Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2012, 03:55 AM
RE: Morality
So if it ain't morality, Stevil, why do you keep posting insisting that your "amoralism" is right? Tongue

The way I got it resolved, morality is like a simple chemical switch prolly linked to dopamine in the brain. When we do something in line with our idealized simulation, we feel pleasure; when we see something - like a Stevil amoralism rant Tongue - we gotta counter otherwise the chemicals in the brain leave us feeling awkward and uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with xtianity and everything to do with the evolution of a social animal.

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 04:31 AM
RE: Morality
(02-04-2012 04:57 PM)justmetoo Wrote:  I think the main importance of the sentence would be killing, not why.
That is just ridiculous. So your saying somebody who kills in self-defense, will get the same sentence of someone who kills just because they are a cold-blooded murderer??? I would consider that immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 04:54 AM
RE: Morality
(03-04-2012 03:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So if it ain't morality, Stevil, why do you keep posting insisting that your "amoralism" is right? Tongue

The way I got it resolved, morality is like a simple chemical switch prolly linked to dopamine in the brain. When we do something in line with our idealized simulation, we feel pleasure; when we see something - like a Stevil amoralism rant Tongue - we gotta counter otherwise the chemicals in the brain leave us feeling awkward and uncomfortable. It has nothing to do with xtianity and everything to do with the evolution of a social animal.
Has this chemical linked to morality and immorality been discovered and proven?
It would be remarkable, it would prove the existence of absolute right and absolute wrong. It could be used to show absolutely which religious groups have got their moralities wrong and hence either debunk them or get them all aligned.

Exciting stuff, and yet, I have not heard anything about this chemical, nor this absolute moralism.

Why do I insist on posting (ranting) about amoralism? Same reason why atheists post about religion. I'm certainly not insisting that I am right, "morality" is merely a concept, same as "soul" or "god", poorly defined concepts are unprovable, one way or another. All you need is belief to assert that they exist, or non belief to deny their existence. I am currently exploring the idea of amoralism, I have only just cast away my belief in morality a couple of months ago or so, so it is still quite new and fresh to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
03-04-2012, 05:01 AM
RE: Morality
(03-04-2012 04:31 AM)Magoo Wrote:  
(02-04-2012 04:57 PM)justmetoo Wrote:  I think the main importance of the sentence would be killing, not why.
That is just ridiculous. So your saying somebody who kills in self-defense, will get the same sentence of someone who kills just because they are a cold-blooded murderer??? I would consider that immoral.
No that is not ridiculous. What was ridiculous was to take my statement which was a blanket statement about the taking of a life and bringing in special circumstances, which was not in any way part of the topic. Please don't try to drag the conversation off into an area of import to you. This is about Morales, not about killing, which to me is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 05:07 AM
RE: Morality
Anyone agree or disagree with this one?

http://lolgod.blogspot.com/2009/12/moral...right.html

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Caveman's post
03-04-2012, 05:11 AM
RE: Morality
I've been in contact with a coupla evolutionist types and some talented amateurs. The pros are of course conservative in espousing hypotheses, but I don't have a name to protect; I say morality is chemical intelligence and that the science will eventually agree, but Johnny Cantor is mostly an idiot in love with Gwyneth Paltrow and not a scientist. Wink

It's the love thingy that got me going. Peeps started deferring to my "moral wisdom" irl; like everything else, I blamed it on my Gwynnies. That correlation seems to be correct. I go google some youtube in a minute, see if'n I can find us some vids. Wink

And I know what you're saying. Morality in the hands of the religious, that's some fucking dangerous, ignorant stuff right there.

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 05:16 AM
RE: Morality
(02-04-2012 10:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-04-2012 09:52 PM)justmetoo Wrote:  Sorry, I've never seen anyone actually read a post, rewrite it almost verbatim and not once acknowledge any agreement with the OP.
Verbatim, Hmmm, my post does not have any sentences the same as yours.

The message might be similar, but that is probably because we are both atheists and the vast majority of atheists consider morality to be subjective.
I'm slightly different from the vast majority, I would call "subjective morality" personal values rather than a brand of morality.
I think it is great that you have stated that "morality" ought not be used to judge others as amoral or immoral. I would agree with this.
But for me this is why I would use the term "personal values" rather than "morality". A person being used to morality tends to vocalise the words "moral" or "immoral" publicly when judging an action. This falls into the hands of theistic morality. Whereas a person using personal values can only say "that action is against my personal values, hence I wouldn't do or condone that". Personal values ensures you internalise and personalise your opinion and this is explicitly obvious to all who hear you should you speak it outloud.

I made this distinction between personal values vs morality in my post, which is not a point that you made. I would classify this as a finer point of difference that we have rather than a complete disagreement. Almost a semantic difference on the word "morality".

So on the whole, the essence of my post is aligned with yours, but I choose not to subscribe to the "morality" word. I feel it is misleading to use it, because it means different things to theists as it does to atheists. I also feel it is a loaded word. In that it implies absolute right and wrong and hence judgement on others, because of course, people vocalise the moral/immoral words on other people's actions, e.g. "How could you do that, that was immoral!"

Given this judgement aspect to the "morality" word, I can see why theists want their morality enforced by law.

I want "morality" taken out of law completely, enforcing morality onto people, leads to oppression and conflict. Morality is very dangerous in my opinion. Without "morality" Christianity would simply be a benign belief system. With "morality" Christianity becomes oppressive and dangerous to society.

Your initial statement was
"I get so tired of those people who think they have monopoly on the word Morality"

I say leave them to their morality. Morality is a dangerous tool, I want nothing to do with it.
I am an amoralist, I have no belief in morality.
Dude, You said the same thing I did. You feel the need to be verbose, so be it. I just speck my mind and move on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 05:17 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2012 05:19 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Morality
Here's one: Amoebic morality
Here's a pdf: From biology to consciousness to morality

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-04-2012, 05:21 AM
RE: Morality
(03-04-2012 05:11 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I've been in contact with a coupla evolutionist types and some talented amateurs. The pros are of course conservative in espousing hypotheses, but I don't have a name to protect; I say morality is chemical intelligence and that the science will eventually agree
This will be an interesting development. It will certainly have some significant impacts on evolutionary and theological ideas. Something to stay tuned for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
03-04-2012, 06:25 AM
RE: Morality
Morality is not exclusive to religion. But it is not a free for all either.

Morality is culturally relative and/because it evolves.

There are no cultures anywhere in the world that have no moral code.

Moral codes exist at the cultural level and personal morality is a variation on that theme, not a detached wholly unique thing with nothing whatsoever to do with the cultural code. Those individuals that have unique moral codes that do not correspond with the cultural code in a meaningful way are not particularly welcome in that society. Morality is contextual. Fitness is affected by environment.

Saying that moral codes exist at the cultural level is not saying that selection occurs at the cultural level. That would be group selection, an idea long since debunked. Selection happens at the individual level. But those moral memes that have the widest representation in that culture's meme pool, those that are most fecund, form the basis of that culture's morality. Morality is an agreement.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: