Blurred Lines of Morality

What exactly is "exploitation"? What are its characteristics?
What factors have to be present for a relationship to be exploitative? Is there a list of things "ab and c" that we can check against to be sure if someone is being exploited?

For me it's the unfair capitalization of a vulnerable someone. We saw this in the prison all the time. Someone would have to agree to have sex or give up all their food they receive in commissary to avoid being jumped. So essentially they're paying for protection, but the aggressor holds it over them. That leads into a whole new monster called extortion.

wow...umm...

1.) Beastiality without pain to the animal
Absolutely not. How is an animal going to tell you it's okay to commit an act like that against it? Well, I suppose if the animal kicked you or, bit you but, even then no.

2.) Breaking a promise to a dead friend
No, because we don't know what's on the other side or, if that person's spirit after it returns to THE FORCE isn't watching you break that promise. Call it superstitious but, I believe in a world unseen.

3.) Defacing the national flag
Um... no. This to me would be like if we had a Jedi Flag with the symbol of our order on it and pee'd on in front of you all or burned it. Yes, it's material but, have respect for everyone's nationality.

4.) Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event.
No, no, no!!!

5.) Adult sibling consensual sex
Um...weird no.

6.) Consensual Cannibalism
My word..these are all terrible thoughts imo...to eat someone? Even if they said it was okay? um...man this reminds me of that one film about the plane of people crashing in the mountains and eating stuff like tooth paste, snow and once the others died each other...yuck! I just couldn't eat someone I knew personally. Well, what if I didn't know them? Still, I am pretty set on saying no as well. I just couldn't yuck...

For me it's the unfair capitalization of a vulnerable someone. We saw this in the prison all the time. Someone would have to agree to have sex or give up all their food they receive in commissary to avoid being jumped. So essentially they're paying for protection, but the aggressor holds it over them. That leads into a whole new monster called extortion.

I suppose the difference here is the benefactor (lets say) isn't using holdover tactics or threatening that if the other party doesn't "cooperate" they'll face further penalties.

It is simply "Here is the deal, take it or leave it"

but refusing the deal, neither party is any worse of than they started prior to the offer.

In accepting the deal, both parties benefit.


I'm not taking a position on either side, just clarifying how I believe the scenario is intended to be seen.

Bestiality - Why not? consent not an issue. How many other things do we do to animals but don't get their consent. slavery and murder for their meat, semen extraction and insertion for reproduction, domestic, rescue, protection and military work uses. Did we ask the animals if they were ok with any of these things? Nope we just get them as infants and indoctrinate them into these lives.

Not exactly my kink, but a fair point - We do hold sexual acts in a different sort of taboo category to the other horrific things we do to each other (and other animals)

They even get their own special category in most courts (usually filed somewhere under "Crimes Against Humanity").


I wonder if we do this because somewhere inside us (morals or otherwise) we know that putting our slippers under another species' bed probably benefits no one.

thomaswfaulkner wrote: I was reviewing my notes on a book a read 2 years, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil by Paul Bloom and I came across the section about Blurred Morality. This definitely challenged by initial biases towards morality and I'm curious to how the Temple sees these moral/immortal situations. For me, although something may be morally permissive does not mean that the action was perform with the right intention. I think intention is crucial in the understating of action.

Note: I only want to start a discussion. I was on the fence about posting it because of the vulnerability of the various situations but I'll do it with the disclaimer that everyone will play nice and engage in discussion, not personal attacks.

1.) Bestiality without pain to the animal
2.) Breaking a promise to a dead friend
3.) Defacing the national flag
4.) Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event.
5.) Adult sibling consensual sex
6.) Consensual Cannibalism

Any thoughts?

I've reflected on this for the couple of days since the topic was brought up. The particular questions aren't really as important as their over-arching moral considerations are.. Nonetheless, I'll treat the particularities, just please read them as generalities. The details (mostly implied) of each item need not be re-iterated in the elaboration.


– Bestiality without pain to the animal :

As was evoked earlier, the animal can indeed perform according to what may be construed as “consent” - that is by not trying to get away. To restrain the animal would be, by its very nature, taking power (by restricting the animal's) as to use it as a means of personal pleasure. It is very difficult to defend the use of another (even non-human animals) as a “means to an end” ; likewise, when engaging in sexual acts with an animal, how likely is a human being's approach to it one of actual reciprocity ? I can't conjecture about all cases, but I would guess that in most, it is done merely for one's personal satisfaction without much regard for that of the animal. This can be induced also from the tendency that this is how sexual relations even among consenting adults is approached.

Thus, I would admit the morality of bestiality only in instances where the animal is a beloved companion and that one is also concerned about the pleasure given to the animal during the course of the act as well as one's own. “Using” the animal as a convenient and discreet source of sexual pleasure would be in this way immoral.


