Morality and Sexism

[heyrabbit]

Well now those comments of course seem a lot more logical and less radical than what you said before.

 

First, i do support a free-market economy, although it needs to be kept in check by government. I also believe in welfare programs for those who truly need it. I believe that healthcare is a basic human right that everyone should have access too for necessary concerns. i'm not a Marx-style socialist, but it would be interesting to see how a fixed/modified version of that would work.

 

I wouldn't sacrifice my own last drink for a dying man. Me > a stranger. However, i would sacrifice some of what i owned if it could help somebody who truly needed it (like a starving person lying on the street....or in Africa).

 

To me, i don't see the morality in people in 1st-world nations buying 50" plasma TV's while millions of people die from disease or starve in Africa because they live in an area that is so dry they are unable to grow proper food or sustain enough fresh drinking water. When those people die, certainly isn't for a lack of trying.

 

I agree with you mostly about the homeless person example. Some of those people are there by choice, but many have mental illness problems. Don't give them money for food everyday, but get them medical help etc. But if they refuse and they want to live on the street because they think the nurses are trying to poison them, i can't help but give them some food because its certainly cruel just to see them die. Its also cruel for let them live like that, but its their choice (in a way).

 

I'm more harsh for those on welfare who just dont want to get off their ass. 'A hand-up, not a hand-out' as the saying goes. If a person can't find a job, give them some basic money to get buy but on the condition they try their hardest to find a job & if they can't or refuse one that is offered to them then cut them off unless they have medical reasons.

 

I wish there were no government handouts and taxes and we all gave to those truly in need, but unfortunately corportations & the well-off aren't as generous as is needed. We've seen that during the industrial revolution when employers took advantage or workers disgracefully, in compulsive toil as its referred.

 

Oh and no i don't know about your thoughts on anarchism, i get you and Ecnarf & others mixed up of here.

 

The "free" in the free market means freedom from the government. If you think the market needs to be "kept in check", you're not only not in favor of a free market, you're describing precisely the antithesis of a free market.

 

Warren Buffet gave 37+ BILLION to charity. What an asshole. Bill gates has given BILLIONS as well.

 

 

What's immoral about Africans choosing to be dictators, choosing to war with each other, and choosing not to make use of their wealth of resources? There may be excuses for why Africa is in the state it's in, but lack of resources is not one of them. And the rest of the oil producing countries in the region, in africa and in the Middle East, are existing solely on the technology they expropriated from the West (Syria, Saudi Arabia).

 

 

 

 

 

Ethics is not a science! Sciences use the scientific method, maybe you've heard of it? Ethics is philosophy. And in philosophy, as Socrates said, "all I know is that I know nothing." If ethics were some absolute truth waiting for us to discover or understand it perfectly, there would not be ethical dilemmas.

 

 

That's right. Ethics cannot be a science, because people have dilemmas. Similarly, biology isn't a science because scientists can't cure cancer. Since everyone knows everything, science exists for the very purpose of forgetting everything we already know. The only purpose for studying something is to not learn something.

 

You're obviously not going to be interested in viewing ethics scientifically, considering your view that reality doesn't exist, that knowledge is acquired randomly by magically popping into your head. That makes it easy, eh? Simply wait for knowledge to pop into your head, and let me know when it does. Of course, that knowledge may not correspond with "my" reality, because reality is subjective. But let me know anyway, as you always do,by posting in here, despite the fact I may or may not receive your comments due to our difference of realities.

 

Socrates' quote wasn't meant to be taken in the way you're portraying it. But if you ever see Confucius, do me a favor and ask him how he knows that he knows nothing.

 

It's an unequal relationship and is therefore coercive. That's what the socialist movement and the trade union movement are all about - fighting for workers' rights, which are at odds with employers' property rights.

