85 replies to this topic

[seishin]

FurthurBB, on 15 October 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Animals are not mindless and we are intelligent animals.

Yeah, I don't think comparing animal morality to our sense of morality is exactly on the same level.

Morality is relative... nuff said

[Seeker79]

Human beings have developed the capacity for critical thinking and compassion. Most other things do not have these traits to the extent that we do.

Aristotle taught us that a shoe is a good shoe if it does what shoes do well. What ever something does that makes it unique and is its primary mode of existence, if it does that well, it is good.

A cup is a good cup if is a good container, a knife is a good knife if it cuts well, a car is a good car if it runs well etc etc etc.

What defines humans? Thinking and compassion. Other things are violent and nasty because they have to be.... We do not have to be. What mostly seperates us from the animals is that we can think quite deeply and use that thought to understand the virtue of compassion.

Just as a good pencil is good because it writes and erases well, a good human is one that thinks and shows compassion well.

Edited by Seeker79, 17 October 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[JGirl]

what does skepticism have to do with morality?  you can be gullible and moral and you can be skeptical and sociopathic.

[ranrod]

Mbyte, on 13 October 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Skeptics seem to have an extreme devotion to morality and upholding the good while the dogmatic religions destroy the sanctitiy of the mind. Morality is interesting, spiritual people see morality as a connection to god, good deeds are pro spiritual while bad things are anti spiritual. While Skeptics see morality as a random something that has developed from evolution completely seperate to spirituality. Out of all the things that evolution has created morality is one of the more improtant evolutionary creations because we experience it. It has dictated our society for years creating massive empires. What I find interesting is that many skeptics never care to analyze morality and to see it to it's full extent. Skeptics treat morality a bit like religious people treat god. They uphold it without questioning it.

Morality is a trait that occoured in the past that allowed beings to produce a co-interdependincy to reap better results than doing the same thing alone. Thus this mental infrastructure was passed on to the next generation due to it's succesfullness in survivng. Why is it that skeptics rightously uphold morality as if it's the end all when morailty is just an evolutionary quirk. The universe is an innamitate emotionless void of moving energy thrashing itself endlessly and we seem to be a design that has developed to feel and experience an innamate universe while yet we are designed feel pain in spite of a universe that causes us pain. What is so moral about morality?

Most Skeptics have a moral sense to not kill someone but animals kill each other everyday what actually makes killing someone a bad thing? Morality creates a sense of empathy but the empathy itself is simply an illusion and has no bearing on the actualy state of a being. Why do skeptics hold on to morality when it is simply illusionary, are we victims to a judical system thats mindlessly based on morality.

Here's my answer (I guess I do get my morals from animals):
http://www.theatheis...17-20121016.jpg

Edited by ranrod, 18 October 2012 - 03:50 AM.

[seishin]

ranrod, on 18 October 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Here's my answer (I guess I do get my morals from animals):
http://www.theatheis...17-20121016.jpg

absolutely brilliant! I now have the answer!

[Amalthe]

Although looking at morality as a form of "social contract" makes sense because it enables weaker members of human specie to have a chance in a world, it definitely is in contrast with all other Earth species who follow the rule "Only the strong survive". Humans are thesedays showing that this that civilized behaviour and equality brings more benefits to the whole humankind, but IMO this is just an illusion, because througout the history and today even in democracy, again 1% of top humans have power over rest of population, keep best knowledge and best living conditions to themselves. Humans believe that anyone can suceed in life nad join the top 1%, but in my opinion it happens more rarely than winning a lottery. And true proof will be in form of incoming extinction of most of human race, where the paradigm will shift to "Only the chosen survive".

[FlyingAngel]

Here it comes the debate of good vs bad again. Good/bad is relative, it's the collective group that define it. Killing a people is bad because you are told it's bad, the society told it's bad, your parents told it's bad, your grandparents told it's bad, etc...
If you take out "thinking, consequences and responsiblities" out of your brain and leave out only the animal instinct, you'd judge killing differently.

[Mr Walker]

Mbyte, on 14 October 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

You talk as if somehow we are above animals in the way we act but the fact is that morality and our ability to apparently not kill for fun is not apart of a hierarchy of morality just a third arm of evolution. Just because we can see the difference of not killing for fun does not mean we are somehow more civilised than animals, we are just more deluded by evolutionary morality.

I pick out skeptics because this is a point of view skeptics should be aware of, too many skeptics have fought for their materialistic views and ***t on everyone elses parade while yet not acknowledging the full extent and seriousness of their views. Most skeptics are not aware that they are comforted by morality like those are comforted by life after death.

