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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Such thinking is more attribute of computer program, and less of human. For instance you can make program in a way to predict what ever possible things user will input, and if you cover it all, your program will not fail when user inputs text into numerical field. But humans and events that go in our lives are much more complex and unpredictable. I would really be amazed if anyone could develop scenario for every possible situation that we might get into. I don't say planning is bad, because it makes you more prepared for things, but you will always have situations where you have to make decision at the spot, and then it's all up to strenght of your character and your emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such thinking is more attribute of computer program, and less of human. For instance you can make program in a way to predict what ever possible things user will input, and if you cover it all, your program will not fail when user inputs text into numerical field. But humans and events that go in our lives are much more complex and unpredictable. I would really be amazed if anyone could develop scenario for every possible situation that we might get into. I don't say planning is bad, because it makes you more prepared for things, but you will always have situations where you have to make decision at the spot, and then it's all up to strenght of your character and your emotions.

Computer programmes are based on human logic and intellect, Humans are quite capable of logical and rational thought Of course humans are not perfect or infallible but they are a hell of a lot more capable in potential than most of them ever exercise,

And thats my point. We teach each child to speak read and write and to think and devlop a modicum of self control. These are all learned atributes based on innate potentials. So is emotional discipline. In a modern urbanised and densely packed society we MUST teach children how to respond with logic and intelligence rather than emotion.

Emotions are good when they are cathartic, productive or creative, but they can lead to destructive and tragic outcomes if left unchecked. Modern people, society, and laws, do much better in this than they once did. For example it was once a legal defence to kill another person in a crime of passion. It no longer is. The law expects us to maintain control even when emotionally provoked. ANd most jurisdictions no longer allow a defence based on being too drunk or drug affected to act rationally, because it is assumed the person had responsibilty for becoming incapacitated while still sober, and is thus also responsible for actions taken while inebriated.

If you have contriol of your emotions it doesnt really matter what scenario develops. because you won't lose control, but visualisation of alternative options is a very useful strategy in every aspect of ones life. It makes one constanlty aware that we always have many potential options from which to chose, rather than just one path, which we are lead by the nose to inevitably fulfil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we do have an instinct to kill for the same reasons other species do on our planet (animals). Humans would kill an intruder of their territory just like animals do. Humans will and do kill for food. We'd kill to protect member of our packs/family's.

The difference is we've developed the ability to build societies with built in methods to prevent the need to kill like animals do in the wild. Instead of just killing any animal (or even other humans) for food. We farm it. Instead of automatically thinking to kill an intruder of our territory. We have weapons, technology and police which usually gives us a level of safe guards and other options besides just killing to resolve the situation.

Just my take. We're moral because we have the intelligence to perceive the pain we could inflict in others. And a society that usually not only allows us to be moral. It encourages it because we can perceive that society works better when we get along.

Edited by Magicjax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly we are immoral because we have intelligence. Humans are the only animal who will actually do nothing in some situations.

I'll use pacifists for instance. How exactly is letting yourself get pounded in to oblivion being good without fighting back? Pacifism leaves you only one option in the end and that is to be dominated.

Animals kill to survive. If you threaten an animal it will warn you to back off first. It will give you that choice. If you do not it will fight you. If it has to it will kill you. That is morality in its purest form.

Edited by Jinxdom
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly we are immoral because we have intelligence. Humans are the only animal who will actually do nothing in some situations.

I'll use pacifists for instance. How exactly is letting yourself get pounded in to oblivion being good without fighting back? Pacifism leaves you only one option in the end and that is to be dominated.

Animals kill to survive. If you threaten an animal it will warn you to back off first. It will give you that choice. If you do not it will fight you. If it has to it will kill you. That is morality in its purest form.

We are moral and immoral because we can be. Animals are neither moral or immoral. they have no choices in their responses, because they are driven by biologic and genetic imperatives of which they are not even aware, let alone capable of understanding and controlling.