You know, I encountered this type of coercion earlier in the week when I went to buy a car. I'd decided that I wanted to pay two dollars for it but, Toyota wouldn't let me buy it for that amount, despite the fact that I really wanted it!. Those evil, coercive bastards! Where the hell do they get off? Unlike employment, the marketplace has nothing to do with an exchange of value. I have the right to trade with anyone, regardless of whether or not the other person consents, and I have the right to choose how much they are to trade me. This doesn't constitute theft, as theft is only something done by those wearing ski masks while brandishing guns. One apple for one orange? Oh, hell no, I want 10 of your oranges, you immoral bastard!

You sidestepped the question completely. The point is that the institution of the family - traditionally an oppressive one, to be sure - demonstrates the collective nature of human existence and the myth of independence.

To be hones,t I'm not sure what the question was. maybe you're dependent, but speak for yourself.

Edited November 15, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

You know, I encountered this type of coercion earlier in the week when I went to buy a car. I'd decided that I wanted to pay two dollars for it but, Toyota wouldn't let me buy it for that amount, despite the fact that I really wanted it!. Those evil, coercive bastards! Where the hell do they get off? Unlike employment, the marketplace has nothing to do with an exchange of value. I have the right to trade with anyone, regardless of whether or not the other person consents, and I have the right to choose how much they are to trade me. This doesn't constitute theft, as theft is only something done by those wearing ski masks while brandishing guns. One apple for one orange? Oh, hell no, I want 10 of your oranges, you immoral bastard!

 

Reasonable people will draw a distinction between ownership of different things, like, for example, the product of one's labour (different from a wage), land, the means of production, a basket of apples, a copyright, or the entire world's supply of oil. Ownership of all these things is and would be viewed differently.

 

That's right. Ethics cannot be a science, because people have dilemmas. Similarly, biology isn't a science because scientists can't cure cancer. Since everyone knows everything, science exists for the very purpose of forgetting everything we already know. The only purpose for studying something is to not learn something.

 

You're obviously not going to be interested in viewing ethics scientifically, considering your view that reality doesn't exist, that knowledge is acquired randomly by magically popping into your head. That makes it easy, eh? Simply wait for knowledge to pop into your head, and let me know when it does. Of course, that knowledge may not correspond with "my" reality, because reality is subjective. But let me know anyway, as you always do,by posting in here, despite the fact I may or may not receive your comments due to our difference of realities.

 

You're just being silly, and ethics is still not a science, it is philosophy. Are you going to call philosophy science??

[heyrabbit]

I was talking about cars. What distinction have I missed about the ownership of cars? What are these distinctions that I have failed to make?

 

I have rights sometimes? In what instances do I lose my rights?

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, philosophy is a science.

[Some Random]

time for my well thought out input:

 

i'm buying a porsche with all the coin i save on this tax cut. fuck yeah.

 

 

fin.

[Bizud]

As a matter of fact, philosophy is a science.

The laws of physics are something we discover, through use of the scientific method (maybe you've heard of it). Ethical "laws" are something we invent.

 

I have rights sometimes? In what instances do I lose my rights?

 

When your conception of your rights differs from everybody else's. If you bought, legally, the world's supply of fresh water, virtually nobody would support your "right" to your property. When feudalism was being abolished, lords lost their "rights" to their land and the land became overnight the property of the peasants that lived on it. When Europeans conquered this continent the people that were living here before lost virtually all their rights because Europeans didn't recognize their collective "stewardship" of the land as a form of ownership. People lose rights and gain other rights all the time.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Bizud

[ToadMan]

I would have to agree (shocking). Rights and morality are entirely human creations. They have changed several times over past few years, let alone the past few centuries. Unlike natural sciences, in which the laws that we write down would exist whether we record them or not, human laws only exist because humans chose them to.

[heyrabbit]

The laws of physics are something we discover, through use of the scientific method (maybe you've heard of it). Ethical "laws" are something we invent.

 

 

 

When your conception of your rights differs from everybody else's. If you bought, legally, the world's supply of fresh water, virtually nobody would support your "right" to your property. When feudalism was being abolished, lords lost their "rights" to their land and the land became overnight the property of the peasants that lived on it. When Europeans conquered this continent the people that were living here before lost virtually all their rights because Europeans didn't recognize their collective "stewardship" of the land as a form of ownership. People lose rights and gain other rights all the time.

