Ethics manifests in social constructs, however the morality of it is not a pure social construct, there is something inside of us that forces us to consider these things.

True the O.P. should play by his own rules (ultimatly that's all anyone ever does) but the real mind-fuck of a question that the O.P. is ACTUALLY wanting to sort out is....

...what are "my rules"?

some quotes that might help,when dealing with morality issues

"The Joker: Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair! "

"Two-Face: You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time. But you were wrong. The world is cruel, and the only morality in a cruel world is chance.
Two-Face: Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair."
ethics are useless,nobody can now the consequences of your acctions,because of the butterfly effect.If someone would need your help,would you let him die?probably no,but what if that guy where Hitler?how many died because of that?
I've got carried away...but the idea is,good and evil are concepts beyond human understanding

Ah! So the rape and torture of the next woman you see is neither here no there because "you can't know the consequences of your actions"?

---
Good and bad are very human terms, relative? Yes, but still built on very real instincts. They are both social and individualistic.

He's asked us to give a social perspective on his ethics forgetting two things.

1. Generally speaking pick up forum members consist largely of rejected, narcisstic and border-line pyschotic personalities. Long answer short, pick up forum members are not the kind of people who should be giving advice on such influencial lifestyle choices.

2. His problem is deciding what he should do, for his own conflicting emotions. I've got a feeling the O.P. would get alot further if he was to stop and take a moment to reflect on his own thoughts about the subject.

@robizeratul

The only difference between humans and animals is ego IMO. Morality is part of it. Consequently, morality is what makes us human. I deeply believe that we can be decent men in indecent times. About Hitler. If everybody had morals, nobody would've killed him when he was child, but they def. woud've put him in jail as soon as he started his sick actions. It's people close to him who didn't have morals and didn't end his life for personal gain who are immoral. Hitler is sick. As a result of sickness+immorality millions died. Ego might have bad traits, but morality is definitely one of its good sides. Life might be meaningless, but helping people around you is a good thing.

I don't know you, but you sound like a person who is so pissed at the rest of the world that he takes a defensive position. I used to be like that when I was bullied in school by much richer kids who had bodyguards and drivers around them. I didn't. If you get laid-great. If you don't doesn't mean that the rest of the world is responsible for it. Find peace dude, and everything in life will get better.

Don't forget that the rest of the world consists of humans like you so by hating them, you hate yourself. You are no different. No matter how much you try to separate yourself from the rest, you're still part of a whole.

P.S. Aggression decreases your chances of getting laid and Joker was a bad guy who didn't get any. I guess he thought attraction is based on looks.

@Fin I agree about how many people in the community are pissed at the world. Its like asking a communist what he thinks of capitalism-he's gonna hate it and think that its stupid lol. The same is with asking an AFC/APUA of morality and loyalty in relationships. Maybe after getting some success people learn to chill and enjoy their lives and concentrate on something else except for girls...*went on developing new super-pheromones*

I was the same way, but PU changed me (by introducing me to Buddhism).

I'm not Buddhist btw, but I strongly advise you guys to check it out-you might find many useful ideas there.

If you tell a women honestly that you really like her but that you're not looking for exclusivity, and you believe that you should both be able to do whatever the fuck you want, and she accepts, then it's not cheating and it's not immoral or unethical to have sex with other women too. It's advisable to keep them separate and not talk about the other ones to their face, and to assume she's dating at least 1 or 2 other guys as well as you. I really don't see the problem.

Morality and ethics ARE social constructs. After society indoctrinates you enough, you will feel PHYSICALLY SICK and DISGUSTED by things that are completely ARBITRARY AND CULTURAL. For example, someone who grows up in the US will be disgusted by the idea of eating a grashopper. However, they are a prized delicacy in Mexico, just south of the border. This is a completely visceral reaction that could easily SEEM like a natural, innate reaction. But it's not, it's because of years of social conditioning.

In the same way, some cultures find homosexuality so repellant and disgusting, that they will murder their own family members who they discover are gay. In ancient Greece, ALL men had a homosexual lover from the age of 8 or 10 AND a wife, and this was considered completely natural and normal.

I have my own beliefs about what is moral or immoral, and I stick by them. I think it is far worse to lie and pretend to a woman she is your only one, than it is to be having sex with 3 or 4 different women and tell them honestly that you're not exclusive and they choose to ACCEPT it. Even if it makes them jealous. Their jealousy actually makes them more attracted to me because I inspire such strong emotions in them, causing them to invest more in me and want to be with me. This means they make more of an effort to dress well, be on time, and do what I say when I tell them. The price I pay is I assume they are seeing other guys, and there's the possibility I might feel jealous if I see them with someone else. But, I just fucking DEAL with it.

You want the comfort of an exclusive relationship? Fine. I personally think it leads to complacency on both your parts, taking each other for granted, and the inevitable break up down the line leaves you both feeling shitty and your game goes to shit. Regardless, there is no independent MORAL basis on which to judge which system of dating is better. It is a matter of personal preference, and I don't think societal norms or culturally specific ethical considerations are part of it at all.

