RE: What is the source for our morals?
December 6, 2015 at 9:40 am
(This post was last modified: December 6, 2015 at 9:44 am by DespondentFishdeathMasochismo.)
I wonder if it has something to do with emotions. There is such a thing as emotional intelligence, which determines what the most fair moral outcome is for a given situation. People without emotions seem to lack this basic fundamental moral compass. So I think it's fair to say that, we attach emotional significance to certain person, we judge whether or not their treatment is fair, for the same reason we feel sad when another person dies. Emotional involvement probably plays a big factor in it, but I think it's also fair to say that intelligence plays a factor too.
I see the word "objective" used here. I tried to use the word objective to ask someone "why don't you use objective observation, instead of saying someone has no credibility", to someone who was saying the amazing atheist has no credibility. I think the word I mean to use was "critical analysis", instead of objective analysis. Critical thinking plays a very large role in morality, it's one of the reasons why I believe atheists are some of the most moral people on the planet. Say for instance, someone kicks their kid out of their house for being gay.That person obviously didn't arrive to the conclusion that being gay can make you disown your son or daughter through rational critical thinking.
I was trying to explain this earlier, that morality is something which can be intelligently observed. It's not random, and it's not arbitrary. The factor that determines morality is our ability to rationalize, make the most unbiased, fair, insightful, intelligent, observations, or simply acknowledge that some moral dilemmas are too confounding to solve with our current knowledge. It's science. It's the same as science. We can't know everything, but we can use our knowledge to observe the objectively unchanging world around, with our perspectives that are subjective to our own perception.
I see the word "objective" used here. I tried to use the word objective to ask someone "why don't you use objective observation, instead of saying someone has no credibility", to someone who was saying the amazing atheist has no credibility. I think the word I mean to use was "critical analysis", instead of objective analysis. Critical thinking plays a very large role in morality, it's one of the reasons why I believe atheists are some of the most moral people on the planet. Say for instance, someone kicks their kid out of their house for being gay.That person obviously didn't arrive to the conclusion that being gay can make you disown your son or daughter through rational critical thinking.
I was trying to explain this earlier, that morality is something which can be intelligently observed. It's not random, and it's not arbitrary. The factor that determines morality is our ability to rationalize, make the most unbiased, fair, insightful, intelligent, observations, or simply acknowledge that some moral dilemmas are too confounding to solve with our current knowledge. It's science. It's the same as science. We can't know everything, but we can use our knowledge to observe the objectively unchanging world around, with our perspectives that are subjective to our own perception.