This is too cumbersome...

 

Why are you contrasting moral law with laws of physics?

 

The physical sciences are not the only sciences. Ethics is also a science, and that involves studying man-kind, society and so on. We create law, but we base it on something. One does not, and cannot, invent what ethics is based on. You decide to refrain from walking off a cliff, but that doesn't mean you've invented gravity. Indeed, you choose not to walk off a cliff because you observed gravity. But according to you, ethics isn't even a science. Why, then, would you complain if I invented a law that says I'm allowed to kill you? If the criteria for determining moral law is that it has to be invented, what problem do you have with my killing you? All of a sudden, the fact that I "invented" the law doesn't suffice as a justification for it. Why?

blank-out

 

You disagree with law when it doesn't correspond to reality, when the rights they are based on don't correspond to reality. There would definitely be something bad about murder. Why is murder bad? blank-out

 

 

 

That's a circular argument. Who is going to sell me all the water on earth? For someone to sell me all the water on earth, there needs to be someone who owns it first. Who sold them the water? The answer is nobody. Okay, so this hypothetical super-dictator somehow takes control of the world's supply of water. I think we should worry about that guy first!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would have to agree (shocking). Rights and morality are entirely human creations. They have changed several times over past few years, let alone the past few centuries. Unlike natural sciences, in which the laws that we write down would exist whether we record them or not, human laws only exist because humans chose them to.

 

If you shoot yourself in the head, you don't die because we've created created a morality that says it's wrong to do so. Why, then, is suicide bad?

 

In countries where women are treated like dogs, that is alright because it is the morality of the land?

[ToadMan]

I'm not sure what your point is about suicide... Natural law exists that determines what would happen if you discharge a gun towards your head, and it would happen that way whether or not you knew why. Suicide being unacceptable is a societal invention. Some societies actually embrace the practice. So to say that there is an underlying consistent ethics would be wrong.

 

In terms of women being mistreated, and please don't take this to mean I am a sexist, within those countries the acts are not consider amoral. It is in fact our own western sense of morals that determine the actions to be amoral. So if the entire world was to exist with those morals, then it is likely that few people with morals normal to society would consider it amoral. Which again shows the fallacy that ethics are an underlying force of humans, but that they are a creation of society. If ethics was a truly universal underlying force, the question would be mute, as the people mistreating women would know their actions to be amoral and therefor wouldn't do it.

 

I think you have hit on an important point though. A societies morals can be studied, they can be documented, and they can be traced. Indeed this is somewhere in the realm of philosophy. I am willing to waffle just a little in saying that out and out calling them not a science may be incorrect.

 

However, in the strictest sense of the word science refers to natural and physical sciences, or at lest areas of knowledge that can be systematized (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science). Since philosophy and the other study of ethics lacks this property, they are not treated as sciences. More correctly they are humanities, which are the study of things not strictly within the realm of science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanities).

Edited November 17, 2007 by ToadMan

[Moonlight_Graham]

Warren Buffet gave 37+ BILLION to charity. What an asshole. Bill gates has given BILLIONS as well.

I never said those people were not generous. I applaud them for their philanthrophy. But, on the whole, if left unchecked the haves like to exploit the have-nots. We've seen this in many countries since the industrial revolution, and in Canada/U.S. we experienced it during the 1920's/1930's, which led to FDR creating the 'New Deal' & much needed welfare programs, worker rights, the right to form unions etc.

 

Laissez-faire is just too extreme for me. Socialism/communism too. Something in-between, like we see in Canada & many European countries seems to work well.

[Bizud]

Heyrabbit, are you by any chance an objectivist?

[ToadMan]

I think that can be deduced directly from his comments regardless of how he answers the question.

[heyrabbit]

I'm not sure what your point is about suicide...  Natural law exists that determines what would happen if you discharge a gun towards your head, and it would happen that way whether or not you knew why.  Suicide being unacceptable is a societal invention.  Some societies actually embrace the practice.  So to say that there is an underlying consistent ethics would be wrong.