_________________
SEX Technique Material http://bit.ly/iFdky0

FREE PDF w Openers, Date ideas and Videos on Direct: http://www.sashapua.com

---
Ryans argument.

E y(x) -> V y(x)

x= morals
y= are pure social conditioning
----
There exist moral rules which are pure social conditioning therefore all moral rules are the product of pure social conditioning.

----
Really? There are philosophy students barely three months into their course who would spot the flaw here almost instantly.

Using first order predicate logic to try to analyse an argument about ethics and morality in society is like trying to use a calculator to prove an argument about beauty, truth or justice. Secondly, it's disingenuous and essentially a straw man, because in order to reduce the argument to the logical statement, you necessarily strip all the linguistic nuances out of the English language and need to do a lot of interpretation and simplification. Just try and reduce to this kind of logical statement phrases like "beauty causes men to become aroused" or "democracy necessitates freedom" and you see my point.

I was simply stating my belief that, for the most part, things that we consider to be ethical axioms, things that just are RIGHT or WRONG, can often be social NORMS that are essentially arbitrary, and differ between cultures, and then I cited two examples of the phenomenon. I was not trying to logically PROVE that, because of the two examples, ALL ethical beliefs are culturally specific and arbitrary.

In fact, as philosophers far more intelligent than myself have shown (such as the late great David Hume), you cannot EVER prove a general rule from a finite set of specific cases. This is why in the sciences we postulate a HYPOTHESIS which is CONDITIONAL, and then study its logical consequences to see if an inconsistency emerges.

Thus, we do not ever say that our specific data PROVE our hypothesis. Following Karl Popper's model we say our hypothesis implies certain results. The only way to PROVE our hypothesis incorrect is to find data that directly contracts those implications.

E.G.

H -> A

~A -> ~H

So, IF it's true that ALL moral beliefs are culturally specific and essentially arbitrary, then the only thing that can go some way to disproving my hypothesis is a discussion of moral beliefs that are IDENTICAL across different cultures.

Even so, any time you point to a moral belief that is identical across two or more cultures, I can still reply that the belief is still specific to those cultures and arbitrary, and through blind random chance, or inheritance through a common ancestral culture, or through cross-pollination of cultural norms, or a host of reasons, it just happens to be the same.

You are faced with the burden of showing that a certain shared moral belief is NECESSARILY SO and COULD NOT BE OTHERWISE. This is almost impossible, but I encourage you to try. We've been trying since even before Aristotle, and nobody's figured it out yet...


Going back to my original point, there are cultures in which men and women have sex completely without any ties of marriage as we understand it, they are free to choose partners and leave them without any negative social connotations, and the children are all raised by the entire community as a whole - there are no specific roles of "mother" and "father" as we have them in the west. This should go some way towards helping to understand that these deep-seated notions of some kind of moral basis for monogamy are simply holdovers from a very ingrained set of cultural norms stemming from the huge influence of the major religions, and nothing to do with necessity, innateness or "right" or "wrong."

_________________
SEX Technique Material http://bit.ly/iFdky0

FREE PDF w Openers, Date ideas and Videos on Direct: http://www.sashapua.com

There is a reason that that behaviour is ok in those societies, but would not be in ours. Think "scale", think "community". Think individualism vs collectivism.

I didn't read the whole thing but,

@Fin

Every argument has a premise. Every premise is doubt able. Consequently, every conclusion can be doubted. This is true in ALMOST all cases. That's why we have to give up certainty assumption. This is called Fallibilism. But this is quite impractical approach to philosophy. To have any believes we should give up these tricks, such as doubting others premises (unless they are retarded) and focus trying to find the truths. This is like using fallacies to win an argument. Can help you win an argument, but doesn't really add value to the discussion.

Oh god, who gave you an epistemology textbook?

I kid. But seriously, "every premise is doubtable" is just the whine of someone who can't construct a proper argument.

Yes, you're right. Every premise is doubtable, but, some more than others. How do you intend to get "value" from a discussion when "value" is drowned in bullshit?

This is why you debate and attack theories that don't make sense, this is why you point out fallacies, becuase if a thoery relies on a fallacy to prove itself, then it has not proved itself.

I'm going to pass over the logical discussion. Yes, it is a fallacy to generalise from the specific to the general. Extrapolation is bad, etc. I wasn't making a logical argument, I was stating my general beliefs and a couple of examples that illustrate it. Going into the arbitrary nature of moral beliefs in a cross-cultural context is way beyond the scope of a PUA forum and in general was not the point of the discussion.

This last part, I simply don't understand. You literally just acknowledge that one behaviour (polyamory) would be OK in one society, but not OK in ours. This is EXACTLY my point! What is considered "OK" (read - morally / ethically acceptable) differs vastly between cultures. In this context of relationships, therefore, it's not so much about what is "right or "wrong" from some independent standpoint that makes certain relationship choices ok, it's simply whether people are brought up to accept or not accept a certain model.

