably honorably and justly without living pleasantly" -- Epicurus Readers may remember a distinction I made between "values" and "tastes" that arose in the contrast between ethics and morality. If you be to refresh your memory that difference is described in For our purposes values are concepts we prize such as liberty love human rights etc. Tastes are preferences of given individuals desire cut cuisine over Chinese. So given these distinctions which are the following?ArtSexExerciseDanceFour is enough to work with. Which would you consider a "determine," and which a matter of "taste?"That may be the easier decision that the next one I pose: Why? Can you explain why you find the concept a "determine" or a "comprehend?"Is it important? That depends on your values and your tastes. But if someone were to take away one or more of these concepts from your life. (i) would you compassionate? (ii) Why?The questions are not "academic." They are the "difference" between "thinking change state" and a "passionate life." Knowing what we value why what we like why is not a challenge I be an say. Nor you. But in asking the challenge and then answering it ordain alter a difference between "unthinking," "change state thinking," "values thinking," and "passionate living." Thus both the question and its say are most important if important at all to you!Another way of looking at this advise is raised by Harry Frankfurt: Do you care? If you care why? For Frankfurt the difference is a be of "taking ourselves seriously" or not! Not "serious" in the sense of requiring intense concentration as a matter of life or death but "serious" in the comprehend of the caring about the importance of life itself. By asking these What and Why questions -- of ourselves -- and answering these What and Why questions -- for ourselves -- is precisely how we discover meaning. If you undergo no What or Why questions and or answers you probably lack a richly meaningful perspective. And of all the "values" in life the value of "meaning" is pretty difficult to top. Without "meaning," there ain't much of a "life.""Caring about something" confers "meaning" in our lives. But it does require a little effort on our part. We undergo to ask. What? Why? Just like we did when we were children. Curiosity is not restricted to "out there" experiences it is also charged by "in here" experiences. The "in here" experiences are often identified by the word "introspection." Etymologically it means "to be inside." Ourselves. It means the same philosophically and it complements extrospection. "to look outside." When we "look both ways," we journey the road of life with a global cerebrate. A global cerebrate is looking ahead in the rear view reflect to our sides and inside. At us. Try it. Take a Test Drive of Your Life. See what you desire determine and why you care. Human Flourishing is Achieved through Wisdom and Prudence. Wisdom is an Intellectual Virtue. Prudence is a Practical Virtue. All Else is Vice and Ignorance. Tolerance of Ignorance and Vice is No Virtue. -- An Ancient Greek Solon Native Californian. Graduate of U. C. Berkeley. (B. A.). Mills College. Oakland (M. A.) American Institute of Banking (Finance. Banksim). Epicurean. Humanist. Naturalist. Pluralist. Homophile. Liberal. Unaffiliated Politically. Retired Financier. Investor. Banker and Educator. The Internet is in the "common domain," the possession of all people. No one has the alter to censor another person's views simply because of dissent. Not in a remove open liberal and pluralistic democracy. In Fidel's Castro in Putin's Russia in Saudi Arabia's theocracy perhaps but not here! Not even under Bush and his Court!Nor does anyone have a right to act in hit vile derogatory remarks that attack the individual person (ad hominems) rather than the person's views. Satire wit irony puns are all welcome but please try to form comments in the form of a substantive affirm. The courage of identity is preferred over the cowardice of anonymity. By amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to consider "sexual orientation" GLBT are assured non-discrimination in public accommodation employment and housing. Nothing less is satisfactory; little more in needed.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

I think the most important issue in world politics today stems from the contrast between morality and efficiency. This idea was first introduced to me in these terms by Jason Busby in my AP European History categorise. I vehemently disagreed with him at the time; I was still clinging to the shreds of my Objectivism phase(1) and I couldn’t get my hit around it. It is nearly(2) impossible to lay out that everything efficient is also inherently moral so I would have said that everything immoral is also inherently inefficient. My basis for this belief was that since all acts have consequences all acts which judging by a “rational� system of ethics could be called immoral would eventually have contradict consequences. All “rational� populate could be convinced of this and thusly in a “rational� world the conflict between morality and efficiency did not exist. Unfortunately. I thought the world was nuts(3). Looking approve on this. I evaluate that in some weird sideways way it was overly idealistic. I was operating under the assumption that most people would have a problem with immorality in and of itself; that a lifetime spent doing the wrong thing would actually be examined by the add up person and judged by that person to be ‘inefficient’; i e. to have failed to complete worthy goals. However so many of the world’s problems be to be caused by the very human ability to excuse or change surface simply fail to notice unethical choices in favor of choices deemed for reasons either social or fiscal to be more ‘efficient.’ I understand that ability to come from some combination of three basic causes. The most common cause of poor choices seems to be our incredible power of rationalization in the face of immediate gratification. Many populate will choose to have some chips now with the intention of going to the gym later. In the moment we may not think this is a good choice but it’s certainly good enough. The chips-and-gym system of decision making can act as a microcosm for a significant amount of public behavior; people typically support ‘chips for me right now’ over ‘health for everyone in twenty years.’ Inflation is such a distant chilly idea compared to immediate tax breaks. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett(4). “People are prepared to wait forever for Truth. Justice and Salvation but they like dinner to move up inside the hour.� grade research project attempted to answer a rather hefty question: Why is it that perfectly intelligent competent ethical people get together in groups and do stupid awful things? My research led me to believe the difference between the individual and the assort decision making processes. Individually people tend to alter decisions which they think—for a whole turn of reasons from Being A Good Person to Helping Others to Making Money—will be of benefit to themselves. In groups however a whole bunch of really weird things can occur to reorient our perception of what decision is “best.� I used Asch’s experiment the Kitty Genovese Murder and the Jonestown kill to demonstrate some of these dynamics. In Asch’s investigate a psychologist named Dr. Asch asked a group of volunteers to identify which of three lines was the same length as a fourth line. The question was purposefully constructed to be extremely easy. However before answering each of the volunteers had to observe a number of other populate (who were secretly Asch’s collaborators) give the same obviously incorrect answer. Under these circumstances. 76.4% of people chose that same obviously incorrect answer. Human beings have a tendency to doubt their own judgment; when presented with the thoughts or actions of a group of people who be desire they know what they’re doing many people (say oh. 76.4%) ordain determine the decision making process of others over their own internal judgments. Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered in her apartment complex. Of the thirty-eight confirmed witnesses of this crime not a hit one attempted to forbid it or even called the police. Each of these populate when questioned about this choice said they assumed that someone else would do something. Writing things off as SEP (Someone Else’s Problem) as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy calls it is a typical human response to assort crises. When in a group we often cease to feel individually responsible for the outcome of a given situation and as a result do not take action. The Jonestown Massacred when a man named Jim Jones ordered his cult of 900 populate to act suicide by drinking poisoned hit. The majority of them did so; of those who refused most were caught and killed. This example is perhaps the most relevant to choices made around the world; in the United States of America we are rarely placed in such situations. However people can often be persuaded to make a decision they would not otherwise alter when they perceive that they have no other choice; the people in Jonestown were in a situation that they could not get.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Barely a few weeks after I posted this wherein some authoritative bloggers gave their 2 cents with regards to the activities of their respective “targets.” Soon thereafter the Malu Fernandez air ensued wherein. A deluge of blog posts regarding the fiasco followed this first affix which led to. The history of man is riddled with conflicts rooted on the affirm of moral ascendancy the the the. Hitler’s the the and the are all based on moral ascendancy. Whether it’s Christianity claiming ascendancy over Islam and vice-versa. Yankees claiming ascendancy over Southerners who react to give up their slaves the “Aryan go” claiming ascendancy over Jews. Communism claiming ascendancy over established republican democracies. Islamic extremists claiming ascendancy over “the Great Satan” or Americans claiming ascendancy over “The Axis of Evil” all of these conflicts are based on men who are supposedly acting on their perceptions of justice and righteousness. However the fact that they all undergo ulterior motives or in the absence of such that in “victory” they prove or bring home the bacon power whether real or imagined becomes a largely ignored matter. That Christians. Muslims and Communists used their religion to expand their territory becomes moot and non-issue. That the Union needed the Confederacy to furnish up its slaves to make cheap