SANTO DOMINGO.- National Business Council (Conep) president Lisandro Macarrulla called on Dominican society to adopt development practices where ethics prevail, to overcome the social, political and economic evils.
He said the country will otherwise continue within a social, political and economic behavior incapable of creating the opportunities to break out of its under-development. "Our societies register, throughout their entire history, hundreds of cases where the private and public sector alliances have served to forge acts of corrupción."
The business leader said the participation of both sectors in those activities, under the mantle of impunity, have led to the creation of great capitals that time sterilize and society ends up assimilating it as legitimate. He said this reality competes with the effort and sacrifice needed to accumulate honest capital, creator of added value for society.
Macarrulla spoke yesterday on the "Corruption’s impact on Dominican Republic’s competitiveness,” within the seminar hosted by the American Chamber of Commerce.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
the ethics of a limbo dancer.....belial how low can you go
Written by: BLANCO, 25 Jun 2008 10:31 AM
From: Dominican Republic
Only ethics can fight society’s evils, Dominican big business says..
Is this an aximoron?
Written by: Belial, 25 Jun 2008 11:22 AM
From: United States, Texas
"Only ethics can fight society’s evils, Dominican big business says"
oooo
Ethics is the root of the problem of social evils.
But which ethics for whom does this gentleman urge?
Bourgeois morality disposes the individual toward avarice and conceit.
And the morality that the bourgeoisie imposes of the proletariat in bourgeois society disposes the worker toward obsequiousness and the lowest degree of self-esteem.
The revolutionary and class conscious worker judges the despicable morality that the bourgeois imposes on the worker as itself a social evil.
The revolutionary worker wants his brethren of the working class to feel and act in accordance with the right priniple isn the spheres of greed and honor.
Bourgeoisie will never tolerate strenght of character in the worker, including the pious Lisandro Macarrulla.
So, the problem is that the mass of the bourgeoisie has adopted with relish the rotten morality the ruling class prescribes for the worker.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
the ethics of a limbo dancer.....belial how low can you go
Written by: Belial, 25 Jun 2008 11:29 AM
From: United States, Texas
Trotsky, following up on one of Lenin's ideas, wrote a splendid book on the subject "Morality, theirs and ours."
Thank God, his book is free of the usual hogwash about divine beings, divine things, and other such oddities.
The book is simply about ethics.
Written by: Belial, 25 Jun 2008 11:45 AM
From: United States, Texas
"the ethics of a limbo dancer.....belial how low can you go"
0000
GC, you are interesting question, namely: Are ghouls interested in ethics?
I never thought about it.
For our first principle, perhaps we should borrow somthing from Jewish literature about divine beings -- namely, the idea that ethics is knowledge of good and evil originally and illicitly acquired by human consumption of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
[This idea is obviously inadequate from a conceptual point of view, but let's not piss on it at this time.]
GC, my question for you is: As a ghoul, are you more interested in the good or in the evil.
From: United States
"Only ethics can fight society’s evils, Dominican big business says"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sounds like a headline from The Onion.
From: United States
What are you talking about,Ethics is not known to any DOMINICAN Politicians.
Written by: Belial, 25 Jun 2008 9:25 PM
From: United States, Texas
"What are you talking about,Ethics is not known to any DOMINICAN Politicians."
oooo
Adam, at the invitatiion of his old lady, ate the fruit from the tree of knowedge of good and evil.
So, ethics seems to be both good and evil, not just good.
Perhaps Dominican politicians may not be familiar with the good. But that doesn't mean that they are unethical because evil is also a school of ethics. Indeed, evil is the prevailing or the dominant system of ethics in the contemporary world.
Probably, the greatest prophet of evil is Friedrich Nietzsche who fully elaborated today's bourgeois morality, detached it from silly divine beings, applauded everything and anything that strenghtens the bourgeoisie ( a class, he believed, of supermen far beyond man], and condemned everything that strenghtens the proletariat (a herd, he believed, of weaklings and sheep).
