Morality

[D_Raay]

Ok, seeing as how Paul Nice seems to have a problem with us talking politics in the political forum, here's a change of pace. Something that has been brought up recently and Jerry Falwell claims owes the christian right some brand new radical judges, morality.

I don't think there's really such a thing as morality. I think it's a human construct designed to facilitate the control of people. Values, ethics, legal standards- all of these things are human-generated, and they're lumped under some vague idea called morality. But suppose humans got it wrong? Suppose there's just a natural, worldly, secular, common-sense standard of behavior whose purpose is what's best getting along and what's best for survival? That would be a good system. Why should a system like that be overlaid with a sense of spooky, mystical, judgmental oversight?

[Jasonik]

Intent?!

[adam_f]

Did anyone see the Daily Show the other day when Steven Colbert did 'This Week in God?'

'In related news, Jesus has quit'

[GreenEarthAl]

How would you ever get along without the promise of eternal reward or the threat of eternal punishment?

Okay smart guy. How do YOU propose to control the population and get the masses to toil on behalf of the few without morality?

Ok. Well then you haven't thought of everything. Have you?

[SobaViolence]

can`t anybody do things for the sheer desire to help out?
why does everything have to come out of fear or a desire for reward?

[D_Raay]

Originally Posted by GreenEarthAl

How would you ever get along without the promise of eternal reward or the threat of eternal punishment?

Okay smart guy. How do YOU propose to control the population and get the masses to toil on behalf of the few without morality?

Ok. Well then you haven't thought of everything. Have you?

Sure I have, I don't believe judgmental oversight should be heaped on us from the hypocritical few who can't practice what they preach, so to speak.

[Jasonik]

So you are Hobbesian in your perception of ethics and morality?

[D_Raay]

The Hobbesian Darwinians, by contrast, agree with Thomas Hobbes in believing that human beings are naturally asocial animals, and therefore ethics arises as a cultural artifice necessary for conquering the naturally selfish desires of human beings.

Indeed...

Darwin was particularly influenced by his reading of James Mackintosh's Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy, which had just been published in 1836. According to Mackintosh, all of the fundamental controversies in modern ethical philosophy were initiated by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his book Leviathan (1651). While Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) had claimed that human beings are by nature social and political animals, Hobbes had argued against Aristotle that human beings are by nature asocial and amoral beings. Mackintosh criticized Hobbes and insisted that human beings are endowed by nature with a moral sense that approves certain actions without regard to their consequences, although the essential tendency of such actions is to promote the common advantage or general happiness.

[GreenEarthAl]

I prefer Max Stirner to Hobbes or Nietzsche etc.

Not that it's Hobbes' fault that his ideas eventually lead to the creation of FoxNews.

[Qdrop]

the philosophy of morality is a man-made construct.

it puts into words, what beneficial behaviors have evolved over millions of years in all life forms.....specifically social life forms that are interdependant.

things like not killing those in your group, not stealing from your group, ect.....these are evolved behaviors that were necessary for group survival.
those that engaged in them survived at higher rates, passed on thier genes....ect ect....classic darwinian evolution.

man has since put a label on all these acts as either "good" or "evil" because our minds have evolved with the ability of self-reflection,ect.

survival, and the actions required to do so, are neither good or evil....they are just necessary.

this is the point i always refer to in political disucssions about the U.S's foreign policies as how they relate to being moral or immoral.
it doesn't matter.....they are survival tactics.....and labels we put on them as being "immoral, imperialist, and evil," are moot points.

[racer5.0stang]

Since God is perfect, man is apparently the variable. In that, man has corrupt God's word through misinterpretation to say what man wants it to say. An entire doctrine can be devised from one verse in the scripture, and be taken completely out of context. It would help people to read the entire chapter and then form their interpretation. By reading and studying the Bible, most people can decifer the truth for themselves.