 

In terms of women being mistreated, and please don't take this to mean I am a sexist, within those countries the acts are not consider amoral.  It is in fact our own western sense of morals that determine the actions to be amoral.  So if the entire world was to exist with those morals, then it is likely that few people with morals normal to society would consider it amoral.  Which again shows the fallacy that ethics are an underlying force of humans, but that they are a creation of society.  If ethics was a truly universal underlying force, the question would be mute, as the people mistreating women would know their actions to be amoral and therefor wouldn't do it.

 

I think you have hit on an important point though.  A societies morals can be studied, they can be documented, and they can be traced.  Indeed this is somewhere in the realm of philosophy.  I am willing to waffle just a little in saying that out and out calling them not a science may be incorrect. 

 

However, in the strictest sense of the word science refers to natural and physical sciences, or at lest areas of knowledge that can be systematized (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science). Since philosophy and the other study of ethics lacks this property, they are not treated as sciences.  More correctly they are humanities, which are the study of things not strictly within the realm of science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humanities).

Morality is universal. That doesn't mean that everyone understands it, it means that it applies to everyone. In the same way, the laws of physics are universal. That doesn't mean that you necessarily know that walking off a cliff is bad. It means that, if you do walk off a cliff - you will die. Drinking anti-freeze is bad, irrespective of what anyone thinks. Everyone in the world could agree that drinking anti-freeze is good, and that handing it out to children is ethical. That doesn't change the fact taht if you drink it - you will die.

 

Is there a consistent ethic that says drinking anti-freeze is bad? Deciding that it's ethical doesn't make it ethical. What makes it bad

 

That's why I ask you what's wrong with suicide. I could tell you what I think, but I first want to hear what you think. What's wrong with suicide?

 

 

 

Humans are not within the realm of science?

 

The physical sciences are specialized sciences. While biology can tell us what a man is, philosophy tells us what existence is in relation to man. It deals with ->metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics.<- Whether or not you realize it, society operates according to its underlying philosophy. You operate according to your own philosophy, according to your fundamental view of yourself in existence. Whether or not someone chooses their philosophy purposefully, and with good reasons, that is up to them. But everyone has a philosophy, even if they blindly adopt one, which is what happens most of the time. Indeed, most people claim to not have philosophy!@ (The prevailing philosophy says that there is no such thing as philosophy).

 

Philosophy is the backbone of science. And if you wish to know why, ask yourself why the West was performing surgery 2000 years before the East.

 

 

p.s. sorry about the late reply

 

What is this "Objectivism" you speak of? No, I have never heard of this so called "Objectivism" ;)

Edited November 24, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ToadMan]

Though it smacks of poor debate skills to say this: Your not making any sense. Is so far as I don't know what we are arguing about, or what kind of misunderstanding of my opinion you have.

[Bizud]

For the record, I support an individual's right to die and don't consider suicide unethical. Some say it's wrong because it hurts those you leave behind, but they have no right to expect another person to continue living for their sake.

 

Is it unethical to die? If so, does this mean that the dying are unethical, or are they exempt from ethics?

 

Whatever Ayn Rand says, I think ethics only applies to interactions among people - anything I do that affects only myself has no moral dimension.

 

Also, even if you don't intend it that way, the use of "man" is widely considered sexist language that excludes half the population. "Politically correct" language is important not just to avoid being insensitive, but also because the language we use shapes our thoughts (see Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). Of course Ayn Rand was a real sexist, so if you're taking cues from her...

Edited November 26, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

Though it smacks of poor debate skills to say this: Your not making any sense.  Is so far as I don't know what we are arguing about, or what kind of misunderstanding of my opinion you have.

Toad, I was replying to: "Some societies actually embrace the practice[suicide]. So to say that there is an underlying consistent ethics would be wrong."

 

 

there is no consistently practiced ethic, but that doesn't mean that ethics doesn't exist. The fact that everyone acts different is precisely why we have ethics. some cultures believe in oppressing women. Does that mean that isn't always good for women to have rights?