Today, most bourgeois philistines espouse and follow Nietzsche's ethics of evil without any idea of what they're doing.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
under the wheels of our golden guilded carriages
From: United States, New York City
"Today, most bourgeois philistines espouse and follow Nietzsche's ethics of evil without any idea of what they're doing."
Huh? Most people, bourgeouise or not, are way too weak to even see through "morality" and understand real human psychology as Nietzsche implored us to do, and much too weak to follow any 'evil code' he devised as he never sought anyone to follow him but asked that we cease to follow. Nietzsche understood the genealogy of morality and where it comes from, and he understood there are various moralities in operation amongst humans. I thought this was a common conception in the postmodern world. The preponderant morality today is slave morality aka Christianity aka socialism/Marxism. All the same meek morality in religious and secular versions. Then there is also a master morality to be sure. And yes to the slaves this morality seems twisted. The only problem with slave morality is when some try to convince the slave to pretend to be the master...
From: United States, New York City
(cont'd)
"the revolutionary worker wants his brethren of the working class to feel and act in accordance with the right priniple isn the spheres of greed and honor"
A valiant and admirable desire on Belial's part, an example of slave morality at its best. "Be like me, not because I can make you be so, but because you OUGHT to be so out of guilt/pity/fear". But slave morality, if you are not conscious and accepting of what it is, is woefully ignorant of human psychology, of what really drives people, of unconscious motivations and of the will to live. You do not have to be a master and have master morality; but if you are a slave like 99.9999% of us then please find a better outlet than trying to convince your fellow slaves they should be masters. That is just a backhanded, passive way of using shame to control them...so you YOU can be master!
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
Valiant and admirable are hardly the adjectives to be used with this particular piece of raw sewage...thank you very much....Possibly cowardly and despised more a propo....good name for a show " Life styles of the Cowardly and Depised "
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 1:32 AM
From: United States, Texas
"Huh? Most people, bourgeouise or not, are way too weak to even see through "morality" and understand real human psychology as Nietzsche implored us to do, and much too weak to follow any 'evil code' he devised as he never sought anyone to follow him but asked that we cease to follow. Nietzsche understood the genealogy of morality and where it comes from, and he understood there are various moralities in operation amongst humans. I thought this was a common conception in the postmodern world. The preponderant morality today is slave morality aka Christianity aka socialism/Marxism. All the same meek morality in religious and secular versions. Then there is also a master morality to be sure. And yes to the slaves this morality seems twisted. The only problem with slave morality is when some try to convince the slave to pretend to be the master...," changing "bourgeois" to master and "proletarian" to slave, Manhattanite believes he says something different.
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 1:49 AM
From: United States, Texas
But the point ... a ruling class has a morality and the class that is ruled has another morality, although both moralities may bear the same name ... is sound.
It's fashionable however to believe in ethical principles professed to be universal that apply across class lines, especially if the principles are allegedly of divine origin, when in reality the principles apply only either to the ruling or to the ruled, if to anything at all.
Manhattanite seems annoyed that revolutionary workers want the proletariat to adopt and act in accordance with some of the principles of a morality formerly believed to be becoming only of the bourgeois ruling class when the bourgeois is in his most resolute state of mind.
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 1:59 AM
From: United States, Texas
"A valiant and admirable desire on Belial's part, an example of slave morality at its best. "Be like me, not because I can make you be so, but because you OUGHT to be so out of guilt/pity/fear". But slave morality, if you are not conscious and accepting of what it is, is woefully ignorant of human psychology, of what really drives people, of unconscious motivations and of the will to live. You do not have to be a master and have master morality; but if you are a slave like 99.9999% of us then please find a better outlet than trying to convince your fellow slaves they should be masters. That is just a backhanded, passive way of using shame to control them...so you YOU can be master!" Manhattanite preaches, exposing a total absence of self-esteem and identifying himself as a "slave" who is unworthy of the bourgeois morality of the phony "masters."