2 Timothy 3:16,17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

[Schmeltz]

If the second world war had any lesson at all for humanity, it was that social Darwinism is a bankrupt philosophy from start to finish. It would be as easy for a Japanese apologist to write the Rape of Nanking off as a "survival tactic" and dismiss as "moot" the only rightful interpretation of such an atrocity as fundamentally immoral, imperialist, and evil as it is for you to write off atrocities committed by Americans, or anybody else for that matter.

It is not "moot" to decry such things as wrongs that ought to be avoided. Quite to the contrary, it is the only sane course of action if you wish to prevent them from occurring in the future.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by Schmeltz

If the second world war had any lesson at all for humanity, it was that social Darwinism is a bankrupt philosophy from start to finish. It would be as easy for a Japanese apologist to write the Rape of Nanking off as a "survival tactic" and dismiss as "moot" the only rightful interpretation of such an atrocity as fundamentally immoral, imperialist, and evil as it is for you to write off atrocities committed by Americans, or anybody else for that matter.

It is not "moot" to decry such things as wrongs that ought to be avoided. Quite to the contrary, it is the only sane course of action if you wish to prevent them from occurring in the future.

he shoots and.....he misses!

no one ever understands that point.


if you think of actions by any animal, social or otherwise, as immoral or moral...you are living in an abstract world.

that is not to say that killing millions of people is a positive action for the human race....
it can very well be a irrational and non-practical action that (as in the case of WW2) ultimately lead to the defeat of those that engaged in it. a mistake was made of the most monumental of proportions.

actions that any group takes are either practical and rational for thier own survival......or mistakes that could lead to thier own downfall.
that's nature.

a smart species will learn from thier mistakes, and make pragmatic decisions.

the U.S. launching an all out tactical attack on the rest of the world to take over and conquer is not practical or rational. it would lead to our defeat and our survival as a nation would be in jeporday...
morality means nothing.....

i think i'm really coming from an entirely differant paradigm then most other people...and i just come off as calous and Hawkish.
that is not my intention.

i'm just looking at the big picture without colored shades.....

[Schmeltz]

Meh. I'd rather live in an abstract world where oppressive, murderous imperialism is characterized as evil, than live in a vicious, primitive world where might makes right and Darwinism is twisted into an excuse for violence and subhumanity. You can keep your "different paradigm," just try to keep it to yourself while the rest of us build a world where that silly bullshit doesn't matter.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by Schmeltz

Meh. I'd rather live in an abstract world where oppressive, murderous imperialism is characterized as evil, than live in a vicious, primitive world where might makes right and Darwinism is twisted into an excuse for violence and subhumanity. You can keep your "different paradigm," just try to keep it to yourself while the rest of us build a world where that silly bullshit doesn't matter.

fine then.....


but that's what Communists tried to do, many times.
but thier lack of realistic rationalism blinded them to the obvious flaws in thier ideology.

one can hide from reality all they want........but it will always find them.


now THAT'S dramatic writing.

[D_Raay]

it doesn't matter.....they are survival tactics.....and labels we put on them as being "immoral, imperialist, and evil," are moot points.

I guess everyone missed my point. There are those who abuse the idea of morality. Those who use it as a tool. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson. GEORGE BUSH.
I was speaking yet again of the hypocritical nature of the Christian right wing.
Hobbes, Darwin, Nietschke, Aristotle all had sound ideas when it comes to social behaviour, I was merely pointing out how the idea of morality holds up in the modern world, specifically the Bush II era.
Q you can't call a spade anything else but a spade.

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by D_Raay

.
Q you can't call a spade anything else but a spade.

bah, humbug.



so are you asking if morality has a place in today's society?....because of how it is manipulated and abused by those in power?

[Qdrop]

Originally Posted by Mae

Well hasnt the abuse of said morality by those deemed the most moral by society sort of negate morality in and of itself within society?

I had a lot of difficulty typing that, and I hope you have just as hard of a time reading it.

aimee rules.......

[D_Raay]

Originally Posted by Qdrop

aimee rules.......

She certainly does , and she is right. Glad someone gets my point.