Not all animals are as you describe. Certain primates kill not only any rival males, but all the young male offspring of the females, and then ensure that their own progeny is created and survives in as many of the fertile females as there are in the group .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly we are immoral because we have intelligence. Humans are the only animal who will actually do nothing in some situations.

I'll use pacifists for instance. How exactly is letting yourself get pounded in to oblivion being good without fighting back? Pacifism leaves you only one option in the end and that is to be dominated.

Animals kill to survive. If you threaten an animal it will warn you to back off first. It will give you that choice. If you do not it will fight you. If it has to it will kill you. That is morality in its purest form.

I believe you are correct - To add ..There are some animals that show love to their young and their owners too.. I call that moral..

If you read this...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186895/Incredible-photos-heroic-mother-dog-carrying-day-old-puppies-blazing-home-safety.html

If a human does that, they are considered doing a good moral act.. so I say same goes for the dog and any other animals that value and show love and protection for their young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are moral and immoral because we can be. Animals are neither moral or immoral. they have no choices in their responses, because they are driven by biologic and genetic imperatives of which they are not even aware, let alone capable of understanding and controlling.

Not so. From page 1 of this thread;

http://www.ted.com/t...ave_morals.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are moral and immoral because we can be. Animals are neither moral or immoral. they have no choices in their responses, because they are driven by biologic and genetic imperatives of which they are not even aware, let alone capable of understanding and controlling.

Not all animals are as you describe. Certain primates kill not only any rival males, but all the young male offspring of the females, and then ensure that their own progeny is created and survives in as many of the fertile females as there are in the group .

You speak as if I meant to say my generalization as an absolute. Then try to use that as proof that I am wrong then do the same exact thing. The only thing that will ever be 100% is death. No word or title or phrase can cover the entire base of what something is 100% of the time.

I see the exact behavior every time a new generation of cats is brought in to my parents home. If the male cats wins the babies die if the mother wins the male cat is driven off or killed. I literally seen this about 15 times over 15 generations. Some male cats understand that the young will eventually more in control then the older so they do something completely different to make sure they can still stay in the house they take care of all the kittens so when they get older the kittens do the same to them. This is hilarious by the way the new Alpha here the most successful His name is Buddy learned this instead of beating an up and comer in to leaving he holds them down and starts cleaning them. Which is why he has been the most dominate cat in the household for over 10 generations. (He's 12 btw)

Like in everything some parents are good, some parents are bad... (well damn isn't that morality) even in animals

How are primates any different then us Humans besides being a little more hairy? Lack of art Money, Art, society, government?

http://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/ Money

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073204/Monkey-artist-Pockets-Warhol-uses-hands-feet-tail-create-paintings-worth-250.html Art

Do I really need to prove society and government to you? I mean they do live in groups and follow somebody some sort of leader alpha or themselves.

Looks almost human if they weren't so furry and cute when they don't fling poo around(In it's base form flinging poo is just called politics).

People put too much power in to things they cannot control. Life and death are two things that you cannot control. Life is created randomly(Sex doesn't always lead to conception which doesn't always lead to being born alive If I need to explain it any further then that there is no hope for you) and death is inevitable. The only reason why people try to put morality on that base is to control people in to doing what they want by guilt.

You notice how I didn't say you were wrong completely? It's from simple morality knowing that nothing is completely absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. From page 1 of this thread;

http://www.ted.com/t...ave_morals.html

No those behaviours demonstrated on the film are also biological imperatives or learned responses which have evolved. This includes forms of social behaviour particulalrly those demonstrated by other primates.. If animals had human type understandings they would first have to have human type linguistic skils because the concpetual understandings require quite complex language and second, they would demonstrate the other indicators of such awareness like spirituality religion etc., which animals do not. As humans, who have such self awareness and understandings, we tend to attribute them to other animals which are acting not from intellectual intent or conscious thought, but from inbuilt and learned drivers. Otherwise a chimp who killed could be charged with murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You speak as if I meant to say my generalization as an absolute. Then try to use that as proof that I am wrong then do the same exact thing. The only thing that will ever be 100% is death. No word or title or phrase can cover the entire base of what something is 100% of the time.