In 99.9999% of cases, social position -- bourgeois, middle class, worker, lumpen -- is not a sign of character or governing morality.
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 2:19 AM
From: United States, Texas
Manhattanite writes with unusual clarity about this arcane topic.
The philistine, whether "master" or "slave," often takes his "morality" [ a bunch of Sunday school foolishness or worse] chiefly from parables [examples of behavior of certain divine or human beings] and gospel utterances [ which are peculiarly similar to the findings of great thinkers on morality].
In any case, the result oftens comes out as an incomprehensible mush.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
clear as mud....."The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. "....You are in the abyss.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
God is dead, and we have killed him." So said the great philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Thus, there is a void that can be exploited in the herd that is the American voting population." With these words opened the first neo-ecumenical council of world pseudo-religions . "We are here to proclaim the arrival of an Enlightened Being who will lead us to Justice, Peace, Health and Wholeness. All the evils in the world are the Fault of the Bushitler, and it is time to fix that.
With the refrain that "it is all Bush's fault" echoing through the halls, it was little surprise that the New-Age Faiths offered their unanimous endorsement to Senator Barack Hussein Obama's presidential campaign.
From: United States, New York City
"changing "bourgeois" to master and "proletarian" to slave...believes he says something different"
You brought up Nietzsche, so it made sense to use his terms.
"...seems annoyed that revolutionary workers want the proletariat to ... act in accordance with...morality of the bourgeois"
Yes. The revolutionary is an expression of a prime drive of slave morality; to be the master. However with revs today this too often means shackling others to a mass, and manipulating sentiment, in the name of the rev's own master morality ambitions. Today, a mass of people can not have master morality, only individuals can. The rev pumps up the slave to feel otherwise, though in the end the slave mass remains a slave mass under rev control. There is nothing wrong with slave morality; but if you DO want out, you can only get your individual self out. Becoming a radicalized Christian/socialist is a passive, slave way of exerting master morality.
From: United States, New York City
Few take their morality from Sunday school lessons or even Marxist theory, though many rationalize this as the case after the fact. The morality you choose will be the one that serves to keep you alive and psychologically convinced of your own value and correctness. Illusions of universality, logic, truth are just that. To be conscious is to see that one's morality is, to a great extent, a product of convenience; your morality serves you, not the other way around. It is important to become aware of this.
"In 99.9999% of cases, social position ... is not a sign of character or governing morality."
Correct. Many wealthy,powerful people think as slaves. A great many lumpen have survived by adopting the morality of the master. My point is that most of us never seek to overcome slave/Christian/Marxist morality. It is highly convenient to the material circumstances of our life, and nourishes our will. The mass will always have slave morals, despite efforts of the sly radical.
From: United States
Interesting exchange..
From: United States, New York City
"Manhattanite preaches, exposing a total absence of self-esteem and identifying himself as a "slave" who is unworthy of the bourgeois morality of the phony "masters.""
Belial tries his hand at psychology, though the cheap pop kind. That I, WE (99.9%) are slaves has nothing to do with my esteem. It is a material fact ... unless we have 3rd world despots or CEOs of Fortune500 companies stalking these forums we are all slaves to greater or lesser degrees. Although as we both pointed out a slave can have adopted a master morality, of which more than a few are surely posting in these parts.
As to my personal morality, yes I CHOOSE the slave/Christian/Socialist morality for the most part. As an unabashed Marxist so do you, at least on the surface. I do not deceive myself about its universality or objectiveness is the difference, nor do I try to manipulate it as a tool for my shadowy master morality ambitions. My ressentiment doesn't dominate me as it seems to in your case Belial.
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 12:09 PM
From: United States, Texas
GOOD AND/OR EVIL
p. 1
Typically, ethics is bias in favor of "the Good," that is, the application of the right principle in the dozen or so fields of moral feeling and action.
Nietzsche knew ethics also deals with evil or, in other words, the wrong principle in these fields.