I wish there was a dislike button. This is SOOOO wrong. The evolved property of self aware sapience, which humans possess, differentiates us from other animals and separates us from our biologic, genetic, and evolutionary history.

Animals have no morals Morality is a philosophical construct created by humans. It arises from a number of human abilities including our recognition of consequence,  our ability to differentiate self and others, and our ability to choose empathy for others.

Also our emotions are no longer mere physical programmed responses but symbolic linguistic, intellectual ideals, which we can verbalise, choose and modify at will.

If we feel anger we can choose not to, because first we can recognise anger for what it is and understand its caustions. Second we can see where it will lead, and third we can control or modify our biological and intellectual responses  by will.
Now, BECAUSE we can modify our responses we have developed an expectaion that we will.

Our laws ethics and moralities assume that we can chose our behaviours because this is known to be true.
And so murder is a singularly human trait because it is a choice we make; knowingly, wilfully, in full knowledge of the consequences of such an act on all concerned.

there is no delusion in this. It is a matter of science and reality. Unfortunately, even in this modern age, few peole understand this reality. And so, as one small but tragic example, we still get men who say, "She made me do it. She made me lose my temper." after beating or killing their spouse.

[FlyingAngel]

Mr Walker, on 03 November 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

If we feel anger we can choose not to...

That's where the problem is. In some situation, you can't.

[Mr Walker]

FlyingAngel, on 04 November 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

That's where the problem is. In some situation, you can't.

Untrue. Humans (apart from some genetic abberations) all have the capacity to control and modify their  emotions. Unfortunately we are not all educated in how to do this. The nature of human emotions is such that they ARE controllable by will. Good parents teach little children how to do this from birth. If this was not the case humanity could not survive close contact with each other.

  Almost all of us have learned how to modify and control our basic biological instincts at an early age, as we are socialised by parents etc.   We all learn to modify our basic emotional responses to some extent, but it is possible to achieve much more control with education training and discipline. Grief, anger, vengeance, hate; as well as the positive emotions, are both learned, and capable of being unlearned. No one HAS to act on emotions, the body is not compelled physically to respond to them, and indeed one can virtually eliminate strong emotional responses, or chose to feel more appropriate and constructive ones..
This is very old human knowledge and goes back at least as far as hellenistic stoicism.

Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual's ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature."^[6] This principle also applies to the realm of interpersonal relationships; "to be free from anger, envy, and jealousy,"^[7] and to accept even slaves as "equals of other men, because all men alike are products of nature."<sup>[8]

The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word 'stoic' has come to mean 'unemotional' or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from 'passion' by following 'reason.' The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions; rather, they sought to transform them by a resolute 'askēsis' that enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm.[19] Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism</sup>

Edited by Mr Walker, 04 November 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[FlyingAngel]

Controllable IF given time to think and analyze the situation. Time is the key here. When you got anger, your brain don't automatically say "ah, angry is bad, I shouldn't go too far". Some people only realized that what they've done from anger is wrong hours or days after. I'm not arguing about the capacity of controlling the emotions on a daily basis. But it's clear that at the given time, lots of people will act on their emotions.

For example, when you see a pervert kiss and hold your gf just right in front of you, the first thing you'd say is most likely "wtf" then you are gonna punch him or grab his neck. You don't bother to spend time to think and analyze "this dude did bad things to my gf, I should punish him!". No! Your animal instinct will come first, human's intelligence come after.

Edited by FlyingAngel, 04 November 2012 - 07:44 PM.

[Jinxdom]

Why is killing somebody wrong? Really what is it? You need to define what somebody is to do that. If you cannot define what life is. You cannot define what death is. If you cannot figure out death and the inevitable you cannot figure out anything about morals. If you take away choice, take away consent, take a change, It is bad. Negative. If you give somebody something, more choices, more freedom, more chances to change positive. Some things you cannot change. Storms, Weather, Death, eating. Your parents making you. So those are neutral.

Anger, hate, disgust are not bad when used properly. Those are things that we need to defend ourselves. Only time hate and anger are wrong is when it is used wrong.  Anger and hate are the last lines of defense against getting stuck in to one choice. Sometimes people take it to far and need to be put in check.


Morality is in fact a product of evolution. It even follows the same patterns as it. starting from 1 thing. Choices branching out again and again and again.

