I see what you mean, but there really isn't a way to prove it, it's human nature to label things and "good" and "evil" come under that.
Where the concept came from we can only guess, but if I were to guess it would be things which have a positive effect on people= good, and things which have a negative effect on people= evil.
Who created the concept I have no idea, but I assume that it's something that every human does, and every human that has been does it.
Just an extra point, if for some reason a bunch of kids who have no memory of anything, and no concept of good and evil were stranded on an Island or something, would they create the concept of good and evil? I think they would.
But your use of "positive" and "negative" are just synonymous. I'd suggest that what we call "good" is that which benefits humanity and its social order, and what we call "bad" is the opposite.
I think your island thought experiment is incredibly interesting, and one I've also pondered. I think a moral system would eventually emerge too, but don't you think it could be different from ours? What if their ideas of what is "good" and "evil" is completely distinct from what we believe? For that matter... what DO we believe? There are separate moral systems all across cultures and history.
There were periods in time when slavery was morally acceptable (and in fact prevalent). Hell, American Jim Crow laws were overruled 45 years ago. Less than half a century ago! And it's not like prejudice, crime, corruption and rape are any less prevalent than they've ever been. So why are we so fervent in our morality? Why do we think of our morals as so concrete? That's what's weird to me.
Well I think there are three main questions at hand here.
What informs your moral system?
I think that people put far too much emphasis on their personal moral identity. Civilians in nazi Germany and followers of cults are not people of lesser moral fortitude - they were swayed by the incredible power of collective thought. We like to think of ourselves as these concrete entities, but I think we are much more liable to external influences than we think. That being said, I think that our moral identities are composed of a dialectic between biology and society, or individual and communal.
What is morality?
Like I've stated previously, I believe that what we call "morally good" is that which helps ensure the social cohesion (and by extension, survival) of one's own species.
Is there such thing as objective morality?
I can't answer this, but I don't think so.
I agree, especially with the first point. People base so much of their behaviour on what they are told by society, the media etc, yet from the poll results it seems that not many people are aware of this.
I wonder how many people would come to the same definition of what we consider morality, if they were left to actually decide themselves, without external forces determining what is right and wrong for them.
Well, I do think that there is a universal aspect to it. I don't think it's a coincidence that there are similar moral precepts all across the world, even in cultures with no mutual contact. But that doesn't mean morality exists because of us, it's the opposite - we exist because of morality! Without it, we wouldn't even be here as a species.
I agree, I think there will always be people who deviate from societies definition of morality (which obviously varies depending on culture etc, why it does I don't know, it's always confused me), and I think that's when we get rapists etc...
the nature of morality
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
But that just raises the question I originally asked - where does it come from?
That's like if I asked where humanity came from and you answered "from our mothers". It's self-referential logic.
--
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I see what you mean, but there really isn't a way to prove it, it's human nature to label things and "good" and "evil" come under that.
Where the concept came from we can only guess, but if I were to guess it would be things which have a positive effect on people= good, and things which have a negative effect on people= evil.
Who created the concept I have no idea, but I assume that it's something that every human does, and every human that has been does it.
Just an extra point, if for some reason a bunch of kids who have no memory of anything, and no concept of good and evil were stranded on an Island or something, would they create the concept of good and evil? I think they would.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But your use of "positive" and "negative" are just synonymous. I'd suggest that what we call "good" is that which benefits humanity and its social order, and what we call "bad" is the opposite.
I think your island thought experiment is incredibly interesting, and one I've also pondered. I think a moral system would eventually emerge too, but don't you think it could be different from ours? What if their ideas of what is "good" and "evil" is completely distinct from what we believe? For that matter... what DO we believe? There are separate moral systems all across cultures and history.
There were periods in time when slavery was morally acceptable (and in fact prevalent). Hell, American Jim Crow laws were overruled 45 years ago. Less than half a century ago! And it's not like prejudice, crime, corruption and rape are any less prevalent than they've ever been. So why are we so fervent in our morality? Why do we think of our morals as so concrete? That's what's weird to me.
--
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What do you think on the whole thing btw??
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well I think there are three main questions at hand here.
What informs your moral system?
I think that people put far too much emphasis on their personal moral identity. Civilians in nazi Germany and followers of cults are not people of lesser moral fortitude - they were swayed by the incredible power of collective thought. We like to think of ourselves as these concrete entities, but I think we are much more liable to external influences than we think. That being said, I think that our moral identities are composed of a dialectic between biology and society, or individual and communal.
What is morality?
Like I've stated previously, I believe that what we call "morally good" is that which helps ensure the social cohesion (and by extension, survival) of one's own species.
Is there such thing as objective morality?
I can't answer this, but I don't think so.
--
bananaface
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I agree, especially with the first point. People base so much of their behaviour on what they are told by society, the media etc, yet from the poll results it seems that not many people are aware of this.
I wonder how many people would come to the same definition of what we consider morality, if they were left to actually decide themselves, without external forces determining what is right and wrong for them.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, I do think that there is a universal aspect to it. I don't think it's a coincidence that there are similar moral precepts all across the world, even in cultures with no mutual contact. But that doesn't mean morality exists because of us, it's the opposite - we exist because of morality! Without it, we wouldn't even be here as a species.
I agree, I think there will always be people who deviate from societies definition of morality (which obviously varies depending on culture etc, why it does I don't know, it's always confused me), and I think that's when we get rapists etc...