Let's do the ABCs of the "good" first; OK, so we will be on a little common ground.
The fields of moral feeling and action are by common consent -- fear, bodily desire, greed, honor, anger (pain over offense to self), self-expression, conversation, social conduct, shame, indignation (pain over offense to others), deals, and close relationaships.
Again, ethics, in the goody-goody sense, seeks the right principle ... or the virtue or strenght of character ...in each of these fields of moral feeling and activity.
"Oh dear, what's right in this field? What's right in that one? "
Ethics supposes three things about this right principle -- 1) we know it; 2) we like it; and 3) we do it.
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 12:10 PM
From: United States, Texas
AND/OR
p. 2
Since a dozen fields are a lot to remember, we talk about only four cardinal fields and with their four cardinal virtues.
The cardinal fields of FEAR, BODILY DESIRES, DEALS and intellectual virtue of PRUDENCE, a power which enables us to perceive the field that we are in at a given time and discover the right principle for the field.
For the field of:
(1) fear, the right principle is courage;
(2) for bodily desires, the principle is temperance;
(3) deals gets justice.
(4) Again, prudence identifies the field and finds the principle inside the field.
So, much for goody-goody ethics which Nietzsche violently denounced as the morality of the slaves, the herd, mob, and sick-man ethics when it is viewed as a universal moral imperative owed to all humans by all humans.
[I didn't overlook stinky divine beings. They are involved, but not important in ethics.]
Now, let's do EVIL of Nietzsche.
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 12:15 PM
From: United States, Texas
[Intermission.]
I believe that to understand Nietzsche we must know how he changed the ethics that I've roughly and crudely outlined above. We must know what Nietzsche disagreed with in the above. And what he suggested and got as a replacement.
If somebody wants to take a shot at it, please proceed.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. "
Written by: willmo, 27 Jun 2008 2:28 PM
From: Dominican Republic
The first person in need of training of morality and ethics is our President Dr. Leonel Fernandez. This would be a good starting point.
From: United States, New York City
To dissect good and evil means we are already accepting and discussing slave morality. Well I've not much interest in theology today. That is what it amounts to in my eyes, even absent the guy in the sky. "Evil" in a slave morality amounts to an inversion of any strong virtues that bring harm to the slaves. So pride is cast as self-love, boldness as arrogance, while the humility/weakness the slave has plenty of is praised above all. Master morality deals in noble and ignoble actions; noble actions are affirmations of life, will, and the creation of values, overcoming and mastering yourself. Ignobility is submission to those values forced on you; renouncing life, renouncing will, health and strength.
Good and bad as we know them we can clearly see how they would evolve as the response of the weak majority against the strong. Why does a moralist hate lust? Because he is lusty, but can not express it so he represses it and demonizes it as evil.
From: United States, New York City
This goes for much of the principles of slave morality. And I have said many times already there is nothing wrong with this; clearly it works for our survival. Also necessary to see is that these codes compete in all of us: we create our values in some realms, and bow to the collective on others.
To sum it up this is a matter of psychology, not theological analysis as Belial wants to lead me into. That is rationalization of morals after the fact of events and phenomena. Remember you get hungry before your reason thinks and speaks "I am hungry because I haven't eaten". And so we also fear and resent power, strength, boldness, vigour, and will BEFORE we rationalize them away as evil and undesirable. Your truth and logic are puppets of your necessity. The famous saying of Pascal:
"The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing".
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." ......Pay attention to that one wanker
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 7:10 PM
From: United States, Texas
Manhattanite that's quite a bit to digest; so, I'll talk about it tomorrow.
But I have no hang-up with the closeness between the ethical and psychos. I like this closeness.
I also feel theory was overdone in my synopsis.
But I see theory as (1) sentences in the book as well as (2) corresponding patterns in motion or activity embedded without consciousness or formulation in things that move and act. The sentences and the patterns are really the same things. But we believe theory is only or mostly the sentence condensed into a stale and intellectual "principle."