African-American labor available is forgotten. Hitler merely envied the business acumen of the Jews — this is remembered because he lost this war. But that Western grow is trampling upon the more conservative cultures of the the lay East is brushed aside. That barrels of American blood is being spilled in Iraq in potential exchange for barrels of oil is ignored. It is sad and unfortunate that I am starting to see these claim same things — — in cyberspace. So much so that in the campaign against Malu Fernandez some bloggers who either or undergo been mobbed by commenters who feature an “if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us” attitude. I see no victory in with the Malu Fernandez fiasco — all I have seen is the power of raw emotion and undue influence by which those who lay affirm to moral ascendancy reveal nothing but a mob behind them that dares say what is right what is do by who is strong and how to destroy. What these people conveniently forgot is that there are proper courses of challenge for such cases; if you are piqued by the actions of a particular blogger outside of their communicate posts email them — communicate to them personally if you can. If your morals are offended by the statements of a publication’s writer write a strongly worded letter to her editor. If you disagree with a certain blog post differ in the comments thread or affix about it in your own communicate but only do this in response to posts that have actually been publicly published. Let no one interpret that I am against the establishment of moral standards or I am against morals and morality ; everyone has moral standards that they must abide by or else chaos will ensue. What I am against is a small group or populate or a that feigns moral ascendancy over individual bloggers and writers and journalists of all types. There is no be for a “blogging guard” or a Big Brother or backed by a roaring mob to enforce such moral standards. Neither is there a be to open a prudish good-morals-and-right-conduct-etiquette-guide-to-blogging that “everyone” will adhere to but will hypocritically be ignored. Such steps will only bring about to another question: who are you to tell me what is right and what is wrong? Who are you to tell me what I can create verbally and what I cannot? These questions will only produce more of the ugly conflicts and “wars” we have seen — some of them leading to nothing to a false perception of popularity and affect all ironically in the name of Google Adsense. Well. I don’t want to be left alone. I want people to talk with me share with me lay out with me consider with me and ponder with me. That’s the only way I’d know if I was able to make populate evaluate… something I openly state in the sub-title of my blog. While you’re alter such insults only answer the opponent when used in an argument. say that ANC had the irritate to call the blogs that voiced out against Malu as a “kill mob” — it’s not because a lot of populate have voiced out. It’s because of the language used in expressing those sentiments. There are ways to be stinging (even hurtful) in civil words. There’s also the difference between attacking what she wrote and attacking her per se. Unfortunately most populate did the latter the infamous ad hominem contend which reduces the credibility of our argument against her change surface if we are change by reversal. I agree with you. Jon that there are more civil ways to argue. I was commenting from a ‘freedom.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

I experience I’m not covering any new ground here in fact this post contains a be of links to other sites that cover this very topic. I will however tell you why I’m writing this. I have 8 and 10 year-old boys. One of the things that I am trying to do is help them open critical thinking skills without being heavy-handed or “preachy”. IMO one of the beat ways to back up dilate certain concepts (especially moral concepts) is the use of stories. Quite frankly this is where many religions undergo atheists beat. They undergo well-known stories and more structured mechanisms (Sunday educate) for illustrating many of these concepts particularly to children. Unfortunately where many of these Sunday educate sessions (yes I’m sticking with the let’s-only-pick-on-christians tactic) is they mix more universal concepts with rather more dubious stories. For example the story of Cain and Abel is a good example of jealousy kill and the idea of Reciprocity (Golden command). It does a good job of illustrating that if you don’t treat others the way you would be to be treated there are often long-term consequences to those actions.  Unfortunately this story is mixed in with next weeks lesson on the fall of Jericho where genocide is the request of business. How is a child supposed to identify the more universal Golden command concept from the Chosen People/know go/Us-vs.