– Breaking a promise to a dead friend :

A promise, a covenant, a pact … these are not merely saying that both shall honour an agreement. There is a much more intent implication of trust based on a common value inherent in them. So, what is “trust” ? Trust is the act of baring one's vulnerability to another in the personal (non-rational) confidence that, under the circumstances in which the promise was made, will not be betrayed. The result of such betrayal would be suffering – or the exploitation of that bare vulnerability. In the event that the “trust” in which the promise is founded implicates no other person involved in that trust, then there is no exploitation of vulnerability as the dead friend is no longer vulnerable to matters of the living world. Promising to take care of the deceased's family extends that trust among the survivors – breaking it therefore presents a betrayal of their trust. Thus, the moral issue is depended upon whether or not there is undue suffering to those yet living caused by the breach of promise. This however would be pretty conditional as the the scope of what the “taking care of” would entail ; keeping the family out of destitution would be honourable, whereas keeping them privileged to an onerous lifestyle may not fall within the scope of morality.

If the promise was made in order to make one's passage out of life (to alleviate a worry that the dying person is burdened by) a bit easier for her/him, then I see no moral obligation on the part of the survivor to honour it – unless it is something that the survivor's moral duties would not include anyway.


– Defacing the national flag :

Symbols are not “signs”. Signs (as most of our 'words' are) have meanings that can be readily contextualised as the 'thing' to which they make reference. If I say 'a table', then everyone can imagine the image of the 'table' they do and still have a pretty clear understanding of the object to which I refer. Symbols, on the other hand, have meaning that cannot be comprehensively grasped and contextualised by the conscious mind. Their meanings can only be carried by allegory, which illustrates what 'it is like'.

National flags, are more like the sigils of medieval fiefdoms rather than iconic symbols of archetypal aspects of human existence. As such, they are not as symbolic as they are syn-thematic. They are not as representative of aspects of human existence, but stand instead for the inculcated duties to one's 'national' group, of which one does not ordinarily nowadays have a choice in whether or not to participate (note here that 'nation' does not necessarily mean what it once did either). As such, it follows that the national flag can have wildly divergent allusions to the life experiences associated with it.

Thus, defacing or destroying a national flag would be no more immoral than any other method of expressing dissent among a group in which one did not have the option of choosing to belong or not. As we are talking about group behaviour, this becomes more of an ethical question than a moral one. Is it more “immoral” for the person to express her/his dissent with the group than it is “unethical” for the group to impose the individual's inclusion – and reverence for its syn-theme – which that individual did not have the option to choose and has come to disdain ?

Naturally, if the person chooses to not honour the social contract, that person cannot morally expect to benefit from the support of the society whose themes (in the guise of values) s/he rejects, but the question is not that – the question is as to whether it is immoral to dishonour the syn-theme. As it is difficult to see a “use” or “experience” motive in this form of expression, then I would say there is no breach of morality.


– Sexual Contact with a sleeping child who is unharmed and has no recollection of the event :

As in the case of the non-human animal in the first scenario, this is evidently a moral transgression in that the sexual contact is engaged in without the reciprocity of the Other. It is using the sleeping child as a means to pleasure with no regard for the pleasure of the child – thus making the child an instrument for one's own benefit. Even beyond the consideration that such behaviour is illegal – it is making an 'object' of another human being from which one derives a perceived benefit without any consideration of providing benefit (not to mention without the consideration of doing harm) to another conscious living being. The fact that the child is sleeping and would not form a consciously accessible memory of the event does not mean that the child is not a conscious living being. Consent, beyond that the child could not legally give it, is not an issue since the child – the Other (any Other) – could not give, since s/he is in the vulnerable position of sleep. Furthermore, that the child would be sleeping in the presence of the one taking advantage of that vulnerability (remember, “trust” is the voluntary baring of one's vulnerability in the confidence that the one trusted will not exploit it) ; it is the denial of the power of choice no matter if it is a child or not. In this light, the act is immoral.


– Adult sibling consensual sex :

This is a cultural issue more than a moral one. Two consenting adults may engage in the behaviours they choose, granted they are fully aware of the possible consequences of such actions. Both consenting, both desiring, both aware of the benefits and risks (as much as one can be), both engaging in the spirit of reciprocity – there is no moral dereliction.


