You have to remember that humanity created "good and evil" before we became civilized, what we call good an evil was what we called out nature.
What people class as "morally corrupt" in this world is ridiculous. There is a user on here that says that she's "morally pure" while everyone else isn't, simply because she's a virgin and others aren't. Ofcourse, this person only thinks that way because she hasn't been given the chance to lose her virginity.
People change the whole moral thing in the ways that fit and benefit them personally.
Also, I'm going to hide your latest comment (and pumpedupkicks' first response) for what I think are obvious reasons. I don't care to discuss personal gripes here.
"You have to remember that humanity created "good and evil" before we became civilized, what we call good an evil was what we called out nature."
This statement is sort of nonsensical to me - I feel like you are using undefined terms. I'd appreciate an explanation.
What do you mean by "humanity" and "civilized"? Are you referring to homo sapiens which predated behavioral modernity? They certainly did not "create" moral duality because they did not have the linguistic capabilities to inform such advanced cognitive categories.
What do you mean by "good" and "evil"? I think that's the crux of this issue. Are you saying that it's purely a human social construct? If so, what differentiates it from an animal protecting members of its pack? Is "good" just a conceptualization of "advantageous to human survival"?
Lastly, what do you mean by "our nature"? From what I understand by your last sentence, morality to you is a malleable concept - doesn't that contradict your original sentiment? Also, is there such thing as morality that DOESN'T fit and benefit us?
Again, I may be misinterpreting so I'd appreciation some clarification.
It's purely for survival. Nature existed far before morality did. Many animals will have their child and then leave them to live their life. In the past (Early days of man), if we killed something with our own hands to feed on them (even our own species) there was no question or morality, it was survival. Now that we're civilized, such actions would be seen as "evil".
What is classed for humans as moral is far different from what is classed as moral for animals. If an animal eats it's own kind, it's natural, if humans do, it's evil. These are the rules of our morality that "we" created.
Surely you know that if an animal of a pack is injured and can't continue, the pack would often kill their pack member. Animal packs aren;t made out of compassion, they're made as a survival group. Humans wouldn't do that. Comparing the morality of other animals and humans is not really a good way to prove a point, obviously you know why.
Yes, being "good" is our way of surviving in "our" habitat. If you are not "good" and are evil and put your evil thoughts into action, you get shipped to a place outside of our natural habitat (prison).
What we call morality isn't malleable, it takes time but is still possible to shape it. Do you think there were consequences for killing another of your species to protect your pack was moraly correct back then? In todays world,if you do that, you get classed as morally corrupt aswell.
I could be wrong, but I believe in what I'm saying, that doesn't mean you have to.
I think this is an issue of your wording, which is very confusing, but I think I understand now. It sounded like you were trying to argue that humans, unlike animals, are morally opposed to killing. That's why I brought up war, but I realize that this isn't what you were saying. Correct?
What about it? I'm talking very early days of humanity, not just one hundred or two hundred years ago.
War is a perfect example as to how easily our morality is pushed around. If a single person kills another single person, it's murder. When in war, each killing is needed.
I feel like you're dealing in undefined absolutes -- you say things like "nature existed far before morality did" and "there was no question of morality", and then say "obviously you know why" or "surely you know" as if they're obvious axioms. Nothing about this is obvious to me, nor should it be. I don't necessarily disagree with any of your points, but when someone speaks in supposedly self-evident aphorisms, it's usually because they have no idea what they're talking about. Nothing personal, I do the same. I can admit it if you can. This isn't a simple subject.
Let's start over, because I feel like we're beginning to run in imprecise circles. What do you propose as a definition of a morally good act?
Here's what I suggest, and you are free to agree or disagree:
What we call morally good is that which is helps ensure the social cohesion (and by extension, survival) of one's own species.
By what I was saying by the "obviously you know why" is because I was basically saying that you're smart enough to understand it. I guess I must of made what I said unclear or un-understandable.
I agree with your last part. I think I was roughly trying to say that, or atleast something close to that but in complete different words. I agree 100% with what you said.
the nature of morality
← View full post
You have to remember that humanity created "good and evil" before we became civilized, what we call good an evil was what we called out nature.
