|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:21 pm
I believe that morality exists only within the human psyche. Outside the perspective of humanity, there is no morality that governs our world. Nothing is truly right or wrong on a universal scale. However, I think that developing morals is essential to our survival as a species. Human beings are social creatures that inevitably form communities. Communities fall apart if there is not at least mutual agreement among the majority. It is not enough that certain things are necessary to control, such as murder, they need to harbor some feeling against it.
Discuss:
Where morality comes from
The part it plays in society and individuals
How far morality extends from humanity
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:39 pm
Morality is a lie. People use the words "good" and "bad" as ways to try and trick others into giving into their likes and dislikes without resisting whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Resurrection Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:42 pm
The Resurrection Morality is a lie. People use the words "good" and "bad" as ways to try and trick others into giving into their likes and dislikes without resisting whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:47 pm
I think morals come from within ourselves, and are an inherent part of our nature. Animals can have strong feelings about concrete objects, such as what foods, climates, and other animals they like or dislike. But humans have something special that most animals don't have, and that is the ability to think in abstract terms. Thus we form likes and dislikes about abstract ideas as well as concrete things. If these likes and dislikes are strong enough, we can call them morals. Such as it would be against my morals to kill someone.
I agree with what The Resurrection said in that morals are just strong likes and dislikes, and that the reason most people share similar morals is due to societal pressure. But that doesn't mean we should discount them as worthless. Morals hold the fabric of our society together. They give us some gut instincts about how to interact with others in our daily life. They give us easy answers to everyday questions, so that we can compartmentalize our lives a bit more and give us a little bit more time to think about more important things, like what's for dinner smile
But that's not to say that there are truly any "right" or "wrong". That's pretty obvious if you look back through history. Different cultures have always had different morals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:01 pm
Morality is very based in society. Good was connected to what got things done and provided for survival. This was the case until religion and mythology started to be taken so seriously
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:13 pm
morality correlates with caution which are the main reasons why people do not commit crimes, consequence has the smallest percentage, read Freakonomics heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:03 pm
Morality is another way of saying 'social contract'. It is not innate, it is learned.
A person's natural tendency is to look out for their own interests first. A child who grows up without the indoctrination of morals is not likely to adopt them without a selfish reason.
A person who is deemed 'immoral' can only be someone who is supposed to understand the commonly held code of values for that culture. Someone who was never taught the intricate standards of a particular group is not likely to be viewed as moral; at best he or she is a savage, uncultured, or an ignorant outsider. Never immoral.
Different standards hold in different groups, and there is no universal code. Not one moral standard holds across every single culture. In that sense, there cannot be an all-encompassing 'Right' and 'Wrong'.
'Right' and 'Wrong' is a way of saying from the gut that a thing is 'probably socially beneficial' or 'probably socially harmful'. The gut feeling, conscience, develops out of early conditioning. I contend that it has nothing to do with abstract thinking until you begin to question that conditioning. Feelings of guilt, for instance, are not rational, they aren't even abstract. It's a fear of consequence on a situational level, coupled with a deeper seated, more general fear of consequence developed (indoctrinated) early in life.
Some religions have tried to attach much greater importance to the social code, but in the end it boils down to propaganda and politics. The more people you can get to believe in the Big Punishment, and the stronger the gut fear it can instill, the more powerful the group becomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