– Consensual Cannibalism :

This is also cultural. We have laws against murder, but then the notion of “murder” is also cultural. Whereas consensual cannibalism may elicit feelings of disgust in the post-modern, globalised world, much of that is owing to the fact that we have effaced much of our ritualistic symbolism with “significance” (semiotic 'sign' values). Let's remember here that in the cases of non-consensual cannibalism, for example, explorers being eaten by some members of Amazonian tribes – this was only from our perspective “cannibalism”. To them, they were just eating other “animals” much in the same way that we nonchalantly eat a steak. Culturally, to them, the explorers were not really 'persons' but merely quarry. Their 'significance' was based on a very different world-view and its particular semiotic – we can't even say that it was particularly “wrong” in the moral sense.

In some of these cultures, to go back to the example of the tribe that Campbell spoke of, wherein the boys had their first sexual experience with a girl in a structure made of very heavy logs which was pulled down with the last of the boys in the copulatory act with the girl, both of whom were killed – the young couple were roasted and eaten that very evening. This was consensual ; both of the youth to be eaten knew they were going to die and they willingly took part in it – even to becoming the feast. This is ritualistic cannibalism in the belief that through their sacrifice, their culture – something greater than themselves – would continue by grace of their participation.

In our Western cultures, the question reposes on the notions of “self-ownership” – or, do we have the right to do with our bodies as we please ? Is my body “mine” is not as easily answered as it seems. Do I have the right to give, say, my left leg to a poor family so that they'll have some meat for a while ? What right would I have to the social protections (disability benefits, for example) should I deprive myself of a leg ? Likewise, wherein lies the difference should I, as an organ donor, give away one of my kidneys to someone who needs one for survival as opposed to merely giving it up to someone who wants to make it into a pie ?

Of all the scenarios listed above, this is the one for which it is the most difficult to come up with an answer. It is truly the one that would make for an interesting discussion on/in its own topic, that being : How extensive is the idea of “self-ownership” (our own human body as personal property) ?




To go back to the title of the topic, I don't believe that morality has clearly drawn lines. It has to be a blurry fog in which we stumble about (it is the classic unknown territory of the Hero's Adventure) trying to make our way as best we can. There have been others (10 000 generations worth) who have come this way before us and left us clues in the labyrinth, but we still all have to make our way through it, determining which of those clues lead to the exit, and which lead to the beast.

Good topic, Thomas ! Thank you …

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: 1. I wound exact the revenge as appropriate.

2. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead I would try to expose him.

3. I would protect him/her

4. I see no issues with this relationship as its mutually beneficial and would encourage it.

I find your response very interesting. You say two wrongs don't make a right but wouldn't exacting revenge against the bully also be a "wrong"?

Arthnos wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: 1. I wound exact the revenge as appropriate.

2. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead I would try to expose him.

3. I would protect him/her

4. I see no issues with this relationship as its mutually beneficial and would encourage it.

I find your response very interesting. You say two wrongs don't make a right but wouldn't exacting revenge against the bully also be a "wrong"?

Well... yeah. Revenge is still a wrong. Better to forgive them than stoop to their level.

I'm not gonna say that it'll be easy, it isn't. I know from personal experience. But it is the right and noble thing to do.

Arisaig wrote: Well... yeah. Revenge is still a wrong. Better to forgive them than stoop to their level.

I'm not gonna say that it'll be easy, it isn't. I know from personal experience. But it is the right and noble thing to do.

That is my thought. Most bullies have reasons why they bully. This does not justify their actions but many times they come from abusive homes themselves and bullying others is a way for them to regain control that they lost in their home. Confront the former bully certainly or avoid them if at all possible.

Just my thoughts Morally, my personal conviction as a Jedi revenge is of the Darkside of THE FORCE. Revenge is a deliberate attempt to cause harm whether mental or physical to the person that has done wrong to that individual who wronged the one who is seeking revenge. Revenge is also, a raw and unconstrained emotion which I think as a Jedi is of the Darkside of THE FORCE. If, you disagree with that it's fine but, that's just my thoughts.

Better to forgive and release that emotion into the cosmos of THE FORCE otherwise, bitterness will enter into your heart which isn't good either. By no means an easy task been there and done that. Remember, just because you forgive them doesn't mean you have to go back for seconds.

But -- "what to do about it" wasn't the question.

Before we ever get to decide what to "do" (which in many cases is 'nothing'), the hardest part is determining whether we know enough about an event - and especially one's motives for it - to be able to make a decision about the event/act itself as to whether it was "moral" or "immoral".

Please, please ... be very careful - doubtful even - of the influence of "common sense" here. 'Common' sense is like 'common' anything else in an excessively mass-produced world : it is of shit quality. Moral questions are much harder to answer than those based on observations of physical sciences ; they are not objectively deduced. Moral questions are co-referential, co-relative ... in short, they are inter-subjective by the very nature of morality.

So, please have at it again. The question is not "what do you do if ... ?" but rather before we get to doing anything but determining "is X moral ?" It is a much more profound question than it has the air of being.