I see the exact behavior every time a new generation of cats is brought in to my parents home. If the male cats wins the babies die if the mother wins the male cat is driven off or killed. I literally seen this about 15 times over 15 generations. Some male cats understand that the young will eventually more in control then the older so they do something completely different to make sure they can still stay in the house they take care of all the kittens so when they get older the kittens do the same to them. This is hilarious by the way the new Alpha here the most successful His name is Buddy learned this instead of beating an up and comer in to leaving he holds them down and starts cleaning them. Which is why he has been the most dominate cat in the household for over 10 generations. (He's 12 btw)

Like in everything some parents are good, some parents are bad... (well damn isn't that morality) even in animals

How are primates any different then us Humans besides being a little more hairy? Lack of art Money, Art, society, government?

http://www.zmescienc...onkey-appeared/ Money

http://www.dailymail...-worth-250.html Art

Do I really need to prove society and government to you? I mean they do live in groups and follow somebody some sort of leader alpha or themselves.

Looks almost human if they weren't so furry and cute when they don't fling poo around(In it's base form flinging poo is just called politics).

People put too much power in to things they cannot control. Life and death are two things that you cannot control. Life is created randomly(Sex doesn't always lead to conception which doesn't always lead to being born alive If I need to explain it any further then that there is no hope for you) and death is inevitable. The only reason why people try to put morality on that base is to control people in to doing what they want by guilt.

You notice how I didn't say you were wrong completely? It's from simple morality knowing that nothing is completely absolute.

Other animals do not have the capacity for speech. Human level thought and all it entails is co- dependent on quite sophisticated speech which constructs conceptual and theoretical images symbols and concpets. Human level thought is directly and inherently tied to our ability to speak. All our inner dialogues thoughts etc are in speech form.

Animals which can;t speak cant think like humans . Humans who lack the mental capacity (through circumstances or even education through observation and mimicry) to learn to speak in an internal monologue (not natural mutes or those with physical difficulties in speaking) also cannot think beyond a very basic level. That is one reason why some animals have superior ability to very young humans, but as humans learn speech and consequently sophisticated thought forms, they always outperform animals. This happens betwen the ages of 2 and 4, depending on the developmental progress of the child. This is precisely when more sophisticated speech, reasoning, self awareness, and many sophisticated human abilities are emerging.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speech is overrated. Communication is a concept known to every animal. Animals think differently then us. They are not gullible as us. They know what truly matters. Just because they cannot actually talk doesn't mean they are not capable of the things we are. Only humans will fall in line and tolerate behavior that we do not like by nothing more then words.

When things become more complex it is far easier to watch it slowly break and not work properly. Animals use a system that works. We humans complicated that system then screwed it up by being gullible.

The same things I can use to make a child understand and behave, I can use to make an animal understand and behave.

If and when I screw up the can use the same exact methods to make me understand and behave. (It must be super powers I knew it I'm a the beast master!! -sarcasm btw )

One is not superior then another they are only different only in appearance.

How do you even prove self-awareness in something if they don't even have the same values? I've seen the experiments for it and what they did is completely idiotic and I could find a few humans that would fail the tests.

Not all animals are smart not all animals are stupid... wow just like us.

It's different not superior. A superiority complex in any form is silly, daft and from what I've seen never leads to anything good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No those behaviours demonstrated on the film are also biological imperatives or learned responses which have evolved.

Yes, this is how empathy, sense of fairness and morality evolved. Evolution is a continuum, there is no clear cut divide between humans and other apes. We are not different in kind, only be degrees.

If you disagree, please explain where our morality came from. Did Neanderthal have morals, how about homo erectus? Where do you draw the line exactly?

As humans, who have such self awareness and understandings, we tend to attribute them to other animals which are acting not from intellectual intent or conscious thought, but from inbuilt and learned drivers. Otherwise a chimp who killed could be charged with murder.

