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

"Self-righteous morality is cunning hypocrisy. The only virtue is reckless love." - Deepak Chopra

"Self righteousness is a mask for hypocrisy and self importance." -- Carlos Castaneda

Originally posted by Yeah-Alright
"Self-righteous morality is cunning hypocrisy. The only virtue is reckless love." - Deepak Chopra

"Self righteousness is a mask for hypocrisy and self importance." -- Carlos Castaneda

Yeah I've found that self-righteous people have tended to be the most hateful people on the planet. The nicest people I've known are people who admit they're not all that nice.

reply to post by Dasher


Oops, it should have been:
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.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Why? "Solid future"?

solid future. as in, the future is just as solid a place as the present. so is the past. they are solid physical places. the 4th dimension is the bridge between them.

Glad you finally admit the contradiction, but have you shown a way where they don't have to? Hardly.

they only appear to contradict. what is so hard to understand? humans have a choice, but each of us always would have chosen to do what we have done, and will do. so there is only one timeline, and choice still manifests itself.

aquinas didn't think to consider anything less than absolute free will.

plato's view on free will was that the body was "victim to causation" but the soul enjoyed free will, which doesn't make a huge amount of sense because does not the soul control the body?

age has no effect on the validity of an argument. it can neither affirm nor discredit.

You have lots of ideas, and at minimum, you might consider putting a thread together to better get your points across.

You have made lots of declarations, from the beginning, and finally one bold assertion after another, without a prayer of "proving" anything, but alas, this is the kind of thing it is, I suppose.

Your ideas may not be any crazier than anyone else's, but trying to play the "logic" card so vigorously seemed a stretch. Frankly, I think you painted yourself into a corner, but I suppose you may have thought about some of these things, and have come up with "plausible" notions, at least if you first allow the many declarations that you assert.

the future is just as solid a place as the present

Again, an assertion, at odds with many physicists who seem to prefer a Multiverse interpretation of the data, but who knows?

what is so hard to understand? humans have a choice, but each of us always would have chosen to do what we have done, and will do. so there is only one timeline, and choice still manifests itself

When you get a chance, be sure to check in with your local university's philosophy department, and notify them of your breakthrough. And while you're at it, if they have a physics program, let the professors know about your most serious dogma, "there is only one timeline". Be sure to have your PhD credentials handy.

each of us always would have chosen to do what we have done

Please end the suspense, and inform us of what religious denomination you are.

aquinas didn't think to consider anything less than absolute free will.

Complete rubbish, forgive me, but you have already confessed to the fact that an "absolute" free will pertains to non-finite beings. Try again.

plato's view on free will was that the body was "victim to causation" but the soul enjoyed free will, which doesn't make a huge amount of sense because does not the soul control the body?

"Soul"? You've tipped your hand yet again I'm afraid, but that's fine. It's actually more enlightening that you so casually dismiss Plato's well-reasoned point of view, even if you mangle it a bit.

age has no effect on the validity of an argument. it can neither affirm nor discredit.

Brilliant! The actual point seemingly missed. "Age", or number of years humanity has considered issues, may indeed have no effect on the validity of an argument, but you have hardly justified their casual dismissal, with your theory du jour.

JR

Morals or not, it seems as if it strikes one as a set of rules on how to act.
If I for example take pleasure from hurting someone, does this make me a bad person?
If so, by what laid set of rules?
It doesn't feel that way to me, and if it feels right or normal to act that way, who is to say it's wrong...the greater populace or are we simply expected to act this way?

Originally posted by ImAwareSC
Morals or not, it seems as if it strikes one as a set of rules on how to act.
If I for example take pleasure from hurting someone, does this make me a bad person?
If so, by what laid set of rules?
It doesn't feel that way to me, and if it feels right or normal to act that way, who is to say it's wrong...the greater populace or are we simply expected to act this way?

Many non-human animal species have extremely complex societies - - and they've never read any list or bible.

Human animals could probably take a lesson from some of them.

reply to post by boncho


While I did enjoy reading your piece, I can not come to agree with it. I would classify morals as those restrictions we place on our natural, survivalist instincts before I would fairy tale designations that keep us feeling good at night.

I have the ability to steal $500 dollars without anyone knowing. I choose not to out of "morality." The closest argument I can see with this situation with regards to your OP is that this "moral" decision was made purely to satisfy my own ego. Given the depth and breadth of the subject at hand, this argument would then evolve into a much-too-long and off-topic discussion.

