On morality
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2012, 05:45 AM
RE: On morality
Our morality is an evolved strategy to maximise the health and reproduction of our species as a combination of individual and social rulesets and biases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2012, 05:47 AM
RE: On morality
My suggestion is : read some Anthropology.
Maybe, if you're interested in the philosophical assumptions in the religious view,
Paul Tillich : The Courage to Be
Martin Buber : Good and Evil

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2012, 01:22 PM
RE: On morality
(17-04-2012 05:45 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Our morality is an evolved strategy to maximise the health and reproduction of our species as a combination of individual and social rulesets and biases.
This in its entirety.

And no, I do not assume that morality is based off of empathy.

It is entirely possible to observe moral actions among animals, simply by observing what they do or do not do as a whole. As I have said, there is a certain objectivity to morality, pertaining to what a species has learned to be "wrong" or threatening to their existence.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2012, 01:11 PM
RE: On morality
Listening to "Good without God" - I would argue that atheists are more moral than theists because atheists recognize that we have one and only one life and it is fragile, theists can put up with more immoral actions and dismiss them with the phrase "but he/she will be rewarded in the afterlife". That thinking makes me sad. Prime example, suicide bomber. That really hurts my innate human morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes endlesstheory's post
20-04-2012, 04:39 PM
RE: On morality
"It'd be great if you posted your stance on the subject."

I’m bored, so I’ll answer. You might not like my answer, but I don’t care. I also didn’t read all of the responses.

As seen in animals, morality is a trait that comes directly out of evolution. Assuming that animals lack the rationality that we have, that set us apart, it is a form of instinctive morality. Evolutionarily animals have developed a seemingly obvious from of morality, in order to assure survival as a species. Survival is the main goal of species and order to ensure survival, you must take the necessary, obvious steps to ensure that your species survives, since if you don’t, you die. Obvious things such as not killing your own, not stealing and instead sharing food, shelter, etc. I’ll address rape since that is mentioned. From an animal perspective, one that is trying to survive and continue as a species, that probably would have never became a problem. If the goal is to reproduce as much as possible, I doubt the female gender would be denying the consent for sex very often (if that would even be possible). Even if they did, it would have caused a riff in their evolutionary abilities, to some extent. If the males were causing a scare in the females, they would have had to protect themselves from being attacked. This would give the females an instinctive reaction to stay away from males, and therefore in a way inhibit their ability to reproduce and survive.

Next, we have to get to humans. The thing that sets humans apart from other animals, and therefore human morality apart from animals, is the ability to reason, rationality. We don’t just instinctively react to situations, though we have that ability, we also use reason.

[Disclaimer: Yes there is a clear divide in schools of thought here. Also: Yes, just like arguments for everything else, at its core, philosophically/fundamentally, the arguments are going to become circular/beg the question. But just like the atheists arguing from the viewpoint that god(s) doesn’t exist, at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself the same questions atheists ask, what’s more practical.]

First think epistemology. You know the divides of knowledge into categories: There is a priori/empirical and those can be analytic or synthetic. If morality is to exist, it is going to be synthetic a priori. Two reasons: 1) you can’t test morality empirically. 2) Nothing in the word murder contains anything saying that it is immoral. The statement, ‘murder is immoral’, requires both parts.

Next think what relativity (or I guess Emotivism, since relativity makes a much more obvious flaw that can be more easily refuted without circularity when arguing for the existence of morality) is suggesting when applied to morality, and tell me how damned stupid it sounds. It’s basically implying that a statement like ‘murder is immoral’ is not only not a 100% determinable fact like ‘2+2=4’, but it’s also going even further and saying that it is a total preference like ‘I like the color blue’. Basically, it would not only have to take it down to the point where it was just indeterminable by the human mind or capacity of human technology (e.g. like whether or not god(s) exists, because it/he/she either exists or doesn’t exist regardless of whether or not we can determine or prove either way), but it would basically say that morality in itself was non-existent and saying ‘murdering is right’ would just be a statement of preference that could be deemed neither correct nor incorrect.

I could say look at common sense morality, and the innate ability to distinguish and recognize an incorrect action and an infringement upon the moral rights of a human beings through human and self interaction using our rationality to logically draw a distinct conclusion, but that would still afford the opposing view point the right to say that you’re just playing by your rules and begging the question.

In all practicality, however, just look at the reality of the situation. Morality can easily be defined as an innate construct (for lack of a better term, I really lack the vocabulary to describe it any better) that universally applies to, or maybe governs, the interaction between human beings and determines the incorrectness or acknowledges the infringement upon the rights of those to which the construct governs. Damn I really should have taken Latin and paid attention to my vocabulary words and grammar discussions in English, because I messed that wording up badly. At least I know what I mean in my mind.

Even though the wording was mess up, maybe you can start to see what I’m getting at. It is, at least to me, pure logical. Morality to me is basically analogous to mathematics, where the interactions between humans are the numbers. Just like math only exist in the case where there is something to apply it to, morality exists given that there are actions and interactions taking place between humans. Those interactions just like anything to which math can be applied, I’ll say things or a thing for lack of a better term, and the human minds ability to perceive, reason and apply logic gives rise to morality. 1 Lastly, I’ll address the situation someone brought up about murdering a murderer, that I recall having seen scrolling through the thread. That is a case of justice. Justice can be described as action taking to bring order when the morality has been infringed upon. Think something like, if someone infringes upon moral rights of another unjustly (e.g. murders) that would then open the opportunity to then infringe upon their moral rights (think old school ‘eye for an eye’ and murder them). It wouldn’t then make an action moral, but it would make it justified.

So there is my take on things. Agree, disagree, or agree to disagree. Just remember, if you choose to disagree, next time you're being raped in the a** you have to remember that the person committing this act is not infringing upon your moral rights and what he is don't isn't incorrect. He is just doing to to you what he pleases. You could be in good company, however, as I'm sure that's why a lot great minds from last century moved to the US. Not the rape part, but their philosophical viewpoint on morality left them unable to suggest immorality while certain actions persisted.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: