(November 23, 2013 at 1:07 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: I think that this is an oversimplification of morality. If you base morals simply on how we respond to certain stimuli you come up with a morality that says "Anything you can get away with is alright."
You use pain as an example, which makes sense for the most part, but once you leave that arena the morality starts to break down.
When you steal from someone - for the most part there is no pain. Now, we might say that we have the social contract that says "I don't steal, you don't steal." But what if I can steal form a rich man knowing that he would never find out about it? Is that still moral? It breaks the contract, but the rich man never knows, so what he don't know wont hurt him. Nothing comes from the stimuli (me stealing) except that I get that new 80 inch television I been dreaming of.
Maybe you bring up integrity, honor, dignity. But these have little value (cause little positive stimuli) if no one knows it. BUT if you are known as an honorable man and no one will ever find out that you are a thief, it doesn't matter. You have no loss and all gain.
In the purely rational and scientific world, self-sacrifice self-restraint fall short. Stepping in front of a bus to save an old woman makes no sense, unless you get a page in the daily news.
I think it says a lot more about your morals than ours when you imply that the only thing which keeps you from acting like a completely self-centered degenerate is the feeling that a god is watching you and taking notes.
