The amorality of badness

[boxy]

LOL, this can only end well

[AiA in Atlanta]

What exactly are we looking at in these two fence photos? One looks like a garden gnome and the other a dead piglet.

[Neferti]

What exactly are we looking at in these two fence photos? One looks like a garden gnome and the other a dead piglet.

You have heard about the turtle on the fencepost joke?

[Outlaw Yogi]

What exactly are we looking at in these two fence photos? One looks like a garden gnome and the other a dead piglet.

It's one of the boundaries between 2 hostile belligerents, being Fusswit out the back and myself.
Y'see some of his allegations are that I skulk around on his property, implying I'm out to steal from him, but the truth is, I doubt he waould have anything I'd want even if I was that way inclined. One of his biggest complaints is that I cross his access track (up my eastern boundary) as a short cut to my next block neighbors, meaning it's only a few hundred metres walk rather than over a KM by going around. Yet he has garden gnomes all over the fence near the rear of my property, which is completely within my property by 2 feet (fence not on boundary) and I've never complained. But now that he has made a declaration of nu-neighborly war I am going to hang animal skulls and feral pig carcasses all along that fence. And my next block neighbors intend to line their side of of their block along his access track with as many old car wrecks as they can find.

Y'see Fusswit is obsessed with appearance and image, so we're going to show anyone that's foolish enough to visit Fusswit that he's unwelcome in our valley.

I have said in the past "I don't have a problem with people coming out here to play Gentleman farmer, but if he wants to make a nuisance of himself, he can just pack up and leave".

So far he's got the cops, council, all 6 of his immediate neighbors and half the valley off-side. So we'll see just who runs who out of the valley.

[Black Orchid]

Are the garden gnomes supposed to be representative of anything? Maybe they have hidden cameras

[Outlaw Yogi]

Are the garden gnomes supposed to be representative of anything?

Don't know. Fusswit & Scrubber refer to the area where the (usually dry) creek at rear of my block crosses his access as 'Gnomes Crossing' and has a pretend road sign down there saying so.
I think it's just Fusswit's way of announcing to the world he a weirdo.

He'll probably have a baby when I start removing the gnomes and replacing them with animal skulls. Nothing he can do about it, the fence is on my property. Like I told the neighbors "I'm going to phuk with his head".

Maybe they have hidden cameras

Oddly enough, some neighbors have suggested that he probably has spy cameras on his house. And that when he stirs up trouble, then goes away for several days, it's probably a trap. In that he wants others to retaliate so he has evidence he's being victimized.
Although I've had a good sticky beak with my Ruski military field scope from the state forest and can't spot any such devices.

[AiA in Atlanta]

Yes. And that awareness should be derived from knowledge born of moral education.

Neither of us are saying that the average person is incapable of moral awareness, just that they haven't been taught. Over the past few decades there has been an mass exodus from religion across western nations. WASPS are no longer vogue.

That means people aren't getting their weekly dose of moral education, which has been the traditional place of teaching morality to the masses for centuries. But there has been nothing to take its place... and it only takes a couple of generations for a society to loose social knowledge.

The moral life is necessary for civilizations to thrive and survive. Perhaps it's time to teach secular morality in our schools.

A revival of Plato's Academy?

Not at all, I've never been a fan of Plato... too elitist by far. I'm thinking more of a replacement for religious education in state schools and an adjunct to private school curricula.

Didn't most of the great philosophers have their own schools? The Stoics are misunderstood today - they believed that humans should enjoy the good things of life but just not cling to them. Something Buddhist in that, don't you think?

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Didn't most of the great philosophers have their own schools? The Stoics are misunderstood today - they believed that humans should enjoy the good things of life but just not cling to them. Something Buddhist in that, don't you think?

No Stoics did not believe that you should enjoy the good things in life... that was Hedonism... but even then it was a belief that encouraged moderation, because anything less or more than that had a negative effect on pleasure. Hedonism in those times however was more focused on fostering healthy, meaningful relationships/friendships as the ultimate in pleasure seeking behaviour. Epicurus was the father of Hedonism.

Stoics believe that we should be indifferent to pleasure and pain, which is quite Buddhist indeed. Where as Hedonism supports the idea of emotional intelligence, Stoics did not; preferring a kind of 'Vulcan' understanding of the world that is based in logic. Zeno was the father of Stoicism.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

That is, their poor work ethic is threatening my employment by threatening the viability of my work unit. The collectivist argument that Boxy made ties in here. In this regard perhaps morals are simply a matter of reciprocating that which you wish for in others. "Do as you would be done by?", or again, is that simply echoing the non-Christian but yeah lets face it eavily influenced by Christian upbringing I had?

Isn't the "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" ethic simply a formalisation of our natural empathetic tendencies?

Interesting... so the idea as I understand it, is that we should not take a sickie because the collective suffers in ways yet to be justified and because employment is put at risk for reasons yet to be justified. My main criticism here is that just saying it is so, does not make it so. You need reasons to support a claim such as has been made by Mattus... and the minimum number of reasons, if syllogisms are anything to go by, is 2 on average. If we don't offer reasons for our beliefs then we are no better than the Religious who when pressed will claim... because God said so.

In your case Mattus, that the collective suffers and that employment is placed at risk are factual statements that need factual reasons... aka evidence to back them up. Is there any evidence, aside from correlation studies? Can you show me a company that failed because the employees took their yearly allocated sickies? Can you show me a team that is suffering (remembering that to suffer is a physical and emotional condition of significance which doesn't include annoyance) as a result of a team member taking a sickie? If what you claim is true, then surely there would be more discussion of this concern by corporations... because I assure you, most people take their allocated yearly allowance of sickies whether they are sick or not so where is that on going discussion? And by on going discussion, I don't mean such a thing as happened before Australia Day where people take a sickie in order to enjoy a long weekend... I mean on going discussion such as happens now days with bullies, smoking, gambling etc.

The second argument presented is that of like for like treatment. I'm not exactly sure of how this applies to a contractual obligation between the employee and the corporation except to say that those who take a sickie are rewarded with a wage for the day off, assuming they have sickies to take and those who don't take a sickie are not rewarded. This can be better understood in terms of redundancy where the person who has saved their sickies loose that entitlement because it is not paid out, as part of the redundancy. There is a sense of injustice in that, don't you think? A decent employee who never takes a sickie is neither punished or rewarded for it when faced with redundancy, but a person notorious for taking their sickies will receive the same redundancy conditions, but has the added benefit of having been paid during their employment for days not worked.

If this like for like treatment is between employees... then can I point out that colleagues have no authority on the matter of sick day allocation and usage and therefore cannot be seen to be offering or denying like for like behaviour. The suggestion, which is false, is that... if you don't take a sickie, then I won't take a sickie... but how do you know if they are honouring their end of the informal social contract there? You can't... you don't know if the day they had off was a legitimate day or not... you don't know if the medical certificate is valid or not... you don't know even if a medical certificate was lodged or not. And since there is no way of knowing if a breach of that social contract has occurred, then there is a question over the validity of that social contract in the first place.

[boxy]

The stoics didn't strive to be emotionless automatons. They simply tried to "rise above" allowing negative emotions make their decisions for them, believing that allowing negative emotions to rule them had a negative affect on their happiness.