 

 

If the words "ethics" and "morality" are confusing things, and I think they are, just forget about them. Answer this question: What's wrong with suicide?

 

You too, Bizud.

 

If you don't think there's anything wrong with it, then we've recognized the chief differnce between your philosophy and mine. That's why I ask the question.

 

I don't belong to the Huwoman race. If you want to type "man or woman" excessively, be my guest! And I already know you don't know anything about Ayn Rand, so I won't ask you to back up your statement that she was sexist.

Edited November 27, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

Well I'm going to do it anyway. Ayn Rand on why women shouldn't be president:

 

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments ... It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother - or leader. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the man she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman;... she would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."

 

"For a woman to seek or desire the presidency is, in fact, so terrible a prospect of spiritual self-immolation that the woman who would seek it is psychologically unworthy of the job."

 

"Humanity," "humans," "people" are all gender neutral and are not vestigial linguistic holdovers from a time when people writing about "man" (for example, "the rights of man") really did only mean men.

 

If the words "ethics" and "morality" are confusing things, and I think they are, just forget about them. Answer this question: What's wrong with suicide?

 

You too, Bizud.

 

If you don't think there's anything wrong with it, then we've recognized the chief differnce between your philosophy and mine. That's why I ask the question.

 

Well what do you mean by "wrong"? I have had friends confide in me that they contemplate suicide and of course I don't want to see that happen, but that doesn't make it wrong. There are moral wrongs, i.e. injustices, and there are things that are just sad. Suicide is (usually) sad in the same way dying of cancer is sad. But it's not wrong. Everybody dies. Few are fortunate enough to choose how. And I have no desire to live forever.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Bizud

[heyrabbit]

Well I'm going to do it anyway.  Ayn Rand on why women shouldn't be president:

 

 

 

 

 

"Humanity," "humans," "people" are all gender neutral and are not vestigial linguistic holdovers from a time when people writing about "man" (for example, "the rights of man") really did only mean men.

 

 

 

Well what do you mean by "wrong"?  I have had friends confide in me that they contemplate suicide and of course I don't want to see that happen, but that doesn't make it wrong.  There are moral wrongs, i.e. injustices, and there are things that are just sad.  Suicide is (usually) sad in the same way dying of cancer is sad.  But it's not wrong.  Everybody dies.  Few are fortunate enough to choose how.  And I have no desire to live forever.

I want to make it clear that Rand didn't say that a woman could not be president; she said that a women should not want to be president. The issue is psychosexual and philosophical, and it involves an understanding of masculinity, femininity, romance, psychology, Rand, Rand's ideas, etc. Frankly, the thought of having to type out an explanation for this scares me, as I can't even get an answer to why suicide is bad. And I haven't thought a lot about this issue myself, but to give it to you in a nutshell: Because women by nature are submissive, it is against their nature to lead. That doesn't mean they can't lead. It means it is against their nature, physically, sexually, psychologically. I'm simply not willing to spend that much time on this topic. It is cumbersome even for those who've read Rand's work, and who are interested in philosophy, never mind someone who has not read anything she's ever written aside from the aforementioned quote, which, incidentally, is easy to misinterpret, especially if you're a feminist, or a leftist/post modernist, which is why it's the first thing mentioned by every rand Hater, and probably why you've read it somewhere. Did you read the whole thing?

 

 

"Man" is the DEFAULT. It's not gender specific and it never was. If you want me to start using the word "human" in place of "man", you need to give me a reason. I'll quit using the word man when you quit using the word woman (which an actual gender specific word, unlike "man").

 

"I want to fuck the human with a vagina".

 

 

 

Since you refuse to define morality, I'm trying to make my point without using the word "morality". Why is it wrong? That's the whole point. What is it that's shameful about suicide? Why is it a shame? No doubt, you'd have different feelings about a family member who died in a car accident, and someone who shot themselves. Why?

 

What's wrong with it? What's bad about it?

Edited November 28, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

I've already told you, I think it's sad in more or less the same way dying in a car accident is sad. It can be viewed as succumbing to depression, or just making a decision that one is entitled to make. For example, I think it's good that Sue Rodriguez was able to end her own life.