So only humans have volition, is that what you're claiming?

p.s. many philosophers and neruo scientists deny free will, and they make cogent arguments. But of course our entire legal system is predicated on the assumption of free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speech is overrated. Communication is a concept known to every animal. Animals think differently then us. They are not gullible as us. They know what truly matters. Just because they cannot actually talk doesn't mean they are not capable of the things we are. Only humans will fall in line and tolerate behavior that we do not like by nothing more then words.

When things become more complex it is far easier to watch it slowly break and not work properly. Animals use a system that works. We humans complicated that system then screwed it up by being gullible.

The same things I can use to make a child understand and behave, I can use to make an animal understand and behave.

If and when I screw up the can use the same exact methods to make me understand and behave. (It must be super powers I knew it I'm a the beast master!! -sarcasm btw )

One is not superior then another they are only different only in appearance.

How do you even prove self-awareness in something if they don't even have the same values? I've seen the experiments for it and what they did is completely idiotic and I could find a few humans that would fail the tests.

Not all animals are smart not all animals are stupid... wow just like us.

It's different not superior. A superiority complex in any form is silly, daft and from what I've seen never leads to anything good.

i dont question your right to believe any/ all of this but it is scientifically incorrect.The danger then is it leads us to act wrongly because our beliefs are wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is how empathy, sense of fairness and morality evolved. Evolution is a continuum, there is no clear cut divide between humans and other apes. We are not different in kind, only be degrees.

If you disagree, please explain where our morality came from. Did Neanderthal have morals, how about homo erectus? Where do you draw the line exactly?

So only humans have volition, is that what you're claiming?

p.s. many philosophers and neruo scientists deny free will, and they make cogent arguments. But of course our entire legal system is predicated on the assumption of free will.

"Empathy" only exists as a human, intellectual, conceptual construct. It cannot exist without that construct and to construct it requires a high degree of linguistic and conceptual ability. So no; animals other than man are not moral or ethical.tthe dont" love" as humans are capable of loving or feel empathy.tThey arent even aware those words or concepts exist.They may give the appearnce of such attributes through evolved behaviours but humans tend to anthropomorhise animal behaviour and see it it termd of hiow we understand our own There are a few singular exceptions to this, maybe, in some animals which have spent a lot of time with humans but it is more probable that they just learn imitative behaviours. Some species show signs of approaching a orm of self awareness close to that of humans 50000- 100000 years ago but it wil require the same linguistic breakthrough that humans achieved, for them to attain it. there is for example no physical evidence for a sense of spiritual awareness in other animals, whereas such evidences were certainly available in humans and neandertals 50000 plus years ago. Neandertals and cromagmom left evidences of their capacities Homo erectus did not so no one knows. Austrlaopithecines were probably toolmakers with very little if any language and thus no similar self aawreness moralities etc.

Morality is a product of semantic /language skills, whch allow for human level thought processes.

In brief; love, ethics, moralities, and emapthy, are not artefacts of evolved behaviours but deliberate "artifica"l and self aware constructs of a mind capable of sophisticated thought/speech.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that morality is an entity of itself. It's a lens through which we examine our thoughts and actions, and a framework for us to choose our actions. It is not a separate agent from us, and to place it on a pedestal, misses the point.

I think the term "morality," is very loaded with religious overtones, and I don't normally hear non-religious people using it. Non-religious people are often pressed to justify their decisions and actions against a standard of "What God Approves Of." Especially if the decision/action differs from what is traditionally the norm, and especially when the decision/action relates to issues of conception and mortality. I understand that non-religious people are working against centuries of religious monopoly on what is Right Behaviour, and I understand that they are subjected more often to demands to justify themselves, which the religious are usually exempt from. When you feel judged, you often feel it necessary to justify yourself.

