(March 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: Now I reject the idea that morality is anything but within ourselves, based on our experiences and governed by simple rules of existence.
Not externally delivered to us by a morality law. So what I'm saying is, our mere existence is morality. I'm was born, you were born. We are equal. If you do something that affects my well being, you're wrong because you have no right to do that since we're equal. The way we are able to confirm what is right and wrong is based on our own experiences within society. But, as we've seen, morality is altered based on the society.
If you say morality is only within ourselves does this mean if we meet other sentient life forms on other planets, we can't extend morality to them? Does it mean it's possible it will be morally right for them to want to exterminate us for example if their evolution and society programmed them to think that way?
Quote:That doesn't mean what they did wasn't wrong, because they were born to this earth on the same level as their victims, but society gave them more credence than was due. Their own personal morality is skewed, and they do things that they don't consider to be immoral.
Skewed from what standard? Wrong according to what? If it's not wrong according to their own morality, then why isn't simply then a case, like an animal that doesn't know any better?
Quote:There does seem to be a right and wrong in life, but that can be described as logical humanism.
You just said they were skewed from a morality, and it doesn't mean they weren't wrong, and now are saying there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong in real life. I'm a little confused to your position.
Quote:Again, that's just society altering morality though. The truth of the matter is that despite to whom or where they're born, those babies are equal in the simplicity of existence. Take all external factors like whom they were born or where, you just have two babies existing on this earth with equal rights.
You said there was no right or wrong, now are saying the caste system is wrong...however, how do you prove rights even exist? What is the right of an antelope? What is the right of a cow? What is the right of a horse? What makes humans all so special that we deserve more rights?
Quote:This is the best definition I've found on morality: morality is a complex structure to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability among social creatures.
This can be true of either morality being a delusion (all subjective) or being objective. However, by this definition, it seems more likely that it's all subjective (ie. a delusion).
Quote:Granted, I'm just talking to talk because I'd like feeback.. I'm not saying I'm right. I just started delving into this subject, in fact.
Ok let's talk about somethings.
From perspective of evolution, we come to believe in things that work to enhance our species.
I will give you an example. It maybe that living without kids or a wife, we would be JUST as happy or even happier, but this will not enhance our species survivability and those without kids wouldn't pass on genes, so then it would favour those who believe that having kids and a wife will make you happier.
Furthermore, we will come to believe there is more happiness in companionship with a wife, that is more than simply biological forces making us happier.
The enjoyability of sex for example, would be there, because it works.
This what evolution would do. Whatever works for our survivability would be passed on. Suppose a mutation happened and a lifeform didn't enjoy sex or have a drive for it. It would most likely not pass on it's genes.
Now as far as believing morality and having morals, it was definitely needed for cohesion and survivability. But was it ever something objective in a human? Or was it based on following praise consensus of society?
Why are we humans most likely to agree upon the morals of our people? I'm Canadian and it ends up I am a strong advocate of free health care...If I was American, there be a huge chance I wouldn't be.
We follow praise consensus. We follow myth of our societies as well. We follow their beliefs. Just look at "cool". "Cool" has nothing objective about it, it's simply a type of praise of society, that seems to be entirely without any rational basis. But everyone wants to be cool.
Now there may be a natural drive of humans to come to believe in the praise of their parents.
What we see as universal morals would be nothing more than what is necessary for each society to function. It doesn't make it all objective by being universal.
Furthermore, even if it wasn't a drive towards praise consensus of society and was somehow within us.
Obviously when we started off as primitive animals in evolution, we didn't have an objective morality. So when did it become objective? How did ever gain objectivity within us?
It rather seems it would simply be what is working and thriving, but it has no real should do.
There is no "ought" and "should" and "it's good to do", it simply is a feeling we have, a belief that got complicated.
Furthermore, is the complication of myth. Obviously in our primitive forms, we would not have had a complicated philosophy. No books to write. Not much discussion. To teach morals, you needed myths.
But even if justifying morality, how relevant was teaching of a spirit and gods relevant? Judgment of God(s) showing there is objective value to our choices.
If you went back in time, and never had myth, perhaps morality would never have developed to what it is within us. Perhaps it is a type of myth itself from naturalism perspective.
And say there is an objective morality within us - it's another thing to say we can know we have this objective morality from naturalism perspective.
It's one thing to have it, but from naturalism perspective, how would we distinguish between what we know from what we come to strongly believe due to evolution favouring that belief?