Morality is much more complex than I believe you have laid it out here. That is not to say I do not appreciate your take on the matter. It has most certainly been nourishing food for thought. Let's dive into the two generally-accepted designations of morality.

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That person is morally responsible" rather than descriptive statements like "Many people believe that person is morally responsible." These ideas are explored in normative ethics. The normative sense of morality is often challenged by moral nihilism (which rejects the existence of any moral truths)[5] and supported by moral realism (which supports the existence of moral truths).

To add to the complexity of this issue, we must determine from which perspective you are viewing morality. Morality, as an academic subject, exists in many fields of research. Anthropology, The Humanities, Biology (neuroscience), Psychology, Ethics, Politics, Religion and Sociology all have their own unique view and study of morality. Morality from YOUR perspective may seem like a myth, but from the perspective of any of these academic fields, I can assure you that it is very REAL.

My point in the simplest of terms is that morality is simply a term used to describe human behavioral functions and controls. It is not a myth as you so point out.

reply to post by ateuprto


I like your rebuttal and explanation.



I think I could have worded my OP better to explain the angle I was working on. But oh well, no morals lost here.



Perhaps it should have been, "Belief in morals".

reply to post by boncho


Thanks my friend. I certainly see the point you are making with regards to the original post. It's just hard to classify what is a loosely-defined term as a myth from the get go. I agree that morals, in and of themselves, do operate on a sliding scale with most human beings. A weak person tends to be moral only when it does not discomfort them in any way. Hence why truly "moral" human beings are so well respected.

If you want to argue that way too many individuals fake morality, or are only moral when it is convenient, well you will get no argument from me.

reply to post by ateuprto

If you want to argue that way too many individuals fake morality, or are only moral when it is convenient, well you will get no argument from me.

That is more what I was going for. I should have been clearer in the thread, and also less sensationalist.

I also have a position on breaking points though:

Setting yourself to unrealistic, high moral standard, so much so that you either break them without realizing it or break other moral "ideas", "rules", "laws", etc.

That would be a thread in itself however.

reply to post by boncho


Certainly would be a thread in and of itself though. As a quickie response to that would be the same line of logic regarding ideals.

Setting unattainable moral values are like setting unattainable ideals. People want to live in a utopia. The chances of this ever happening are slim to none, but it is the ideal that drives our progress to a better state of being. Setting unattainable moral standards may result in failure, but you could argue that those standards drive the individual to be a "better" person.

That's why I love these subjects, there really aren't too many "right" or "wrong" answers or perspectives, just shades of grey. Always makes for interesting conversation.

dimensions follow a pattern. every third dimension repeats the cycle, and becomes a point for a new line, then square, then cube. this new "cube" then moves in a new direction and becomes the next line. of course, this is a very 3D take on dimensions, but i believe it is an accurate way to see how dimensions are relative to us. time is the dimension directly above the dimension you inhabit. this is kind of where the whole "infinite amount of the same exact universe infinitesimally close to one-another" manifests.

You have lots of ideas, and at minimum, you might consider putting a thread together to better get your points across.

i was a strange child. while others played together and colored, i preferred to be alone with my thoughts.

You have made lots of declarations, from the beginning, and finally one bold assertion after another, without a prayer of "proving" anything, but alas, this is the kind of thing it is, I suppose.

many people have said i'm arrogant, though i'm far from it. i'll admit, accepting i'm wrong is difficult, but i try to consider the possibility often as an exercise to perfect my ideas. no doubt i fail most of the time. if things were so easily known and recognized, we would not be able to wonder at reality.

When you get a chance, be sure to check in with your local university's philosophy department, and notify them of your breakthrough. And while you're at it, if they have a physics program, let the professors know about your most serious dogma, "there is only one timeline". Be sure to have your PhD credentials handy.

interestingly enough, i am pursuing physics as a vocation. though sadly what they will teach me are "plug and chug" formulas to calculate the distance a penny falling off a desk moving 1m/s will travel if the desk is at a height of 45cm. my true love of physics is in thought experiments. i can picture things very well and reason things out. the first time i read in a science textbook that there wasn't a limit to how hot something could get, i raised my hand and told the teacher that lightspeed would limit the maximum speed a particle could vibrate at. it was just obvious.