Morality is an externally-imposed framework to guide our behaviour and decisions. It works best when everyone agrees about the rules. When non-religious people make decisions, there is often a sense that they must prove the worthiness of their decisions/actions by substantiating them with an externally-imposed framework, even when no externally imposed framework is necessary. I don't think that non-religious people hold onto morality as some kind of separate, sacred entity. It is a tool to be used, not an object to be worshipped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that speech is the only foundation for language? What about sign language, body language. Is that not a language?

Even prairie dogs have a complex language. Using adjectives and what not speaking to each other.

Animals don't need to go but think of the children they just do it. The mother of the kittens died due to a coyote and you know what happened all of the other cats at my parents place took care of them and still do. Is that not empathy? I mean one night after a long day of work I didn't notice I had dirt on my nose. Do you know what one of the cats did? Came up and cleaned it off me. How much more empathic can you get?

Tools is a hard thing to define as well. If you use anything other then your body to do something that could be in fact considered a tool. Seen a cat knock over a box to use it as a step ladder to get to something it wants. Only reason why they don't open doors when they want to go out is because of thumbs. (At one point they were able to open doors because it wasn't a knob and they figured out how to use it, had to install a different type of knob)

Your argument is like saying an apple is just an apple, it can't be a food, or a target, or a toy, or a fruit.

For everything you post as intelligence I can post a counter example of that in wildlife. This stuff is basic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

When I'm angry, my brain usually kicks in and takes over straight away. I know that if I lose my **** at someone, the outcome is not usually a good one. After a childhood full of practice, this has become the default action.

There are going to be moments that take a person completely off-guard, and it's necessary to respond without the chance to analyse the situation. Grown-ups need to know how to control their emotions, without letting those emotions make them a "prison b****." I find no greater turn-off, than a man who lacks control over their anger, especially when they act on that anger. There is nothing respectable or manly about a man who gets into a punch-on because his feelings got hurt. When you haven't gt the balls or the common sense to hold your **** together, you are not worthy of the title "grown-up."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that morality is an entity of itself. It's a lens through which we examine our thoughts and actions, and a framework for us to choose our actions. It is not a separate agent from us, and to place it on a pedestal, misses the point.

I think the term "morality," is very loaded with religious overtones, and I don't normally hear non-religious people using it. Non-religious people are often pressed to justify their decisions and actions against a standard of "What God Approves Of." Especially if the decision/action differs from what is traditionally the norm, and especially when the decision/action relates to issues of conception and mortality. I understand that non-religious people are working against centuries of religious monopoly on what is Right Behaviour, and I understand that they are subjected more often to demands to justify themselves, which the religious are usually exempt from. When you feel judged, you often feel it necessary to justify yourself.

Morality is an externally-imposed framework to guide our behaviour and decisions. It works best when everyone agrees about the rules. When non-religious people make decisions, there is often a sense that they must prove the worthiness of their decisions/actions by substantiating them with an externally-imposed framework, even when no externally imposed framework is necessary. I don't think that non-religious people hold onto morality as some kind of separate, sacred entity. It is a tool to be used, not an object to be worshipped.

Some good points here but morality like ethics is the realm of philosophy not religion. Human morality really has nothing to do, inherently, with religious beliefs. Atheists are just as moral as believers, for example.

Second, ethics and morality should not be externally devised or imposed values. They should be individually realised and thought through. Every person should develop basic value lines, philosophical positions, and thus basic consructions of what is ethical and moral. In this way they will lie at the core of their being. They will be strongly held and form the basis of a person's actions, beause they ARE their own strongest values, and can be defended logically, philosophically, intellectually and spiritually.

There are three forms of morality . Individual, social and "universal". Individual are a person's own, core values. These may or may not conflict with the values of the society a person lives in. For example my society has an ethical belief tha t a woman has right to abortion on demand i disagree and believe that while abortion should be leaga and paid for from medicare it must have limitations whic place some recognition on the right sof unborn children Inmy ethicla framework the unborn require protections from the living because they cannot argue for, or protect, them selves.

But i agree with many of the other common values of my society.