I must digest more, because I don't want indigestion.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
Belial you dont get indigestion you give indigestion
Written by: Belial, 27 Jun 2008 11:20 PM
From: United States, Texas
"Belial you dont get indigestion you give indigestion ..."
oooo
Finally you're showing some class and agility.
Plus, I read that little thing you wrote on another thread, a gallant but flawed attempt at eloquence.
It's about time.
From: United States
"Plus, I read that little thing you wrote on another thread, a gallant but flawed attempt at eloquence."
LOLOL...hilarious
Written by: Belial, 28 Jun 2008 1:55 PM
From: United States, Texas
NIETZSCHE AND THE ETHICS OF EVIL
p.1 of 2
He believed, like Aristotle, there are five ethics:
Ethics of the good.
You know and choose Good. You like good. And you do it. Aristotle says few are good. Kant and Paul say nobody is good. Nietzsche says the good aren't any good.
Ethics of the Strong.
You know and choose good. But bashfully, you like evil. You do good, anyway. Nietzsche worked on this group. He talked about the extra-strong or a special type of strong who know, like and do good only they are with other strong ones and who know, like and do evil when they are among the weak. Nietzsche believed the strong of his type are rare because they are corrupted and brainwashed by the Nazarene, democracy, and socialism.
Since Marxism-Leninism finds the ethics of the good a little difficult, it urges the proletariat to train itself by example, instruction and repeat performance in the ethics of the strong ... without of course Nietzsche's foul distortions.
Written by: Belial, 28 Jun 2008 1:56 PM
From: United States, Texas
p. 2
Ethics of the Weak
You know and choose good. But you really like evil. And you do evil, as often as you can. Aristotle says most are weak. Nietzsche says almost all are weak and he wanted them to stay that way. He said the strong of his preferred type must do everything in their power to keep the weak as they are. He believed this isn't hard.
Ethics of the Brutes
You know neither good nor evil. You like either good or evil. You do either good or evil. This group fascinated Nietzsche. He believed the strong of the special type he preferred should copy some of the brute's ways. Nietzsche longed to be a brute and he got his wish.
Ethics of the Evil.
You know and choose evil. You really, really like it. You do it, preferably on a grand scale. This is where the twisted extra-strong type that Nietzsche looked for was headed. When Nietzsche finally saw the truth and fate of his ideas, he plunged forever into brutishness where he forever belongs.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
yes yes Plato is boring and God is dead and you are the moron who fights with morons you might take care lest you thereby become a moron again. And if you gaze for long into an abyss of an anus, the anus gazes also into you you commie stooge moron...how do you like them apples.
Written by: Belial, 28 Jun 2008 9:55 PM
From: United States, Texas
"And if you gaze for long into an anus, the anus gazes also into you ..." GC speaks in a tone of certainty.
oooo
Well, GC, you don't say?
Let's hope it doesn't go beyond gazing.
By the way, what does the anus gaze at you with?
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
His royal anus speaks yes speak again oh ruby lips oh toothless one you are seldom kissed Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology. you pathological moron ....you make the una bomber appear to be Ward Cleaver
Written by: Belial, 29 Jun 2008 1:11 AM
From: United States, Texas
After this ditch of the royal anus at the urgings of the nut GC, maybe we should return to what National Business Council (Conep) president Lisandro Macarrulla had to say about ethics.
Namely, Dominican society "should adopt development practices where ethics prevail, to overcome the social, political and economic evils."
He seems to recognize only one universalistic school of ethics, rather than five major particular systems.
It's not clear which one he recognizes.
Most likely, Lisandro Macarrulla is talking about Nietzsche's distortion and twisting of the concept of the strong.
From: United States Virgin Islands, St Thomas C' Amalie hotel 1829 at the Bar
the very first obscenity spoken on television was during the famous "Leave it to Beaver " show in 1966...Picture the scene Ward and June Cleaver are seated in their living room June Cleaver says "Ward dont you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night " the censors freak out and America is in shock
Written by: Belial, 29 Jun 2008 12:34 PM
From: United States, Texas
Wicked.
