Morals, as most people know them, are a MYTH.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


the universe is very orderly and logical, though the problem with nailing down an absolute proof of something is that many things are relative to us, so i will try to describe what would result if we removed absolute morals.

if there is not an absolute "right" and "wrong" for a situation, then good and bad don't exist in any meaningful way. rape is good for one person, and bad for the other. how can a single act present two conflicting interpretations? a fallacy is created if morality is based on the differing perspectives of those involved. she views the act as bad, and he views it as good, they both can't be right.

this is where absolute morals become necessary.

it all boils down to this: for there to be any meaningful right and wrong, situations must have an absolute moral value.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

relative eh? well, i like setting fire to people's cars. so....where'd you park?

see the problem? if morals are relative, then they don't exist. it completely defeats the point if both sides are right. they can't be. its a huge logical fallacy.

There is always conflict, but what I might call immoral, you can justify in some way. There is no right or wrong. Everything is as it should be.

reply to post by smithjustinb


the brain is truly amazing. it can hold two contradictory ideas as both true without collapsing like a computer would. it is the struggle between the two through which action results.

you would say that me burning your car is immoral, but how can you hold that view when "immoral" has no value in your world view? right and wrong break down when they are based on a person's desires, not an overarching order.

for you to be correct, i both did the right thing and the wrong thing by burning your car. so how can one have any value over the other when my action is both? its illogical.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

the brain is truly amazing. it can hold two contradictory ideas as both true without collapsing like a computer would. it is the struggle between the two through which action results.

you would say that me burning your car is immoral, but how can you hold that view when "immoral" has no value in your world view? right and wrong break down when they are based on a person's desires, not an overarching order.

for you to be correct, i both did the right thing and the wrong thing by burning your car. so how can one have any value over the other when my action is both? its illogical.

edit on 25-7-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

There are two paths to one destination.

reply to post by smithjustinb


would you explain how that keeps your view from contradicting itself? analogies must be interchangeable with the points you're trying to convey.

if the two paths are our respective choices, then no matter how you or i want it to be, it still leads to an absolute.

i like thinking about stuff like this, it makes my brain feel good.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


The thing about morals is that although they most certainly relative, and fluid enough to change over time, they are also cultural, which provides a nice baseline when determining where your morals stand. People in similar regions hold many of the same morals. Whether that's from observing them ('Hey, no one is having sex with their dogs, maybe I shouldn't do that'), being instilled with them, or some innate 'feeling' of right or wrong, (probably some combination of the 3) a standard is set.

You are correct in saying if two people hold two conflicting morals, who is right? Well in this case, we use society as the moral judge, so to speak, and would deem you burning the car as wrong. If more people in whatever culture you were part of (on a small scale like a tribe, or on a large scale like a country) held your moral view, then you would be right, simple as that.


Also, if you say you don't have morals, I absolutely don't believe you. You may not have 'morals' in the way that you have come to understand them, but you certainly do have morals or you wouldn't be here typing at your computer, you would be doing whatever is going to give you the most pleasure or gratification. 'Personal Standards' is really just another way of saying morals, without implying any of the social constraints that would judge your standards as right or wrong.

reply to post by Akasirus


a cultural relative morals don't exactly work either. some things are relative to culture, but they're small, and more about etiquette than right and wrong.

hitler and the nazi's thought that killing jews and establishing the master race was the right thing to do, since its their culture, is that ok? no.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

would you explain how that keeps your view from contradicting itself? analogies must be interchangeable with the points you're trying to convey.

if the two paths are our respective choices, then no matter how you or i want it to be, it still leads to an absolute.

i like thinking about stuff like this, it makes my brain feel good.

edit on 25-7-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Love or destruction. It doesn't matter. Either path leads to the one ultimate absolute. One path is easy and joyful. The other path is hard and agonizing. But it doesn't matter. Any action is right for that person's path.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

the universe is very orderly and logical, though the problem with nailing down an absolute proof of something is that many things are relative to us, so i will try to describe what would result if we removed absolute morals.

if there is not an absolute "right" and "wrong" for a situation, then good and bad don't exist in any meaningful way. rape is good for one person, and bad for the other. how can a single act present two conflicting interpretations? a fallacy is created if morality is based on the differing perspectives of those involved. she views the act as bad, and he views it as good, they both can't be right.

this is where absolute morals become necessary.

it all boils down to this: for there to be any meaningful right and wrong, situations must have an absolute moral value.

edit on 25-7-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

Bob, I'm glad you enjoy thinking about these things, as you mention in one of your posts, but as convinced as you are of what you're saying, there may be some value in considering an alternative, even though it goes completely against your grain.