 

"Man" is the DEFAULT. It's not gender specific and it never was. If you want me to start using the word "human" in place of "man", you need to give me a reason. I'll quit using the word man when you quit using the word woman (which an actual gender specific word, unlike "man").

 

We use "woman" and "man" when we want to be gender specific, otherwise we use gender neutral language, which "man" is not. And I think you're just being deliberately obtuse.

 

I want to make it clear that Rand didn't say that a woman could not be president; she said that a women should not want to be president. The issue is psychosexual and philosophical, and it involves an understanding of masculinity, femininity, romance, psychology, Rand, Rand's ideas, etc. Frankly, the thought of having to type out an explanation for this scares me, as I can't even get an answer to why suicide is bad. And I haven't thought a lot about this issue myself, but to give it to you in a nutshell: Because women by nature are submissive, it is against their nature to lead. That doesn't mean they can't lead. It means it is against their nature, physically, sexually, psychologically.

 

Yeah, she's not sexist at all. ;)

 

I'm simply not willing to spend that much time on this topic. It is cumbersome even for those who've read Rand's work, and who are interested in philosophy, never mind someone who has not read anything she's ever written aside from the aforementioned quote, which, incidentally, is easy to misinterpret,

 

I can see why you wouldn't want to spend much time on it. I think Rand maybe had a couple of worthwhile ideas but her ideas about sex and gender and sexuality are just conservative and traditionalist, and frankly pretty ugly and indefensible.

 

especially if you're a feminist, or a leftist/post modernist,

 

Check, check, and check.

 

which is why it's the first thing mentioned by every rand Hater, and probably why you've read it somewhere. Did you read the whole thing?

 

I admit I didn't, but I don't think it would make much of a difference and I know I didn't misinterpret it. "I would not vote for a woman president." How can you misinterpret that?

[heyrabbit]

I've already told you, I think it's sad in more or less the same way dying in a car accident is sad.  It can be viewed as succumbing to depression, or just making a decision that one is entitled to make.  For example, I think it's good that Sue Rodriguez was able to end her own life.

 

 

 

We use "woman" and "man" when we want to be gender specific, otherwise we use gender neutral language, which "man" is not.  And I think you're just being deliberately obtuse.

 

Yeah, she's not sexist at all.  ;)

 

 

 

I can see why you wouldn't want to spend much time on it.  I think Rand maybe had a couple of worthwhile ideas but her ideas about sex and gender and sexuality are just conservative and traditionalist, and frankly pretty ugly and indefensible.

 

 

 

Check, check, and check.

 

 

 

I admit I didn't, but I don't think it would make much of a difference and I know I didn't misinterpret it.  "I would not vote for a woman president."  How can you misinterpret that?

I didn't ask if someone should have the right to kill themselves. I asked what's bad about it, and you still haven't answered. What's wrong with succumbing to depression?

 

 

 

I don't know what to tell you other than the word "man" is a part of the English language. Its is not synonymous with "male". To give you an example:

Edited November 29, 2007 by heyrabbit

[Bizud]

You keep asking me for the same things I've already told you. Suicide is not wrong.

 

I don't know what to tell you other than the word "man" is a part of the English language. Its is not synonymous with "male". To give you an example:

Edited November 30, 2007 by Bizud

[ToadMan]

I split this off as it isn't really related to the original topic.

[heyrabbit]

You keep asking me for the same things I've already told you.  Suicide is not wrong.

 

 

 

Yeah, I've read it in a lot of literature from times before society accepted that women are people, and it was sexist then and now.  When Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal he quite obviously did not mean all people - he meant men.  The word "man" used to mean person presumes that men are the default sex and women "the other sex."  It's exclusionary, so we use "humanity" instead of "mankind," "flight attendant" instead of "steward" and "stewardess," "chair" instead of "chairman," etc.  If this seems like nitpicking, ask yourself why the only people that still use the word "man" like you do in this day and age are stuffshirts and conservatives...like Ayn Rand was?

