Korean Job Discussion Forums

[VanIslander]

A related issue is whether one should follow the morals of the countries one visits and resides in, or the morals of the country one comes from and will eventually return to.

This is not an open question for the Swedes, who are held by their government to the laws of their homeland.

But countless expats - and NOT just the lifers, but also those many who plan to return home - speak and act as if "when in rome..." was valid as a moral code, despite countless judgements to the contrary from those back home.

The morality of one's family, one's home community and one's culture is relevant irrespective of one's personal moral stance. Demanding that one be persuaded by moral argument of the morality and immorality of an action is a reasonable intellectual request in university; it is urinating in the wind of public morals. Resist the moral force of standards from back home, but to deny they even exist or have any force for oneself is naive and counterproductive: every culture and society has its morals, lists of do's and don'ts, even those known for their permissiveness in more narrow aspects of morality. And that's a fact, and a reality easy to forget when one is overseas. But when one returns one will see one is judged by standards and moral codes one may think of as "unjustified" or "illogical". But who said morality is based on rational argumentation and the cool reason of contemplation? That is absurd in everyday life.

[cdninkorea]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[gang ah jee]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[SPINOZA]

Cndinkorea,

Charitably, your arguments are feeble. Uncharitably, they�re incomprehensible (not because they�re brilliant).

I have asked you clearly how and why moral propositions such as "x is wrong/right� are absolute truths. Frankly, you've replied with nothing worthy of my consideration and I'm forced to repeat what I have already asked.

I'm gonna put it in a different way. Are rightness and wrongness objective features of reality, in the same way that "the Earth is the center of the Universe" is either right or wrong (that is the proposition that the Earth is the center of the Universe is true� is either true or false� is)?

Let's study the following simple propositions.

"beating someone to death, for a laugh, is wrong"

"2 + 2 = 4"

The latter is an absolute truth. It can never, ever be wrong. The former requires more work.

Whilst "2+2=4" is also a metaphysical truth (we cannot witness it), it can never be wrong. It is inconcievable that there exists a planet where 2+2=5. However, unfortunately, raping and torturing my little cousin, disgusting though that is to us all, is not wrong in the same way that 2+2=5million is wrong, because the former is based on our emotions, beliefs. Whether you're Hitler or whether you're Ariel Sharon, 2+2=4. Whether you�re a human or an insect that only lives for one day, 2+2= 4 whether any of us like it or not. We can�t disagree � whereas it is possible to disagree that pulling the legs off spiders is wrong or right. Someeone might enjoy it! For all we know, the spider might enjoy it!

You seem to think - as all moral abssolutistss do - that the onus is on the non-moral-absolutist (not synoymous with moral relativism, or what ever on earth it is you believe you're arguing for) to say how morals are NOT absolute. In actual fact - since it is YOU who believe moral values to be objective items of knowledge - YOU must prove how moral 'truths' are akin to other conceptual truths which can NEVER be proven wrong. That's what an absolute truth is.

It's a metaphysical argument you're making, thus you must prove your point with sheer logic. Otherwise - I'm sorry about this, folks - but morality is something emotional, nothing more or less. However, that doesn't mean it's unimportant. It's VERY important, actually.

I couldn't give a toss about the country/culture relatvism that's being argued. Murder is immoral in England, Korea, Canada. But if those countries were to be bombarded with humanoids from Zog - 50 zillion of them - murder would, by sheer coincidence, become less taboo.
[/quote]

[Guri Guy]

When does 2+2 not equal 4?

http://www.pww.org/article/view/6207/1/243/

Two plus two is five
"First and above all he was a logician. At least thirty-five years of the half-century or so of his existence had been devoted exclusively to proving that two and two always equal four, except in unusual cases, where they equal three or five, as the case may be." -- Jacques Futrelle, "The Problem of Cell 13"

Most mathematicians are familiar with -- or have at least seen references in the literature to -- the equation 2 + 2 = 4. However, the less well known equation 2 + 2 = 5 also has a rich, complex history behind it. Like any other complex quantitiy, this history has a real part and an imaginary part; we shall deal exclusively with the latter here.

Many cultures, in their early mathematical development, discovered the equation 2 + 2 = 5. For example, consider the Bolb tribe, descended from the Incas of South America. The Bolbs counted by tying knots in ropes. They quickly realized that when a 2-knot rope is put together with another 2-knot rope, a 5-knot rope results.

http://www.ahajokes.com/m017.html

Hee hee...

[flotsam]

[Guri Guy]

Yahoo answers posed the question of whether 2+2 always equals 4.

Best Answer - Chosen By Voters

If you have a 2 and bring up another 2, you have 22, not 4.
that way, 2 and 2 make 22

according to mathematics 2+2=4. but in a society (similar to the society in Orwell's 1984) the government could simply say 2+2=5 and the people would beleive it because theres no proof otherwise.

HERE IS THE ANSWER:
When you are using a number system other than base 10. Say for example a base 3 system. In such a system numbering would go as follows: 0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100,101, 102, and so on... The base 10 equivalents of theses are the numbers 0 to 11 in the order in which they are seen. In this system 2 + 2 = 11 (The base 10 equivalent of four, but not read as four). The answer depends on the base, you see. Hope this helps! (I also hope that no one above me steals my answer.)


Suppose we have an arithmetic where we add 2 numbers
then divide the answer by 4 and take the remainder
for the sum. This is called mod 4 arithmetic.
In this arithmetic 2 + 2 = 0, not 4.
Also, 1 + 3 = 0.
Think of a clock with 4 numbers on it, 0, 1, 2 and 3
and a hand going round the clock. If the hand is
at 2 and advances 2 spaces, it will be at 0.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060912205647AAvEQei

[flotsam]

Point made. Or flailed at, anyway.

Move on.

[happeningthang]

CD....you're all over the place you need to go back to step one where you made your first, massive mistake..

You're using the terms 'cultural relativism' and 'moral relativism' interchangably. They're not the same thing.

Decide what it is you're arguing aginst, define it, and then be consistent in your argument.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I think we'll have to wait for answers until he gets past Chapter 2.

[flotsam]

[ddeubel]

I think it cool that we live an existence where we can decide for ourselves what is right and wrong......collectively. We get to make the rules!!!

That said, as some people have rightly pointed out, there must be points in the graph where all these various "moral" lines cross. Universals.

I think we need only go so far as to say that -- we do not like pain/physical pain. So a universal and morally relative agreement would be that: do no harm. (or as the Christian would say, do unto others as you would want done unto yourself.).

The problem gets murky. It is difficult to avoid harm because we have to account for future results. Future results which we don't absolutely know as fact. Suppose I might have to torture someone to get information that can save many people's lives. I will do him/her harm but I will do less harm overall if I get that information........

This example is relevant at this present time. I think the logic is odious.........we should NEVER do harm! We cannot know the future, so we should obey this moral universal. This goes for murder, execution, rape, beating, corporal punishment, polluting the environment and so on and so on...it is a universal. Why we don't follow it , is the problem of time. future causation.

I say throw that part out. Just act with the intention of "do no harm to others" , as best you can. This is how I judge around the world, other countries, cultures.

all the rest is a go. and is morally relevent.

Sorry if I've rambled on too long, too many coffees this morning...

DD

By the way 2+2 = 5 but just very in very rare cases.

[cdninkorea]

(all boldfaces in this thread are mine)