Probably most people would agree with what you're saying. Certainly, bringing up the implications of a thing, or it's removal, is a good thing to do.

If this general idea that there must be "good", or "bad", or a right or wrong choice for every given situation, if it was absent a society, how would it function? Maybe not so well.

This could be a couple of things. Perhaps it is a hint that there is a kind of "truth" to the notion after all. Why have a system of morality, if it isn't practical, or useful? But that brings us to another possibility. Could it be that long ago, the leaders of various societies, religions, tribes, could it be that they realized they would have a heck of a time governing, if people understood that things might not be so cut-and-dried? They even went some steps further, proposing punishments beyond the grave, since even the idea of all powerful deities failed to cut it.

So, this is what we have all inherited, but considering that some version of "absolute" morality appears to be virtually "universal", perhaps it is simply based on human nature, or the natural order of things.

Or, does it just look this way?

What if the reality beneath what we see is very different than we imagine? Sort of like when science found that the laws that we understood, seemingly did not apply anymore at the subatomic level. This could lead to some serious implications, not only in society, but philosophically, many might begin to wonder about things far beyond the initial subject matter. In fact, this is what we found with the discovery of the quantum world, it literally turned the world on it's head.

So, science may be something to look to to discover the true answer. Of course, long before advanced science, humanity was already very advanced in philosophical thinking. The Greeks for example, they already thought about these things.

In one of Plato's famous dialogues, Socrates has a conversation with "Euthyphro" about his dilema. Someone actually did a thread on it here on ATS, if anyone is interested, they can put the funny Greek name into the search box, and probably find it. The gist of it is that Socrates probes deeply into what exactly constitutes the "right" thing to do. The "answer" is not likely to be very comforting, but it was borne of a rigorous application of logic nonetheless. Again, it's worth considering.

Getting to the bottom of this issue may be important. Let's say that we discover that things are not so absolute, when we probe into reality, as it is. This may not mean that we want to change, or even can change society.

But, it could have implications as artificial systems of morality appraisal come to the fore. In this case, we may actually want to get it right. If we don't truly understand this issue, then how will we transmit a reliable set of instructions to the emerging artificial intelligence technology? If at some point, such things gained actual power, wouldn't we want to be sure that things didn't go way off the rails? Sure, science fiction at this point, but could become important sooner than we think.

So, you (as well as Socrates) haven't found "proof" for absolute right and wrong? Hmmm. That could be a hint too...

JR

reply to post by boncho


1+1=11
LOGIC.
You're doing it wrong.

---

Pride and Chaos are forms of decay, both spiritual and physical. Morals are the attempt to preserve "Life." However, Life is truly preserved by Understanding/Understanding Expressed, not sets of rules. The Law(s) and morals are certainly types of preservation just as Pride and Chaos are types of decay, but our next step in evolution is even more spiritual than the first which brought breathing creatures up from the dirt.

reply to post by boncho


Cause and effect; You reap what you sow.
These are not things that can be avoided.

A parallel note:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by JR MacBeth


right and wrong can't be both relative and meaningful. it isn't that i refuse to look at it differently, but its how things are.

how can right and wrong matter if it changes from person to person? human desires are a horrible basis for morality. it takes all the meaning away.

reply to post by smithjustinb


then there is no basis for any justice system. if no one can do any wrong, how can you punish someone for an action?

it still contradicts itself. two opposites cannot both be true at the same time.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

right and wrong can't be both relative and meaningful. it isn't that i refuse to look at it differently, but its how things are.

how can right and wrong matter if it changes from person to person? human desires are a horrible basis for morality. it takes all the meaning away.