Take food, for example. A white French person could easily go through life without tasting anything remotely spicy. When he came across a really really hot vindaloo, he would react viscerally to it and might well consider it DISGUSTING. An Indian, however, would be totally used to that level of spice through years of eating it, and probably consider the French cuisine quite bland and unappetising!

Again, cultural differences, essentially arbitrary, can lead to visceral reactions of disgust. Does this mean there is a "right" or "wrong" way to cook? NO. Only insofar as there are some ingredients that cannot be eaten by ANY human (no society has a delicacy that involves cyanide, for such a culture would become extinct very quickly!)

Similarly, relationship choices vary across a spectrum, and are mostly to do with what is acceptable and has been done in the past in your particular society, rather than anything to do with something innately right or wrong. An example of a cultural norm regarding relationships I would consider "wrong" would be if a society demanded that everyone be homosexual. This is because it would restrict the majority from behaving the way they would most enjoy, and it would mean no children!

I personally believe that most things that are "accepted by the majority" are usually gross oversimplifications or flat out wrong. I choose to accept what I believe for my own reasons. I personally don't see anything immoral or wrong about giving my partners the free choice to be in a relationship with me knowing that we both also have the free choice to sleep with multiple other partners as well. Whatever jealousy comes from that is quite frankly worth the all the benefits of being able to be completely honest, having both sides work harder to be the best they can be for the other, not becoming controlling or possessive, and generally making the relationship about ENJOYMENT of each other rather than feeling the need to compromise or spend a certain amount of time with them or do things you don't like doing to be with them or any of that shite. If the mutual decision comes later, once you actually KNOW each other well, to pursue monogamy, then great! But I don't believe it makes any sense for it to be the "default" option right at the beginning of a relationship, and it's not necessarily the best model (especially where marriage is concerned) for long term happiness, financial stability or raising children.

p.s. what the fuck does "Think "scale", think "community". Think individualism vs collectivism." mean?

_________________
SEX Technique Material http://bit.ly/iFdky0

FREE PDF w Openers, Date ideas and Videos on Direct: http://www.sashapua.com

Moral beliefs being influenced by culture doesn't mean that moral beliefs are created ad hoc.

In a collectivist society which is much smaller and remote, you can walk around fucking people, if people get pregnant and have kids, that is fine. The woman understands that this is her role in society and she has a whole community to help raise the kid and its not like she was planning to take the BAR exam next spring and become a lawyer.

In an individualistic society like the U.K or the U.S. if you have a child you don't have the same community backing you that you would in a collectivist society. The ideals and economic functions of the previous culture made child rearing very easy in comparison to an individualistic culture.

In an individualistic society, people also have careers and mortgages to take care of, and as such just ending up with a baby and watching the daddy jet can be a real killer to the next 25+ years of their life.

Note: I'm not arguing that Polyamory is wrong, I am polyamorous, I'm just pointing out that moral laws are by no means just social constructs.
Morality is a little more instinctual and its influences are a little more ingrained and complex than the conditioned chemoreceptors you'll find in your mouth.


All fine and dandy, all I'm wanting to do is point out that there is a reason we feel things, and we should pay attention to that to ask if it is important before we choose to supress or correct it.
You like the intellectual implications of cultural differences. I thought I'd check if you had any knowledge about the field of anthroplogy.

Philosophy throwdown!
Oh give us all a fucking break. Just because people draw the ethical lines differently than you do, doesn't mean you've cornered the market on ethics. The real question in my mind is whether someone has an ethical boundary somewhere. Some people don't, most people do.
All cultures have proscriptions about murder. Some out-groups may be murdered under various circumstances, but the notion that "murder is wrong" is a universal no-no.
As a holder of a B.A. in Sociocultural Anthropology, I'm going to demand a specific cite for that. Haven't heard of that tribe, and I don't believe you.

LOL

Well, it seems that the intellectual part of the forum really likes the ethics question. I actually added the poll to simplify the question and apparently most of the visitors voted for Lying and fucking.

Again I have a problem with that. Not because of a mathematical equesion, but because it just feels that way and is rationalized by my social beliefs.

I'm still dating nr 2 that I think is very special.

Also I feel confident enough to think that if thinks end, on or two good sarges will catapult me back in to plentyful good oppertunities if neccesary. Perhaps that is the most important lesson to learn uptil now.

But thanks for your comments guys. It has been really helpful.

Greetz and respect.

Buccaneer

_________________
I could not tread these perilous paths in safety, if I did not keep a saving sense of humor. -Admiral Horatio Nelson

[quote="bvanevery"]Oh give us all a fucking break. Just because people draw the ethical lines differently than you do, doesn't mean you've cornered the market on ethics. The real question in my mind is whether someone has an ethical boundary somewhere. Some people don't, most people do. [/quote[

Don't get me wrong, by most standards mine are just as un-ethical as anyone elses. I've simply been on this forum long enough to know what this forums readers tend to consist of.

Go on chat.

You'll find way more insecure 19 year olds with passive aggressive personalities and control issues than you will 19 year old smooth guys getting laid and hosting parties every weekend.