Smaller
Bigger
Close Gallery
Digg this
del.icio.us
Technorati
Yahoo
Is this an aximoron?
oooo
Ethics is the root of the problem of social evils.
But which ethics for whom does this gentleman urge?
Bourgeois morality disposes the individual toward avarice and conceit.
And the morality that the bourgeoisie imposes of the proletariat in bourgeois society disposes the worker toward obsequiousness and the lowest degree of self-esteem.
The revolutionary and class conscious worker judges the despicable morality that the bourgeois imposes on the worker as itself a social evil.
The revolutionary worker wants his brethren of the working class to feel and act in accordance with the right priniple isn the spheres of greed and honor.
Bourgeoisie will never tolerate strenght of character in the worker, including the pious Lisandro Macarrulla.
So, the problem is that the mass of the bourgeoisie has adopted with relish the rotten morality the ruling class prescribes for the worker.
Thank God, his book is free of the usual hogwash about divine beings, divine things, and other such oddities.
The book is simply about ethics.
0000
GC, you are interesting question, namely: Are ghouls interested in ethics?
I never thought about it.
For our first principle, perhaps we should borrow somthing from Jewish literature about divine beings -- namely, the idea that ethics is knowledge of good and evil originally and illicitly acquired by human consumption of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
[This idea is obviously inadequate from a conceptual point of view, but let's not piss on it at this time.]
GC, my question for you is: As a ghoul, are you more interested in the good or in the evil.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sounds like a headline from The Onion.
oooo
Adam, at the invitatiion of his old lady, ate the fruit from the tree of knowedge of good and evil.
So, ethics seems to be both good and evil, not just good.
Perhaps Dominican politicians may not be familiar with the good. But that doesn't mean that they are unethical because evil is also a school of ethics. Indeed, evil is the prevailing or the dominant system of ethics in the contemporary world.
Probably, the greatest prophet of evil is Friedrich Nietzsche who fully elaborated today's bourgeois morality, detached it from silly divine beings, applauded everything and anything that strenghtens the bourgeoisie ( a class, he believed, of supermen far beyond man], and condemned everything that strenghtens the proletariat (a herd, he believed, of weaklings and sheep).
Today, most bourgeois philistines espouse and follow Nietzsche's ethics of evil without any idea of what they're doing.
Huh? Most people, bourgeouise or not, are way too weak to even see through "morality" and understand real human psychology as Nietzsche implored us to do, and much too weak to follow any 'evil code' he devised as he never sought anyone to follow him but asked that we cease to follow. Nietzsche understood the genealogy of morality and where it comes from, and he understood there are various moralities in operation amongst humans. I thought this was a common conception in the postmodern world. The preponderant morality today is slave morality aka Christianity aka socialism/Marxism. All the same meek morality in religious and secular versions. Then there is also a master morality to be sure. And yes to the slaves this morality seems twisted. The only problem with slave morality is when some try to convince the slave to pretend to be the master...
"the revolutionary worker wants his brethren of the working class to feel and act in accordance with the right priniple isn the spheres of greed and honor"
A valiant and admirable desire on Belial's part, an example of slave morality at its best. "Be like me, not because I can make you be so, but because you OUGHT to be so out of guilt/pity/fear". But slave morality, if you are not conscious and accepting of what it is, is woefully ignorant of human psychology, of what really drives people, of unconscious motivations and of the will to live. You do not have to be a master and have master morality; but if you are a slave like 99.9999% of us then please find a better outlet than trying to convince your fellow slaves they should be masters. That is just a backhanded, passive way of using shame to control them...so you YOU can be master!
It's fashionable however to believe in ethical principles professed to be universal that apply across class lines, especially if the principles are allegedly of divine origin, when in reality the principles apply only either to the ruling or to the ruled, if to anything at all.