OK. Looks like you made up your mind. Once that happens, the opportunity for learning is gone.

Good luck!

JR

reply to post by smithjustinb


More bad logic? Or maybe I simply am misunderstanding what you're communicating.

Are you saying that a path that travels into ever increasing decay ends in death, and a path that travels into ever increasing growth ends in death?
Or are you saying that a path that travels into ever increasing growth ends in life, and a path that travels into ever increasing decay ends in life?

Life is alive or it would be dead.
It is quite obvious that you reap what you sow; Living unto life or decaying unto death.

I am not speaking of the body, although it can be massively effected by such things.
"Stress" is a killer.
Look at all of the obese people without self-control.
Look at all of the affluent people without self-control.
Look at all of the chaotic people without order (wisdom).
Look at all of the prideful people without charity (expressed grace).
These people cut themselves off. What happens when you poison the roots of your crops? No harvest.
What happens when all things come together for good? Rich harvest.
Not all are worth harvesting (moving "up" in Life), some are compost (decay).

reply to post by JR MacBeth


how can i entertain a view that isn't logical? show me how morals can have any value when they are relative. i'm open to discussion, but i cannot change my views if the proposed system contradicts itself.

either morals are absolute, or relative to each person. if they're relative to each person, then anything anyone does is "right", which defeats the whole purpose of morals. everything would be permissible, which is to say that morals don't exist.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

then there is no basis for any justice system. if no one can do any wrong, how can you punish someone for an action?

it still contradicts itself. two opposites cannot both be true at the same time.

There is a path to nothingness by destruction and a path to infinity by creation. The destination is infinity/nothing as a unified paradox. The path to infinity is natural. It is the direction of time from past to future. The path to nothingness is difficult because it is unnatural and goes against the natural flow of time.

Any negative act puts you on the path to nothingness and any positive act puts you on the path to infinity.

Of course, from the perspective of the ultimate absolute unified paradox, there is no positive or negative. It is all one.

So it doesn't matter which path you take, you have never really left the source. You're just the source being the source figuring out what the source is. Everything serves in some way or another.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

More bad logic? Or maybe I simply am misunderstanding what you're communicating.

Are you saying that a path that travels into ever increasing decay ends in death, and a path that travels into ever increasing growth ends in death?
Or are you saying that a path that travels into ever increasing growth ends in life, and a path that travels into ever increasing decay ends in life?

This is pretty much what I'm saying. Except there is no end, only new beginnings. We all come from a source and are headed back to the source. Any source is bipolar to allow for a potential for flow. Otherwise there would be no flow. In this case, the source is the two unified ultimate polarities. So no matter if you are negative or positive, you will still find your way back to the source. However, one choice will be met with much difficulty.

reply to post by smithjustinb


I tend to be ok with paradoxes so long as they are positioned along the edges of our understanding. However, reaping what is sown is simple for every person to understand. Decaying leads to death, but living leads to life.
Nevertheless, you are entitled to whatever paradoxes satisfy you.

reply to post by smithjustinb


What you are saying in this post is certainly based on observations of good things. So then why would you confuse Death and Life? Void (nothingness) is not the same as Existence (somethingness). Those who cut themselves off only to return the void are "recalled." What little they had is taken back. Those who continue on to Existence are "new creatures." What little they had is increased eternally. While I do not adhere to evangelical practices in general, the concept of being born again is so unbelievably true and wonderful that even those who preach it don't "get it," so what of those whose logic despises such a distinct preservation (salvation) and sanctification (setting apart).

Life === Death is always FALSE and Life >= Death is sometimes FALSE, however, Life == Death is theoretically TRUE and Life > Death is always TRUE.
Likewise, Growth === Decay is always FALSE and Growth >= Decay is sometimes FALSE, however, Growth == Decay is theoretically TRUE and Growth > Decay is always TRUE.

Not only does this illustrate the logical cascade of Life come down, but it also sets the framework for which Truth lifts us up into the next realm.
---
You cannot decay your way into health, but a healthy body needs decay within this realm.
We live at the crossroads of Life and Death which is why false truths are so distracting and, often, tempting.