-->
@Best.Korea
What if I only value my own life, while considering lives of others to be meaningless?
Then you are not a moral person capable of carrying out moral actions regardless of their effect.
Where did Morality come from.
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@Double_R
Then you are not a moral person capable of carrying out moral actions regardless of their effect.
Why does morality have to include everyone else? Why cant morality be so that only I have meaning, and that all my decisions and actions are only for my own personal benefit?
It seems that you hold an opinion that right and wrong means to consider everyone as equally valuable. However, how can I consider someone different from me to be equally valuable? Surely, that would harm me in a situation where I have to give up on myself to uphold the other person's wellbeing.
-->
@FishChaser
Well stated.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Everything is relative and everything is in the mind. In the past, children sacrifice was considered morally good because people thought it would soothe the "madness" of the gods, until someday people realized that children sacrifice was all bullshit because it didn't work most of the time.
In the past, child sacrifice was still considered a moral wrongdoing, but the people who participated in it, did not think that the God they served cared about moral wrongdoing, and only cared about the sacrifice.
I remember a social experiment in a pair of twins that were seperated and raised in different environments, one was raised in a regular family, I guess he was taught the christian morality, and the other was raised in a criminal environment with no moral. The results were what we can expect, one ended up being a "model" person and the other a fucking criminal.
Ok? Just because their lifestyles influenced their outcomes doesn't mean that they didn't have the same morals.
Again, 2 things can be true at once. People can have the same morals, but those same people might not choose to follow them.
For example, it was thought that homosexuality was inmoral, but now it's not.
A lot of people still consider it immoral. That is not a universal truth that it is now moral.
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated, morality is a derivation of the survival instinct.
Give me one point in human history where man told man that we only must be nice to each other, in order to survive.
If this was the case the world would be more chaotic than it is now, because in the back of people's minds, they wouldn't care about another person. W
We would have a lot more psychopaths and criminals, because why not do bad things, if the only reason not to do those things, is for the survival of others.
That is what animals do.
Unlike animals, humans care about the survival of others. Even old frail people we try to save.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Unlike animals, humans do not care about the survival of cows, pigs and chickens.
-->
@FLRW
Do you think animals don't care about other species, but they don't have any reason to go out of their way to harm them either?
-->
@FLRW
Unlike animals, humans do not care about the survival of cows, pigs and chickens.
They provide nutrition. They are not human and don't share the same moral values.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But they do feel pain when they are killed.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You've created a paradox. A place where people can be unnecessarily harmed is not perfect, yet you call it paradise. I think you're overlooking a crucial trait to true paradise: safety.
Being able to live together in large groups has many benefits which all become null and void if living together in groups is a greater hazard than living alone. This is the basis for morality. Group life requires a certain etiquette to work.
Being able to live together in large groups has many benefits which all become null and void if living together in groups is a greater hazard than living alone. This is the basis for morality. Group life requires a certain etiquette to work.
-->
@FLRW
But they do feel pain when they are killed.
They feel pain even before being killed. In factory farming, animals are abused and often beaten. Many animals also get run over by a car and are left to die on the road. But humans are selfish creatures, so humans dont care.
-->
@FLRW
But they do feel pain when they are killed.
Most times no. They die instantly usually if the farmer or slaughter is humane.
-->
@Best.Korea
Why cant morality be so that only I have meaning, and that all my decisions and actions are only for my own personal benefit?
It can of that’s how you want to think of it, but then we’d be talking about completely different things.
Morality is inherently subjective, so no matter how you think of it it will ultimately be nothing more than your opinion. What we do as a society is come together to form a common understanding of it and we teach it to our children with the intention of bettering our society. You don’t have to care about that if you don’t want to, just recognize that if that were your position and there were more people like you then society would go backwards not forwards, so things like slavery would likely be our future not just our past.
Fortunately for those of us who do care, the vast majority of us do not want that.
So if you still take issue with my conception of morality, then what is yours and how does your conception escape the problems you identify in mine?
-->
@Double_R
You don’t have to care about that if you don’t want to
I dont think caring is a choice. For example, I often wanted to stop caring, but simply couldnt. I see all the people in the world, most of them are psychopaths who care about nothing except power. I always wondered how they could do that. How did they simply turn off caring? I cannot do that. The caring always prevails in my mind. Its like I am programmed to care about all human problems. I wonder why God didnt program other people the same way. Seems kinda unfair that "care" is distributed unequally.
-->
@Best.Korea
That really wasn’t the point.
-->
@Double_R
I agree with your point about society being bad if no one cared. I believe thats why our society today is bad.
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe that caring for a better society can be stimulated through means other than religion. For instance, an individual who recognizes what will result in their life if they act repulsively as opposed to acting as a model citizen. It's both through positive (attraction) and negative (repulsion) that an individual is both pushed and pulled towards cultivating a better society.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well.
We are animals, differentiated by specialism.
In our case, intellectual ability.
Therefore survival although an inbuilt instinct, can be consciously modified.
So we have over time consciously developed and maintained a moral code relative to our species which improves our chances of survival. So in a stable social environment we are also able to empathise and care.
Though this moral code is far from absolute, and can be readily modified. We will only sustain the frail or appease our opponents to the point at which our own security or collective security is put in jeopardy.
It then becomes a case of survival of the fittest.
-->
@Critical-Tim
In a past response their reply was as follows:But that's just it. Harm to the other person, whether it affected you or not, is still bad. But why? Why is it bad?Because God says it’s bad?I was suggesting perhaps avoiding religion for the origin of morality unless morality's origin is religion.Do you believe there is an answer behind someone's thoughts that are founded in personal beliefs? - I believe not, that's why it is called faith.Thus, I was recommending to avoid the confusion by navigating towards a more verifiable approach to understand the origin of morality.There is nothing wrong with religion, it just isn't a foundation to make any sort of verifiable conclusion.
Strikes me as a Pavlovian reply, read my post again, it has nothing to do with your response.
-->
@Sidewalker
I apologize for misinterpreting the situation.
I'm just going to answer the forum topic.
God Created morality. If you don't believe me here are some arguments that prove my statement.
1 Morals are universal: Everyone know hurting people is wrong. Even toddlers know lying is wrong. Evolution could not do this because without moral standers. Lying could actually be beneficial, so would killing. There is only one way everyone knows morals and that is because God implanted them into us. We are designed in the image of God. When Eve and Adam ate the fruit of good and evil, we lost the ability to be perfect. But our morals stayed with us, because we now were not perfect, we can see what evil is like. So we know what evil things are. Here is a article on cross cultural morals: Moral judgment development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims
2 Moral law: Morals are like laws; every law has a law giver. Therefore, God gave us morals. Here is another article on Human Vs Moral laws: D: (harvard.edu)
-->
@AmericanPatriot
That is definitely a possible explanation, but that doesn't mean it is the only valid one, and if there is more than one valid explanation, who is to say which valid explanation is correct? The only thing we can do is accept the most probable one, while acknowledging the possibility that a less probable one is correct. On the contrary to your explanation of how evolution would have evolved humans to lie, there has been evidence showing how the caring chimp leader of a troop has a longer lasting and peaceful rule than a tyrannical chimp, which has been shown to be taken advantage of and destroyed in its moment of weakness. This demonstrates how evolution can create trustworthy and benevolent in character.