Manhattanite seems annoyed that revolutionary workers want the proletariat to adopt and act in accordance with some of the principles of a morality formerly believed to be becoming only of the bourgeois ruling class when the bourgeois is in his most resolute state of mind.
In 99.9999% of cases, social position -- bourgeois, middle class, worker, lumpen -- is not a sign of character or governing morality.
The philistine, whether "master" or "slave," often takes his "morality" [ a bunch of Sunday school foolishness or worse] chiefly from parables [examples of behavior of certain divine or human beings] and gospel utterances [ which are peculiarly similar to the findings of great thinkers on morality].
In any case, the result oftens comes out as an incomprehensible mush.
With the refrain that "it is all Bush's fault" echoing through the halls, it was little surprise that the New-Age Faiths offered their unanimous endorsement to Senator Barack Hussein Obama's presidential campaign.
You brought up Nietzsche, so it made sense to use his terms.
"...seems annoyed that revolutionary workers want the proletariat to ... act in accordance with...morality of the bourgeois"
Yes. The revolutionary is an expression of a prime drive of slave morality; to be the master. However with revs today this too often means shackling others to a mass, and manipulating sentiment, in the name of the rev's own master morality ambitions. Today, a mass of people can not have master morality, only individuals can. The rev pumps up the slave to feel otherwise, though in the end the slave mass remains a slave mass under rev control. There is nothing wrong with slave morality; but if you DO want out, you can only get your individual self out. Becoming a radicalized Christian/socialist is a passive, slave way of exerting master morality.
"In 99.9999% of cases, social position ... is not a sign of character or governing morality."
Correct. Many wealthy,powerful people think as slaves. A great many lumpen have survived by adopting the morality of the master. My point is that most of us never seek to overcome slave/Christian/Marxist morality. It is highly convenient to the material circumstances of our life, and nourishes our will. The mass will always have slave morals, despite efforts of the sly radical.
Belial tries his hand at psychology, though the cheap pop kind. That I, WE (99.9%) are slaves has nothing to do with my esteem. It is a material fact ... unless we have 3rd world despots or CEOs of Fortune500 companies stalking these forums we are all slaves to greater or lesser degrees. Although as we both pointed out a slave can have adopted a master morality, of which more than a few are surely posting in these parts.
As to my personal morality, yes I CHOOSE the slave/Christian/Socialist morality for the most part. As an unabashed Marxist so do you, at least on the surface. I do not deceive myself about its universality or objectiveness is the difference, nor do I try to manipulate it as a tool for my shadowy master morality ambitions. My ressentiment doesn't dominate me as it seems to in your case Belial.
p. 1
Typically, ethics is bias in favor of "the Good," that is, the application of the right principle in the dozen or so fields of moral feeling and action.
Nietzsche knew ethics also deals with evil or, in other words, the wrong principle in these fields.
Let's do the ABCs of the "good" first; OK, so we will be on a little common ground.
The fields of moral feeling and action are by common consent -- fear, bodily desire, greed, honor, anger (pain over offense to self), self-expression, conversation, social conduct, shame, indignation (pain over offense to others), deals, and close relationaships.
Again, ethics, in the goody-goody sense, seeks the right principle ... or the virtue or strenght of character ...in each of these fields of moral feeling and activity.
"Oh dear, what's right in this field? What's right in that one? "
Ethics supposes three things about this right principle -- 1) we know it; 2) we like it; and 3) we do it.
p. 2
Since a dozen fields are a lot to remember, we talk about only four cardinal fields and with their four cardinal virtues.
The cardinal fields of FEAR, BODILY DESIRES, DEALS and intellectual virtue of PRUDENCE, a power which enables us to perceive the field that we are in at a given time and discover the right principle for the field.
For the field of:
(1) fear, the right principle is courage;
(2) for bodily desires, the principle is temperance;
(3) deals gets justice.
(4) Again, prudence identifies the field and finds the principle inside the field.
