Morality Defined

Dixie said:
So you are saying there is no fundamental reason for assuming another human will behave morally toward you? This kind of nullifies your idea that man adopted morality because he realized it was better for us to trust each other. How did he realize this when it didn't happen naturally and took time to earn trust? The only explanation is Faith. At some point, some human had to have Faith that his fellow man would respond with mutual morality.
Click to expand...

For most the default setting is to trust. But that trust can be broken and then we will cease to trust. Some trust less, and many times they were right not to.

the current world leadership has lost all my trust, as they have proven that they serve only themselves. That's why they keep the god myth alive, and pay homage to it, because ultimately our trust in them is irrational, and this will come out unless they quash all discussion with heresy laws in the new religion.
 
This is true.

Furthermore, if macroevolution is correct then surely we would observe incremental steps in the "evolutionary chain." After all, if archaeologists can find dinosaur fossils, which are supposedly 65 million years old, why can't they find the link between ape and man? Actually, there should be millions of links. Yet there are none to be found.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of punctuated equilibrium?

Macroevolution is a fantasy created by atheists because they don't want to be accountable to a higher power. Not surprisingly, evolution has historically been used to justify racism.
Click to expand...

Actually Darwin was a Christian while he was coming up with the theory of evolution, and only lost his faith afterwards.
But it will go the way of Greek mythology, spontaneous generation, and flat-earth.
Click to expand...

None of those were scientific theories, and there are a lot of bad scientific hypothesis even in the modern day. But the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of general relativity are a few that you can count on being here for a long time, because there's a ridiculous amount of observable evidence for them.

Of that I am certain.
Click to expand...

You are certain of a lot of stupid things my stupid friend.
 
Diuretic said:
The difference between a lion and a gorilla and a human is the brain, particularly the cerebral cortex. Humans, being social animals - this is not exclusively a human trait, there are plenty of social animals, gorillas being a good example - need to work out not just how to live in close proximity to each other (the human reproductive process requires some form of parenting, unlike, say the turtle which just lays eggs and then leaves the hatchlings to fend for themselves) to ensure the continuation of the species and also the in-group. The rules were probably originally worked out by trial and error (experience is the ancient educator of humans) and the information, the "rules", were transmitted across generations. One early rule might have been "don't kill". I am hypothesising here but let me qualify that by saying it was probably "don't kill one of ours because it means we're down one and that means the rest of you will have one less hunter, one less gatherer, one less body to reproduce....." and so on.

The rules came from there.

One can be moral and not be religious. Morality is simply rules for living. While some of those rules for living can be said to be constant, almost embedded in human DNA, most are socially relative, having been invented by humans in particular social circumstances to fit.
Let me give an example. Australian aborigines had no concept of theft simply because they had no concept of private property. The idea of theft will only be found in a society that has invented the concept of private property.

In that sense much - not all - morality is subjective and relative, bound in time and place.

Morality predates religion.
Click to expand...

Diuretic, I've been reading idiots all day, and it's finally refreshing to see a post by someone smarter than me.
 
That's right AHZ, run away like a little girl, I didn't think you had game.

Unlike what Christians assume, morality has shit to do with sex. Christians added their sexual definitions to human morality and stuck on their. Restricting sex just sticks out completely and absolutely as the most artificial and non-logical thing about modern Christian morality, and no emotion we have says we should do that naturally.
Click to expand...

Poor Waterhead... Don't you realize we have morality, even with sex? If we followed a non-moral Darwinist natural behavior, adult males would be hanging out at the mall, waiting for some unsuspecting doe to wander up, so we could mate instinctually. Instead, we have laws to prohibit adults having sex with children, we have laws about wearing clothes in public, exposing our genitalia, rape, and a whole host of 'moral' issues are addressed with regard to sex. And crazy damn thing, most of it is something some religion is teaching its followers somewhere! There is again, no fundamental scientific physical reason for us to maintain morality regarding sex, so why do we do it? Where did this sense of morality come from, if it evolved into man, and why? It seems the deeper you cats dig into this Morality thing, the more it all comes back to a Spiritual belief and non-physical reasons. Odd, that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
For most the default setting is to trust. But that trust can be broken and then we will cease to trust. Some trust less, and many times they were right not to.

the current world leadership has lost all my trust, as they have proven that they serve only themselves. That's why they keep the god myth alive, and pay homage to it, because ultimately our trust in them is irrational, and this will come out unless they quash all discussion with heresy laws in the new religion.
Click to expand...


Uhmmm hold up... Where did you determine the "default setting is trust"? I don't see that. In the animal world, this is not the case, lions and gorillas do not naturally "trust" or have faith in each other. A lion will kill you, doesn't matter if you another lion or not, if you are a threat. Same with a gorilla. So, where is your scientific evidence to support this idea? And how can it be "the default setting" yet it still "takes time to earn" as you said earlier, it seems to be another contradicting point.

Trust simply requires Faith. To believe another human will behave morally toward you if you behave morally toward him.... do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The essential basis for almost all major religious belief. You want to dissect Morality from the teachings of religion, and in some instances, we can do that, but not in all cases. Religion is the teacher and advocate of most all morality we know and understand today, and what you define as "natural morality". The evidence is clear, there is no scientific/physical need or requirement for morality, it is a non-physical anomaly. The evidence also indicates mankind had to originally have faith in order to trust and establish morality. Again, no physiological evidence has been provided to the contrary. This doesn't prove Religious belief or Spirituality is the basis for all Morality, but then, science can not "prove" anything.
 
