|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:32 am
Anyone up for a philosophical debate?
Yeah, me either, but let's do it anyway.
So this is a question that's been on my mind a lot lately. You see, as an atheist, philosophy and morality are very important to me. With no god, and no set of concrete moral laws to guide my decisions, it's up to me to determine for myself what is right and wrong. The foundation I've chosen for my moral system is survival of the species. To me, anything that allows the last human to live a year longer is good, anything that reduces a year is bad. Naturally, one should think that the more humans are able to live, generally, the longer the species as a whole will live. Therefor, if a man endangers the life of two men in my presence, I will stop him, and that is good.
Now then, the question to discuss is this: is it wrong to love one person more than others? Naturally, as a man, I have always longed for a partner to value above all others, and to protect above all others. That, I believe, is typical. If I were to protect the life of one good person at the cost of two good people, however, would that not be bad? If love caused me to lose sight of my ultimate goal of enabling the species to sustain a larger population for the sake of my one love, would that not be bad?
What is your standard of morality? What is your definition of "love?" Is it a moral failure to protect your loved ones at the cost of others who have done no wrong?
Discuss.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:01 pm
I don't believe in right and wrong, per se. Right and wrong are strongly dictated not only by religion, but culture and family. A lot of places have the death sentence, whereas my country does not, for example. You can't really say it's right or wrong because it's just a matter of perspective.
While I agree about the survival of the species being important, I think it's also important to love one person. Not so much for the better of humanity but for ones self. If I were to list my morals... The top of the list is survival, and next to it is happiness. Happiness is extremely important, and I've got to say, I'm madly in love, and nothing I've ever experienced has made me happier.
Or sadder.
But happier too.
I guess, to sum it up, loving is important. Maybe not being loved, but loving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:35 pm
I don't think it's wrong at all to love one person more than others. However, you have to come to terms with what you love more: humanity, or that one significant other.
I tend to think more on terms of quality than quantity when dealing with people. I'd prefer to have one truly great person than a handful of decent people. Not that I'd condemn them to death, but I'd feel a great sadness if I lost my love in order to preserve other humans I regard as equals. Of course on the flip side I'd feel guilty if those handful of humans had to die just to preserve the existence of my love.
When you're in love, you tend to elevate the qualities of your selected other. Good becomes amazing and bad or weird becomes quirky. Is it fair that one person is the target of your affections, when it could have easily been another?
It may not be universally fair, but our base instincts tell us to preserve our own bloodline. Your love may be the parent of your future child, and your child is held at the highest priority, and therefore so is your love, by proxy.
For me, it's only logical that you do everything to protect your love, perhaps even at the cost of a city population, perhaps more. I know it's selfish, but it's what I think.
My standard of morality comes from my own life experiences. I've seen what other people have done to harm one another, so I've been trying to fight against it. I'm not an atheist, but I'm not textbook religious. I don't believe in being good to please some higher deity when there's plenty of other reasons to be a good person.
I define "love" as putting someone above all else. You don't always have to agree with each other, you don't always have to like each other, and their word is not law, but you hold them at a higher respect than the rest of the human race because they mean that much more to you.
I don't think it's a moral failure to protect your loved ones at the cost of others who have done no wrong. I don't view those others as my responsibility. I do, however, view my loved ones as my responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:27 pm
I feel there are a couple things to look at. One and foremost is what is the purpose of living your life. Why do you exist and what keeps you going on through life. To me the ultimate thing in life is the love you share with someone, romantic love, parental love, familial love. To me that is the highest priority in my life and I daresay for a majority of society. We always break off from one thing to concentrate on another, usually the highest thing we break off for is for loved ones. What do you find yourself prioritizing above all else and you may very well find your answer.
There is another aspect of life I look at and am a firm believer in. Necessary Evil. I full heartily believe in the sacrifice of the minimal for the benefit of the greater. Yes the death of an innocent child for the lives of 50 people (obviously provided those 50 people are innocent of the cause as well). I will not sacrifice many lives in an attempt to save the one. Now whether or not this belief will weigh in when it the a loved one to sacrifice for the greater good or myself for the greater good I do not know and possibly will never know unless the situation actually arises.
The thing is almost no one knows if they will be able to sacrifice an innocent life for a loved one and hence cliche daresay there is no point in worrying about it and we should act as our heart tells us to until it happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