 

 

 

Boring, for both of us.  I don't know why I should even have to argue against the idea that "women by nature are submissive" physically, sexually, and psychology.  It's obviously bullshit, but even if you agree with it, don't deny it's sexist.

 

Just like Rand insisted she wasn't racist, but said that white people had the right to conquer the Americas because they brought civilization to savages, and we should support Israel in its occupation of Palestine because we should support civilized people against savages, no matter who they are.  It doesn't fly to say "I'm not racist or sexist" but spout racist and sexist attitudes.

 

Now how about you stop doing all the asking and answer your own question?  What's wrong with suicide?  If ethics are what is required "for man to live qua man," does that mean if your doctor tells you you have two days to live, your life has no ethical dimension anymore?

I'm not going to change the English language because you have trouble interpreting it. The word "man" holds too much cognitive economy to have its meaning changed. You can't just remove the meaning "humanity" from the word "man" for the same reasons that you can't remove meaning from the word "********".

 

Also, what' sexist about trying to destroy the word "man"?

 

To answer your question about why I think people don't use the word, I'd say it's because certain people have a disdain for humanity. Certain people have never thought about what a man is, therefore they have nothing to say. In our culture, in philosophy of our day, most consider "society" to be an irreducible primary. Let's do "what's good for society". "Man" is a dirty word, especially to altruists, socialists, feminists, etc. Maybe it's because they've never met a real man.

 

 

Rand wasn't a "conservative". You don't have to argue anything you don't want to. But if you are going to argue, and if you're going to make claims about Rand, at least supply your source, which is probably from the internet, made by people who've never read or understood a damn thing she ever said.

 

 

 

What's wrong with suicide is the act of giving up life. That's what makes it sad. That's what makes it wrong. If you want to live life, what's wrong with destroying your life? Destroying your life is the greatest act of immorality, since morality is what is required to live, and abstaining from thinking is the best way to achieve it.

 

You don't stop being a human being when you're diagnosed with cancer, so I don't understand your question. Your life still requires ethics, because you could choose to crawl into a hole for two days, or to do something productive.

Edited December 1, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ToadMan]

I hate to hit an run, but 'man' is widely considered a sexist term. In Robert's Rules of Order the use of 'man' was changed in the 10th revision to reflect this. Though I don't consider my university an authority: "The use of he to refer to a person of either sex and the use of man or mankind to refer to humankind in general are no longer acceptable." (http://www.usask.ca/english/requirements_for_essays.html)

 

purdue is more authoritative:

Although MAN in its original sense carried the dual meaning of adult human and adult male, its meaning has come to be so closely identified with adult male that the generic use of MAN and other words with masculine markers should be avoided.

 

I would also point you to: http://www.ucc.ie/equalcom/language.html#Page2

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/writecenter/web/genderfair.html http://www.english.upenn.edu/~cjacobso/gender.html

 

You are correct in raw definition the word is gender neutral, in practice, and in all scholarly writing, it is not. When Jefferson said "All men are created equal", he was referring only to white, land owning males (he himself had slaves).

[heyrabbit]

What pronoun am I supposed to use in place of "he", and what word noun I supposed to use in place of "man".

 

 

"Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being..."

 

"Man is the only living species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation"

 

"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life. "

 

"Man is by nature a political animal."

 

What's wrong with those quotes?

 

 

I wonder why they don't like the word "man".

 

"

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK

Col

Edited December 6, 2007 by heyrabbit

[ToadMan]

What pronoun am I supposed to use in place of "he", and what word noun I supposed to use in place of "man".

 

If you had followed any of my links you would know that the correct replacement is to restructure your sentence and use 'humanity', or 'humankind'

"Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being..."

"A person's life..."

 

"Man is the only living species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation"

"Humankind is the only..."

 

"Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form but with regard to their mode of life. "

 

I would argue that this is inherently correct, as most god's are projected as being mail. However, "Humanity create gods in their own..."

 

"Man is by nature a political animal."

"Human kind is by nature..."

 

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK

Col

Edited December 7, 2007 by ToadMan