What people class as "morally corrupt" in this world is ridiculous. There is a user on here that says that she's "morally pure" while everyone else isn't, simply because she's a virgin and others aren't. Ofcourse, this person only thinks that way because she hasn't been given the chance to lose her virginity.
People change the whole moral thing in the ways that fit and benefit them personally.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Also, I'm going to hide your latest comment (and pumpedupkicks' first response) for what I think are obvious reasons. I don't care to discuss personal gripes here.
"You have to remember that humanity created "good and evil" before we became civilized, what we call good an evil was what we called out nature."
This statement is sort of nonsensical to me - I feel like you are using undefined terms. I'd appreciate an explanation.
What do you mean by "humanity" and "civilized"? Are you referring to homo sapiens which predated behavioral modernity? They certainly did not "create" moral duality because they did not have the linguistic capabilities to inform such advanced cognitive categories.
What do you mean by "good" and "evil"? I think that's the crux of this issue. Are you saying that it's purely a human social construct? If so, what differentiates it from an animal protecting members of its pack? Is "good" just a conceptualization of "advantageous to human survival"?
Lastly, what do you mean by "our nature"? From what I understand by your last sentence, morality to you is a malleable concept - doesn't that contradict your original sentiment? Also, is there such thing as morality that DOESN'T fit and benefit us?
Again, I may be misinterpreting so I'd appreciation some clarification.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's purely for survival. Nature existed far before morality did. Many animals will have their child and then leave them to live their life. In the past (Early days of man), if we killed something with our own hands to feed on them (even our own species) there was no question or morality, it was survival. Now that we're civilized, such actions would be seen as "evil".
What is classed for humans as moral is far different from what is classed as moral for animals. If an animal eats it's own kind, it's natural, if humans do, it's evil. These are the rules of our morality that "we" created.
Surely you know that if an animal of a pack is injured and can't continue, the pack would often kill their pack member. Animal packs aren;t made out of compassion, they're made as a survival group. Humans wouldn't do that. Comparing the morality of other animals and humans is not really a good way to prove a point, obviously you know why.
Yes, being "good" is our way of surviving in "our" habitat. If you are not "good" and are evil and put your evil thoughts into action, you get shipped to a place outside of our natural habitat (prison).
What we call morality isn't malleable, it takes time but is still possible to shape it. Do you think there were consequences for killing another of your species to protect your pack was moraly correct back then? In todays world,if you do that, you get classed as morally corrupt aswell.
I could be wrong, but I believe in what I'm saying, that doesn't mean you have to.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You've obviously never killed or birthed anything. Or been to war.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I've killed two animals before.
So, you're saying that people don't accept deaths in war to be acceptable and needed?
That's news to me.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, I'm just saying that there's something to having 'been there'.
I think this is an issue of your wording, which is very confusing, but I think I understand now. It sounded like you were trying to argue that humans, unlike animals, are morally opposed to killing. That's why I brought up war, but I realize that this isn't what you were saying. Correct?
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, that's what I was saying.
I think there's one thing you're forgetting about. I'll just leave it here.
War
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What about it? I'm talking very early days of humanity, not just one hundred or two hundred years ago.
War is a perfect example as to how easily our morality is pushed around. If a single person kills another single person, it's murder. When in war, each killing is needed.
See how easily our morality is shifted?
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I feel like you're dealing in undefined absolutes -- you say things like "nature existed far before morality did" and "there was no question of morality", and then say "obviously you know why" or "surely you know" as if they're obvious axioms. Nothing about this is obvious to me, nor should it be. I don't necessarily disagree with any of your points, but when someone speaks in supposedly self-evident aphorisms, it's usually because they have no idea what they're talking about. Nothing personal, I do the same. I can admit it if you can. This isn't a simple subject.
Let's start over, because I feel like we're beginning to run in imprecise circles. What do you propose as a definition of a morally good act?
Here's what I suggest, and you are free to agree or disagree:
What we call morally good is that which is helps ensure the social cohesion (and by extension, survival) of one's own species.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
By what I was saying by the "obviously you know why" is because I was basically saying that you're smart enough to understand it. I guess I must of made what I said unclear or un-understandable.
I agree with your last part. I think I was roughly trying to say that, or atleast something close to that but in complete different words. I agree 100% with what you said.