Dixie said:
That's right AHZ, run away like a little girl, I didn't think you had game.



Poor Waterhead... Don't you realize we have morality, even with sex? If we followed a non-moral Darwinist natural behavior, adult males would be hanging out at the mall, waiting for some unsuspecting doe to wander up, so we could mate instinctually. Instead, we have laws to prohibit adults having sex with children, we have laws about wearing clothes in public, exposing our genitalia, rape, and a whole host of 'moral' issues are addressed with regard to sex. And crazy damn thing, most of it is something some religion is teaching its followers somewhere! There is again, no fundamental scientific physical reason for us to maintain morality regarding sex, so why do we do it? Where did this sense of morality come from, if it evolved into man, and why? It seems the deeper you cats dig into this Morality thing, the more it all comes back to a Spiritual belief and non-physical reasons. Odd, that.
Click to expand...

Dixie, you're strategy seems to be to aggravate someone with so many posts using so many useless words that they get frustrated and give up. This is a strategy of any morally bankrupt person - rather than stating something simply and outright, you need to use a lot of neutralizing and agitating words to make your point of view more palatable. You seem to have all the time in the world to do this. I do not. Goodnight.
 
Dixie said:
Uhmmm hold up... Where did you determine the "default setting is trust"?
Click to expand...
For most of us it is. Some are really paranoid. This is because our moral codes are generally transmitted culturally from parent to child as a social learning. And this varies by culture as well. It;s like the difference between a new yorker and a someone from a small rural community. A new yorker will step over you as your die. SOmeone from a small community might not. And I would say new yorkers are less moral. You're oversimplifying things like the moron you are.
I don't see that. In the animal world, this is not the case, lions and gorillas do not naturally "trust" or have faith in each other.
Click to expand...
But there is a general social and cooperative understanding between lions and the members of their pride, and between gorillas and those other gorillas in their social group. The lion would probably not trust the gorilla. Stop being an idiot.
A lion will kill you, doesn't matter if you another lion or not, if you are a threat. Same with a gorilla. So, where is your scientific evidence to support this idea?
Click to expand...
Now you're just being an idiot. The morality is between the members of the like group, between lions and lion, and gorillas and gorillas. Not between men and lions.
And how can it be "the default setting" yet it still "takes time to earn" as you said earlier, it seems to be another contradicting point.
Click to expand...




Since we have culture and abstact learning our moral codes have come to be passed through learning instead of direct experience. This is how human morality is subject to abuse by theocrats and other propagandists, because we mostly do not reaffirm our moral codes in an individualist scientific way, but we should start doing that. We should examine whether what is proferred as morality is really beneficial to us, or whether it's a way elites lie to us and get us to do what is bad for us, but good for them.
Trust simply requires Faith.
Click to expand...
No. We can trust based on a rational examination of a person's ways of behaving and their intentions regarding our own well-being.
To believe another human will behave morally toward you if you behave morally toward him.... do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Click to expand...
I like the golden rule. It fits the naturalist definition. The rest of the bible should be thrown away.
The essential basis for almost all major religious belief. You want to dissect Morality from the teachings of religion, and in some instances, we can do that, but not in all cases. Religion is the teacher and advocate of most all morality we know and understand today, and what you define as "natural morality". The evidence is clear, there is no scientific/physical need or requirement for morality, it is a non-physical anomaly. The evidence also indicates mankind had to originally have faith in order to trust and establish morality. Again, no physiological evidence has been provided to the contrary. This doesn't prove Religious belief or Spirituality is the basis for all Morality, but then, science can not "prove" anything.
Click to expand...

Those who learn to cooperate and forgo petty crimes against each all do better in a context of true morality. Dogma is not required. Spirituality is a crock, though I believe in Chi, or life force.
 
Look how irritated Dixie the internationalist fascist New Age shitbag gets as he sees his theofascist ideational premises eroded right in front of his eyes.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Morality is a checkered table cloth on a picknick table.
Click to expand...


Not at all. It's basically just not being an asshole. Of course answers like yours are hip, but they actually provide a basis for theocrats to start insisting on their authoritarian stupidity.
 
uscitizen said:
The subject is not nearly as deep as you make it out to be. It is pretty simple in priciple, jut complex in it's execution and application.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is simple. Morality is a mode of behavior which facilitates cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. Woop. There it is.
 
I love to come read the responses after I hand someone their ass. It's always fun to see what they have to say in an attempt to save face. For the record, none of my questions were addressed, and my points stand irrefutable.
 
Dixie- you do understand that "ability to reason" is a pretty important separator for man within the animal kingdom, don't you?
 
Onceler said:
Dixie- you do understand that "ability to reason" is a pretty important separator for man within the animal kingdom, don't you?
Click to expand...

Separator? You mean something makes us different from all other creatures which evolved? I thought we gained all of our attributes from evolution. Apparently you have some explanation for this, because it doesn't make sense. How can we be separate from the rest of the animal kingdom in this regard, yet we came from the same animal kingdom? Oh, and by the way, other species have the "ability to reason", namely chimpanzees and mice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top