My society sees alcohol as a social lubricant. I see it as a social evil, which generates great cost and harm, directly contributing to over half the accidents, injuries, deaths and assaults etc in our society. But because i value freedoms and democracy i would not atemt to ipose prohibition despite the tragic costs I do argue for education on the dangers of alcohol and restrictions on advertising etc like we have on cigarettes.

Different societies can have very differnt ethical and moral values.

Finally, so called universal moralities are supposedly those held by all humans, like the right to life, but in fact, while common across the globe, they are not universal.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your saying that speech is the only foundation for language? What about sign language, body language. Is that not a language?

Even prairie dogs have a complex language. Using adjectives and what not speaking to each other.

Animals don't need to go but think of the children they just do it. The mother of the kittens died due to a coyote and you know what happened all of the other cats at my parents place took care of them and still do. Is that not empathy? I mean one night after a long day of work I didn't notice I had dirt on my nose. Do you know what one of the cats did? Came up and cleaned it off me. How much more empathic can you get?

Tools is a hard thing to define as well. If you use anything other then your body to do something that could be in fact considered a tool. Seen a cat knock over a box to use it as a step ladder to get to something it wants. Only reason why they don't open doors when they want to go out is because of thumbs. (At one point they were able to open doors because it wasn't a knob and they figured out how to use it, had to install a different type of knob)

Your argument is like saying an apple is just an apple, it can't be a food, or a target, or a toy, or a fruit.

For everything you post as intelligence I can post a counter example of that in wildlife. This stuff is basic.

Human level language and human level thought process are co-dependent and evolved this way. Our thought is a function of our language, and our language is a function of our thoughts.

Sign languages etc are just the same. It is not SPEECH which is critical, but language. Its complexity, sophistication, symbolic connections, abilty to identify and construct abstract concepts etc. No the habits of cats do not demonstrate emapthy merely evoved social behaviours. Empathy despite the arguments of some is NOT an evolved social behaviour. it is a product of the level of our spaience and self awareness. it has to be consciously chosen to be empathy.and had to be an act which HAS no social benefit or feed back for the person who demonstrates it. ALL "tribal/herd " animal behaviours are a result of codependency such as mutual grooming or the distribution of food We might attribute them to empathy in other animals because we would do the same from empathym but in other animals it is not. It is a result of biological or social evolution.

Heres the thing. A non human mother can.t choose to love its child or not to love it. It is condioned to care for it and nless the child is unlikely to survive for some reason, will always care for it and protect it But a human mother can consciously walk away form their child, treat it badly, abuse it etc., all the time knowing how that will affect the child Heck a human mother can make a conscious choice to abort their child. That ability to chose or reject love, and indeed their child for other self aware reasons, like self interest, greed, fear etc., as a conscious choice, defines human nature at its best and at its worst.

The dividing line can best be seen betwen humans and other primates About 100000 years ago (this is not a precise scientific dating)humans were pretty much like other primates are now, but several things happened all involving our mental capacity. For example we began to understand the difference between being alive and being dead and really thinking about that We began burying our dead with ceremony and respect. We became aware of self and other, but also that, while separate, we are similar. We know that the pain we feel is exactly the same as pain others feel.

We then went on to develp other abilities like the abilty to delay gratification through self awareness that we can have it later. This involves an intellectual understanding of the linear nature of time and of the sequential nature of events and cause and effect. I could go on.Very few, if any, non human animals have ever demonstrated anything like these abilities, although there is one ape who stores up rocks (or it may be food) to throw at other apes later on. Now that IS approaching human level thought and behaviour. A lot of the adolescents i teach are very similar.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously look in to the prairie dogs language. It's complex.

If animals couldn't delay self-gratification they wouldn't be able to store for the winter.

We are a tribe/herd animal.

Everything you posted besides the whole choosing to abort a child I can literally post examples or actually seen animals doing as well. Even then I wouldn't be surprised an animal or two would go out and eat some herb that would force a miscarriage.

Growing up and working with various animals all my life I've seen these attributes.

Oh well agree to disagree then.

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.