Retro, I'm definitely gonna slap your bollocks next time I see you (I prefer them shaved, just so you know). I did not take your words out of context. I simply do not see how it is supposed to be a Catch22.

It would be a Catch22 if, for example, in order for you to have an exclusive relationship with a girl they had to fuck someone else too and the only way to get her not to fuck someone else is to not have an exclusive relationship with her and in order for that to happen she'd have to fuck someone else. If you say it is a Catch22 explain because I don't see it. In fact, don't.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I can't respond to it because it doesn't make sense and your writing it is a symptom of the problem.


Peace,

kowalski

SJ,
It depends which direction you want to take your essay in.

Sticking with the issue of fidelity you could look at films like The Graduate, you could go for vigilante films like Death Note where maybe you route for the vigilante to begin with there's a ton of these, straight up philosophical films that openly discuss morality like I [Heart] Huckabee's, any adaptations of Dickens' works they're all about class prejudice, films where the central character changes their complete world view like Bonfire of the Vanities, good vs evil battles like Star Wars or more interesting ones where the lines are blurred as the good do evil evil stuff too like Day Watch and Night Watch, Minority Report whilst being shit discusses the problem of supposed good founded on bad (i.e. utilitarian ideas of the greater good) in fact anything with a totalitarian rule e.g. 1984, essays on: eugenics e.g. Gattaca, drugs e.g. Traffic, there's probably thousands of different directions you could take this in.

Call / e-mail me if you decide to definitely write this essay I'll gladly discuss it further with you, peer review your drafts and all that.


Peace,

kowalski

Or you could do a more general topic like a study of the morals of characters dead and alive at the end of slasher flicks and include some movies that buck this trend. Or a classic 'through the ages' style essay comparing changing notions of right, wrong and justice over the last 70 years possibly discussing to what extent movies have lead and informed our morals through the spreading of memes and subsequent desensitisation (sp?) and to what extent they have lagged behind societies changing morality (probably more prevalent in the past raising the questions what factors held them back initially, at what point did they catch up and what tactics older directors / writers use to slip their subversive messages past the headless monster).


Peace,

kowalski

It is a catch 22 because people have compared the BF/GF status in terms of ownership..


... and i'm highlighting to compare steeling a PC / Laptop / mobile to making out with a girl in a club is wrong.


The moral standpoint for me, is how i would feel should the reverse happen to me. Ergo i would never do this knowingly to someone else.


I'll go shave me bollox in prep for the slapping.. ZING!

Retro

I see the confusion. The thing you are pointing out is not a Catch22 rather it is simply a difference between the two scenarios (here is a definition of Catch22 a phrase coined in one of my favourite books also called Catch22: Catch-22 as you can see it is not a Catch22).

Your argument centers around the belief that you can't own or possess the other (you also seem to equate ownership and possession though they are quite different).

We can have rights of ownership over people, slavery being the clearest example. And we can possess people, imprisonement being the clearest example. There are other less severe examples of each.

However, it is not relevant as the important factor is not ownership or possession. The important factor is contractual obligation, I made it clear that this was the intention of my analogy in my earlier posts about BT and Sky.

When two people agree to be in a monogamous relationship with one another they enter into a verbal contract, breech of which carries consequences including the consequence that you are a dishonest person and therefore morally bad. Its pretty easy to remove yourself from that contract, as there is no notice period required, all you have to do is communicate to the other that you will no longer be in a monogamous relationship with them. After which you are free to do whatever you want with whoever you want and maintain your own moral goodness.

Remember this is not about what people can and can't do, or what the law does or doesn't cover, it is simply about the practice of promise giving which in turn is an aspect of honesty aka 'holding true'. And, holding true is something everyone who speaks a public language has already signed up to (see Donald Davidson's essays on Radical Interpretation, which I already referenced, for more on this).

So referring back to my main argument, honesty is good and dishonesty is bad. I don't see that there are too many cases of this particular example where there are mitigating factors that would override this principle, except particularly extreme ones like SJ's Desert Island example, and I already provided a model for dealing with such situations that doesn't contravene the above principle, albeit a scrappily written and not well thought out model but would provide a decent starting point for a seperate discussion on that. Aiding and abetting, being an accomplice, co-conspirator, accessory or similar to someone elses dishonest act makes you guilty too to lesser or sometimes greater extent. So if you want to be good you shouldn't cheat on your partner nor should you seduce and / or sex someone elses partner.

Which answers the question under discussion. Namely: Is it morally wrong to get involved with a girl who you know has promised monogamy to another?

This is just 'do unto others ...' again and I've already argued why this is a massively flawed principle, those arguments remain unopposed within this discussion so continue to stand for now.

You may try to live by this principle, and indeed many do, and that is fine. But it is flawed and as such is not a principle that accomodates our moral intuitions as a society.

I just came a little.


Peace,

kowalski

I'm torn between doing something along the lines of this,

Or something along the lines of this.



I think a good vs evil theme could be really cool, perhaps a film like Lord of the Rings, or as you say Star Wars, but I'm just not sure I'm philosophically equipped enough to take this on, and I've only got a month and a half before it needs to be done.

I think something about production constraints and values/morals that have evidently changed over time will be easier for me to do and research, and I have already covered similar topics so it's not completely new territory for me. However I don't think it will be as interesting as the good vs evil/moral dilemma kind of theme, so I need ti think about it and do some research. I've actually already started this thing twice now. I was gonna do propaganda film to begin with but found it quite boring. A film/philosophy theme would be something that I would find interesting and so would be able to produce my best work.

Thanks for the ideas man! Much love and respect!
I'll send you a pm with what I decide on and the films i'm gonna go with.

If you do go for good vs evil, you must consider Day Watch and Night Watch as the problem of good doing evil for a supposed greater good is discussed explicitly as it is in the not GvE and also shit film Minority Report.


Peace,

kowalski

You could also do Apocalypse Now, Vietnam being a morally dubious war and extreme examples of and the twisting of morals. You'll probably find lots of material on it as well, as well as links to heart of darkness
In fact here's a few links I found just typing in 'apocalypse now morals' into google http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/trauma/92 "Apocalypse Now" by B. Ruby Rich

Thanks man! Interesting thoughts.

Hey,

got a message from legend so I'll post quick. Sorry if its a bit rushed. I haven't read the back-log after the initial post...

“how immoral it is to have your evil way with a fair maiden that is already taken by a fellow geeza.”

“An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory.” Friedrich Engels

I wouldn't bother. Show your dignity by waiting it out if she's worth it, or knock it on the head and move on.

You might also get into a lot of shit. How angry could you be, if someone 'picked up' your girl?

Generally on morality...

dismissing all the stuff about 'why be moral etc' – generally take it as a good, human thing to be moral and get on with it. Over philosophizing killed the cat.

How to be a moral pick up artist ???...

The first thing I'd suggest is not be a pick up artist. This community is generally linear and a bit lame. Get what you can from it and move on!!

Best to be a moral person – everything, from women and all else, is then based on your own morality.

Legend, I find it unlikely that you're meeting a girl you like (who is taken) every day on a platonic basis without her getting 'ideas' etc... You might want to think what she thinks the relationship is.

I was out with a bunch of girls the other night, all celebrating because one of the girls kissed a guy she liked. Women are very sensitive beasts!

By being attractive you will generally upset a lot of women anyways. Why? Because even if you do 'manage expectations' she'll want to be with you anyways. And then upset when you leave (even if for her own benefit). I have certainly found this, and I know Kowalski has too. So anyways, this is tough stuff. No easy answers....

Google humanism for some non-religious morality.

Bw

anthony