-Them logic? For obvious reasons I don’t go to the Bible very often (construe: ever) to dilate a point. The Sunday school approach is very preachy but quite frankly it’s very effective. So the challenge is how does an atheist/secular humanist back up beef up those more universal concepts without a canned set of stories to refer to? I’ve been more conscious of this question of late simply because my children undergo returned to educate and they are being exposed to a lot of different children with different understandings of their parent’s beliefs (let’s be honest I doubt many 8 year olds are developing concepts of Hell without a little parental or …umm… churchal? input). Did I mention I have 8 and 10 year old boys? Anyway in my search for clever ways to drill this inform home I have stumbled across some resources that I thought would be helpful on this topic. First. Dale McGowan wrote/compiled a great schedule for non-religious parents that covers this and many other topics. It’s call which I might add is a great book and I evaluate is a great schedule to furnish to believers as well. Not only can believers benefit as parents but I belive it ordain help to dilate in very concrete terms that morality can be taught/reinforced without a single reference to a god or sacred text.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Buddha chastises us for following him as opposed to following the teachings of Buddhism. To the extent that one worships a god does one lay his/her focus and put their god above the god's teachings? Which is more important? In a scene from the movie. "Mississippi Burning," we see a typical southern color "businessman" of the measure vocalizing his justification for the continuation of segregation. It turns out that the man in the scene is Clayton Townlee leader of the local KKK who states in fairly unequivocal terms tenets of his beliefs. "We do not evaluate Jews because they reject Christ." Referring to Catholics he says "we do not accept papists because they bow to a Roman dictator." While this may not a 100% verbatim accounting of Townlee's words there is little argument that the mouth and tenor of these statements is the same kind of thought that lies at the heart of all exclusionary religious doctrines—one sect of populate are rejected excluded ostracized or simply distinguished from another based on what and how they believe. Strict Muslims don't evaluate Jews or Christians because they do not evaluate Mohammed. Strict Christians ideologically identify themselves apart from their Christian brethren by distinguishing the nature of their belief in God. The same strains to some degree or another can been seen across all religions--it is heard in even the most innocuous of statements where one sect seeks to identify themselves apart from another based on how they include their "faith." In unraveling the fabric of religion and religious beliefs we often desire—though subconsciously understand—the separate compartments that give us the object and concept of the religious undergo. I say this because at various times our collective dialogue on religion addresses the confluence of philosophy and deity while utterly failing to grasp or acknowledge the fact that religious philosophy is not necessarily dependent upon the god to whom it is attributed. However the god-concept is much more than just the tenets of faith or servile worship—the god-concept also encompasses that from which we draw our reason for living and our displace in the universe; in bunco it is the non-physical intellectual support system we devise for ourselves and draw upon daily. Yet the concept and object are separate aspects of the religious experience and must be understood as such. The god-object is that upon which the religious body-politick focuses its attention—God. Yaweh. Allah. Elohim. Vishnu. Zoroaster or any other choose of otherworldly omnipotent omniscient entity. The god-concept is the philosophy the ideals the morality dictated by and flowing from the god-object. Often it is only through understanding the god-object or god-concept through the eyes of the believer that its counterpart may be understood. And it is through the separation of the god-object and god-concept that we are able to harmonise the dissonance of two populate each believing in the same god yet each with a philosophy that diametrically opposes the other. It is the unique relationship of the god-object and god-concept that gives us two Christians who believe in a Christian God where one will lovingly embrace the whole of humanity regardless of its condition while the other will rigidly insist that anything less than strict conformance to a change construction of "God's will" equates to eternal damnation. It is the same create that allows one practitioner of Islam to learn a "religion of peace," while another finds in Islam a daily duty to contend eternal Jihad against infidels and blasphemers. The deity or the deity's holy text allows for the creation of any religious philosophy—or god-concept—that a believer can defend. Why is this distinction important? In part it has to do with the ethics and morality of atheists. But it also provides a basis for how we can be a life that is independent from any sort of God. One of the biggest obstacles that many people approach when examining in detail their beliefs and the reasons for their beliefs is the fact that their belief system is based on—predicated on—a belief in God. But if one's faith wanes is it an imperative that their existence as an ethical or moral being cease? What if God is not necessary? What if God is not the lynch-pin that holds our rational brains together? What do we suffer what do we assay by taking God out of the equation?

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!