Complete rubbish, forgive me, but you have already confessed to the fact that an "absolute" free will pertains to non-finite beings. Try again.

yes, very true. aquinas said that humans didn't have free will, though i don't think he considered a lesser form of free will. if free will is a random number generator (which don't exist), then reasonable free will is a pseudo-random number generator. there is an underlying decisiveness, even if it is based on a fluctuating environment.

i used the word "soul" because that is what, i believe, he was referring to. the idea, anyways. i can't discount the massive number of NDE's that defy science. people with zero brainwave activity remembering specifics of their surgeries points to an existence beyond a physical body.

reply to post by ateuprto


I think you hit the nail on the head there. Even people that disagreed with my OP, I still enjoyed reading it.

And a lot of it will never have a definite answer or explanation so whatever your thoughts on the subject are, they are open for new information to be added.

reply to post by boncho

Morals = Not Real

A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. But... not today.

I guess a lot has to do with the points on your personal moral compass. You may think you have not this device, but you do. It was born into you from the very beginning. We all have it as standard equipment. We just tend to misidentify it for the most part.

This little item works from the basement areas that create gentle tides that then carry us in one direction or another. There is no shock, no blow... just a tug here and there that creates course change or course stability.

Many who do understand the nature of it purposely ignore it. These people generally go on to create a lot of pain and misery for themselves and others. So, being able to identify and locate it is not necessarily a good thing and is probably the reason it is installed in a place that's hard to access. In this way, it can work on you but you can't usually tamper with it... not terribly unlike how firmware works.

Morals are instinctive in nature and are generally identified in more simple terms as a conscience.

The knowing of right and wrong can't be erased, only denied and ignored.

Hi all. I agree somewhat, OP. To me, "morals" really have their basis in religion. We're taught to love thy neighbor, etc..problem is, people are inherently selfish. If someone wants something, they want it, and most people don't really care how they get it. civility in society is paper-thin. let someone end up hungry and on the street, or their family in that situation, and their morals will change in a heartbeat. Bottom line is you really can't trust ANYONE. no one is incorruptible. in the right situation, your own mama will sell you out. Just the way it is..

I agree Morals aren't real. After all we create terms for "ideas" we have. Morals are just an idea someone had, and it's a good way to draw lines for a social atmosphere. If you had a discussion with someone one on one, asked them if they'd ever kill someone they would most likely tell you "no," now ask them if they think killing goes against their morals, they will likely tell you "yes," however, if you lay out a situation where it would be logical and emotionally reasonable to want to end someone else's life, killing 1 person to save 50 people for example, it comes down what they "believe." Do you believe it is ok to end someone's life to save more people's lives, or is a life a life no matter what? At the end of the day it comes down to what you believe, but those things ultimately go out the window when you're faced with a decision like that in reality and you actually ponder it this way. If you have a button, a 30 second timer, and you had to make a decision, it comes down to god to figure out the outcome of your decision assuming you actually ponder "why" you'd make the decision you would.

Originally posted by Balkan
Agreed. People think we are born with a sense of right and wrong, and I disagree.

More or less, problem is anyone will develop this abilities even if they do not have them to start with, they are bound to, because it's in their nature, like a predisposition. For example I'll give one, I do not know how to walk at the begining, but I'll learn how, because I have legs for walking, so I'm kind of meant to learn how to walk.
Since right and wrong are in our nature, in our very fabric then we learn it from us experimenting with us.

Here is another example, you have never screamed before, someone would take you and burn your hand by placing it in the fire, you would instantly scream even if you have never expirianced it before, you would instantly do it for the first time. Why ? Because it's in your nature to scream if your hand is on fire even if you do not know of it. Same thing with right and wrong, we have it within us from the begining, we just don't know it.

reply to post by boncho


Personal standards are the same thing as morals. So yes you do have morals.

end of thread

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by boncho

 

Personal standards are the same thing as morals. So yes you do have morals.

end of thread

The thread ends when it ends..not when you say it ends. "personal standards" are incredibly subjective. serial killers have personal standards. morals suggest inherent belief in right and wrong, which is the very point. I think people are taught, through religion and other organizations, to be and live in a certain way. they live that way because they believe they'll be punished if they don't. rare is the person who does good things simply because they're good. most people, if they knew no punishment would be forthcoming, would rob, rape and murder without a second thought.

Well, you sure did out yourself as a psychopath for everyone on ats to see.

You can't comprehend the necessity of morality, and instead see it as merely a survival mechanism.

It's much, much deeper than that, but you would have to have a conscience to get it.

Nobody here can teach you.

You're defunct.