I can prove it what is actually right and wrong based on a few small bits of information from any form of creation theory and transforming in to math.  Law, Science,Religion.doesn't matter.the same Laws apply to each so they in fact apply to us.

Edited by Jinxdom, 05 November 2012 - 04:10 AM.

[Mr Walker]

FlyingAngel, on 04 November 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Controllable IF given time to think and analyze the situation. Time is the key here. When you got anger, your brain don't automatically say "ah, angry is bad, I shouldn't go too far". Some people only realized that what they've done from anger is wrong hours or days after. I'm not arguing about the capacity of controlling the emotions on a daily basis. But it's clear that at the given time, lots of people will act on their emotions.

For example, when you see a pervert kiss and hold your gf just right in front of you, the first thing you'd say is most likely "wtf" then you are gonna punch him or grab his neck. You don't bother to spend time to think and analyze "this dude did bad things to my gf, I should punish him!". No! Your animal instinct will come first, human's intelligence come after.

This depends on knowledge, education and training,  as do all human ailities. I am arguing what all humans are capable of, not how we are now You describe a little child or a fairly immature adult in emotional terms You dont need time, AT THE TIME, if you have already learned appropriate responses and practiced them If oyur brain does not say those words to you the you are in trouble.

Persoanlly i think peole who demonstrate an inabilty to control emotional responses in such cases are a danger to others and should be locked up until they demonstrate they have learned to control their responses.

Ask WHY your brain doesnt "automatically" say, "Anger is wrong, dangerous and counter productive." and then ensure that it does.

There are many better responses tha the one oyu give for the scenario with your girlfriend and i dont mean better for the pervert but for all concerned. How the heck did you make a judgement call tha the was a "pervert" anyway Sounds like a perfectly normal guy to me, hitting on a girl  have you asked how she felt about it do you care or are you just mortally ofended that some other guy should find your girlfriend attractive .

Of course if you know he is a real pervert then stronger action is required, but there are still safer ways of dealing with such a situation. People need to think such things through BEFORE finding themselves in such a scenario, and plan alternative and better  responses. Otherwise you might end up in prison for years, when it was totally avoidable, and someone else will get your girl anyway.

Ps i assume your scenario is hypothetical. My responses are too and not directed at "you" but anyone in that  hypothetical instance.

Edited by Mr Walker, 05 November 2012 - 08:10 AM.

[Mr Walker]

FlyingAngel, on 04 November 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Controllable IF given time to think and analyze the situation. Time is the key here. When you got anger, your brain don't automatically say "ah, angry is bad, I shouldn't go too far". Some people only realized that what they've done from anger is wrong hours or days after. I'm not arguing about the capacity of controlling the emotions on a daily basis. But it's clear that at the given time, lots of people will act on their emotions.

For example, when you see a pervert kiss and hold your gf just right in front of you, the first thing you'd say is most likely "wtf" then you are gonna punch him or grab his neck. You don't bother to spend time to think and analyze "this dude did bad things to my gf, I should punish him!". No! Your animal instinct will come first, human's intelligence come after.

This depends on knowledge, education and training,  as do all human ailities. I am arguing what all humans are capable of, not how we are now You describe a little child or a fairly immature adult in emotional terms You dont need time, AT THE TIME, if you have already learned appropriate responses and practiced them. If your brain does not say those words to you then you are in trouble.

Personally, Ii think people who demonstrate an inabilty to control emotional responses in such cases are a danger to others and should be locked up until they demonstrate they have learned to control their responses.

Ask WHY your brain doesnt "automatically" say, "Anger is wrong, dangerous and counter productive." and then ensure that it does.

There are many better responses tha the one oyu give for the scenario with your girlfriend and i dont mean better for the pervert but for all concerned. How the heck did you make a judgement call tha the was a "pervert" anyway Sounds like a perfectly normal guy to me, hitting on a girl  have you asked how she felt about it do you care or are you just mortally ofended that some other guy should find your girlfriend attractive .

Of course if you know he is a real pervert then stronger action is required, but there are still safer ways of dealing with such a situation. People need to think such things through BEFORE finding themselves in such a scenario, and plan alternative and better  responses. Otherwise you might end up in prison for years, when it was totally avoidable, and someone else will get your girl anyway.

Ps i assume your scenario is hypothetical. My responses are too and not directed at "you" but anyone in that  hypothetical instance.

[Mr Walker]

Sorry for the double post. I was corecting the first one when the computer lost the Um site. When i returned both the origianal and corrected posts were up, and it was too late for me to edit either.