Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Mbyte

Skeptical Morality

86 posts in this topic

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone acted on their urges?

I'm not sure why it is so difficult to grasp morality without some kind of divine dictator enforcing it.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we intelligent humans, or are we mindless animals?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Skeptics have a moral sense to not kill someone but animals kill each other everyday what actually makes killing someone a bad thing?

Actually, there's no more killing amongst animals than there is amongst people. Some animals kill for food, some animals will kill if they feel they or their young are in danger, some will kill in situations of severe overcrowding and stress, but killing 'for the fun of it' is relatively rare. Whereas, humans kill each other by the thousand in wars ...... seeming to prefer that to using our reasoning, compromising and diplomacy skills. There are an awful lot of humans it seems, who do not think killing someone is a bad thing ...... right across the board of beliefs!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Skeptics have a moral sense to not kill someone but animals kill each other everyday what actually makes killing someone a bad thing?

Like animals ( well that is what we all are ) many of us will kill to protect our loved ones and ourselves, as an act of self defence.... Killing for fun - .those that kill other humans for fun are mentally insane ... My cats kill for fun too, but that is in their nature, like many other cats and a good few animals that will kill for pleasure not as much as humans would ( obviously ) but you would be rather surprised by the number of animals that do kill for pleasure.... Apart from humans, the only other creature on earth to go to war would likely be the ant

Question - What living creature has killed more on earth - Humans OR The Mosquito ?

Answer - Believe it or not, the mosquito has in fact killed more people than all the wars in history...and they aren't even religious lol :P

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most animals lack the capacity to understand what they are doing. The idea of "kill" simply means to stop their prey from escaping, period.

Humans however have the capacity to understand what they are doing and possess the ability top reason and think as well as control their primal/animalistic urges. (usually).

I fail to see, however, how "skeptics" play into this morality thing. Are you saying, Mbyte, that you do not possess any morality and think it is ok to kill anyone you want for any reason or even no reason?

Why single out the "skeptics"?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone acted on their urges?

I'm not sure why it is so difficult to grasp morality without some kind of divine dictator enforcing it.

exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Mbyte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You're talking like materialists aren't aware of morality or consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking like materialists aren't aware of morality or consequences.

We're aware because it's built into us but from a materialists point of view how is morality significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shared moral foundation helps a community function. You talk as though it is something that is never questioned and yet just on this board you can find tons of topics which at their heart are a moral debate. They are also not a fixed entity. Different cultures do develop variations in their moral structure and it is something that changes over time. For example it was not considered morally wrong to have slaves at certain times and places yet in modern western culture it is. You appear to be suggesting that having a moral code is somehow at odds with a skeptical and critical outlook of the world. The benefits of a moral code within society are clear and enable us to function as a group, this team work has been essential to progress and to the accumulation of knowledge.

I am not entirely certain I get your argument. We generally accept the morals of the culture into which we were born but we also question them. If we were all to run around killing and stealing the very fabric of society would crumble.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Actually it's the reverse, empathy creates morality. Why do you say morality is an illusion? Because God and objective moral values don't exist? Mirror neuronsare not an illusion. The empathy, reciprocity, fairness and compassion we see in non-human animals are not illusions.

Why do skeptics hold on to morality when it is simply illusionary, are we victims to a judical system thats mindlessly based on morality.

Never mind morality, wait til you tell the judiciary there is no free will.

Anyways, here's a video of the primatologist Frans de Waal on animal morality;

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we intelligent humans, or are we mindless animals?

Animals are not mindless and we are intelligent animals.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animals are not mindless and we are intelligent animals.

Anybody who thinks they have the right kill someone else is not intelligent. I'm not talking about self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."[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

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.