So, much for goody-goody ethics which Nietzsche violently denounced as the morality of the slaves, the herd, mob, and sick-man ethics when it is viewed as a universal moral imperative owed to all humans by all humans.
[I didn't overlook stinky divine beings. They are involved, but not important in ethics.]
Now, let's do EVIL of Nietzsche.
I believe that to understand Nietzsche we must know how he changed the ethics that I've roughly and crudely outlined above. We must know what Nietzsche disagreed with in the above. And what he suggested and got as a replacement.
If somebody wants to take a shot at it, please proceed.
Good and bad as we know them we can clearly see how they would evolve as the response of the weak majority against the strong. Why does a moralist hate lust? Because he is lusty, but can not express it so he represses it and demonizes it as evil.
To sum it up this is a matter of psychology, not theological analysis as Belial wants to lead me into. That is rationalization of morals after the fact of events and phenomena. Remember you get hungry before your reason thinks and speaks "I am hungry because I haven't eaten". And so we also fear and resent power, strength, boldness, vigour, and will BEFORE we rationalize them away as evil and undesirable. Your truth and logic are puppets of your necessity. The famous saying of Pascal:
"The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing".
But I have no hang-up with the closeness between the ethical and psychos. I like this closeness.
I also feel theory was overdone in my synopsis.
But I see theory as (1) sentences in the book as well as (2) corresponding patterns in motion or activity embedded without consciousness or formulation in things that move and act. The sentences and the patterns are really the same things. But we believe theory is only or mostly the sentence condensed into a stale and intellectual "principle."
I must digest more, because I don't want indigestion.
oooo
Finally you're showing some class and agility.
Plus, I read that little thing you wrote on another thread, a gallant but flawed attempt at eloquence.
It's about time.
LOLOL...hilarious
p.1 of 2
He believed, like Aristotle, there are five ethics:
Ethics of the good.
You know and choose Good. You like good. And you do it. Aristotle says few are good. Kant and Paul say nobody is good. Nietzsche says the good aren't any good.
Ethics of the Strong.
You know and choose good. But bashfully, you like evil. You do good, anyway. Nietzsche worked on this group. He talked about the extra-strong or a special type of strong who know, like and do good only they are with other strong ones and who know, like and do evil when they are among the weak. Nietzsche believed the strong of his type are rare because they are corrupted and brainwashed by the Nazarene, democracy, and socialism.
Since Marxism-Leninism finds the ethics of the good a little difficult, it urges the proletariat to train itself by example, instruction and repeat performance in the ethics of the strong ... without of course Nietzsche's foul distortions.
Ethics of the Weak
You know and choose good. But you really like evil. And you do evil, as often as you can. Aristotle says most are weak. Nietzsche says almost all are weak and he wanted them to stay that way. He said the strong of his preferred type must do everything in their power to keep the weak as they are. He believed this isn't hard.
Ethics of the Brutes
You know neither good nor evil. You like either good or evil. You do either good or evil. This group fascinated Nietzsche. He believed the strong of the special type he preferred should copy some of the brute's ways. Nietzsche longed to be a brute and he got his wish.
Ethics of the Evil.
You know and choose evil. You really, really like it. You do it, preferably on a grand scale. This is where the twisted extra-strong type that Nietzsche looked for was headed. When Nietzsche finally saw the truth and fate of his ideas, he plunged forever into brutishness where he forever belongs.
oooo
Well, GC, you don't say?
Let's hope it doesn't go beyond gazing.
By the way, what does the anus gaze at you with?
After this ditch of the royal anus at the urgings of the nut GC, maybe we should return to what National Business Council (Conep) president Lisandro Macarrulla had to say about ethics.
Namely, Dominican society "should adopt development practices where ethics prevail, to overcome the social, political and economic evils."
He seems to recognize only one universalistic school of ethics, rather than five major particular systems.
It's not clear which one he recognizes.
Most likely, Lisandro Macarrulla is talking about Nietzsche's distortion and twisting of the concept of the strong.
Wicked.