APP - Do we need "morality"?

[StoneByStone]

I disagree.

Exactly. We can't stop people from wanting to murder. But because we as a society have decided that murder is immoral, we made it illegal.

 

[Legion]

Exactly. We can't stop people from wanting to murder. But because we as a society have decided that murder is immoral, we made it illegal.

I made no such decision. Since I am a member of society and I was not consulted, I refuse to allow others to dictate what constitutes "morality".

 

[StoneByStone]

I made no such decision. Since I am a member of society and I was not consulted, I refuse to allow others to dictate what constitutes "morality".

I think most people feel that way. But regardless of if we agree with society's morals, the point is that we do have a system of morality in society, both legally and culturally. And a society without any kind of morality would basically be non-stop fighting. Even from a pragmatic point of view, it wouldn't be good for anyone.

 

[Legion]

I think most people feel that way. But regardless of if we agree with society's morals, the point is that we do have a system of morality in society, both legally and culturally. And a society without any kind of morality would basically be non-stop fighting. Even from a pragmatic point of view, it wouldn't be good for anyone.

I disagree. Since morality is a social construct, is highly changeable, and by no means universally recognized or adhered to, logic dictates that your assertions that "a society without any kind of morality would basically be non-stop fighting" and "from a pragmatic point of view, wouldn't be good for anyone" are simply untenable assumptions.

Please remember that the question under consideration is whether or not morality is necessary.

 

[StoneByStone]

I disagree. Since morality is a social construct, is highly changeable, and by no means universally recognized or adhered to, logic dictates that your assertions that "a society without any kind of morality would basically be non-stop fighting" and "from a pragmatic point of view, wouldn't be good for anyone" are simply untenable assumptions.

There actually are a lot of theories about humans having evolved altruism. The vast majority of people get a release of endorphins when they do something nice. And the ones who don't have that usually have a mental illness that causes them to lack empathy.

But let's put that aside and just think about this pragmatically. If we as a society didn't agree that things like murder and rape were wrong, and we didn't have laws banning them, wouldn't there be a lot more murderers and rapists? And wouldn't that get in the way of social progress? We've seen genocides and mass rapes, we know people are capable of this. Imagine where we'd be as a society if every day we were fighting each other for survival.

 

[RB 60]

I disagree. Since morality is a social construct, is highly changeable, and by no means universally recognized or adhered to, logic dictates that your assertions that "a society without any kind of morality would basically be non-stop fighting" and "from a pragmatic point of view, wouldn't be good for anyone" are simply untenable assumptions.

Please remember that the question under consideration is whether or not morality is necessary.

In a word? Yes.

 

[Legion]

There actually are a lot of theories about humans having evolved altruism. The vast majority of people get a release of endorphins when they do something nice. And the ones who don't have that usually have a mental illness that causes them to lack empathy.

But let's put that aside and just think about this pragmatically. If we as a society didn't agree that things like murder and rape were wrong, and we didn't have laws banning them, wouldn't there be a lot more murderers and rapists? And wouldn't that get in the way of social progress? We've seen genocides and mass rapes, we know people are capable of this. Imagine where we'd be as a society if every day we were fighting each other for survival.

Which theories are those?

Morality is not the same as mental health, is it?

Nobody has advocated decriminalizing rape or murder.

Social progress isn't necessarily beneficial to a society. Ironically, many feel that social progress is a product of immorality, don't they?

Human history is rife with examples of people and indeed entire segments of society fighting each other for survival.

 

[Legion]

In a word? Yes.

Why?

 

[RB 60]

Why?

Why not?

 

[Legion]

Why not?

Why are you here?

 

[RB 60]

I see you read my other posts. I appreciate the thought my posts provoke.

OK, I'll take your bait. But first, maybe you should clarify what YOU consider moral, you're question is rather vague to be asking if we need "morality."
Obviously "morality" has different meanings to different people. It is evident in the posts on this forum. For example, I believe it is immoral for a man
to perform fellatio on another man. Others here don't. Others here think it is immoral (offensive) to have statues of Confederate soldiers on public land.
Your buddie Jack thinks ALL Christians are immoral and offensive. You might want to be a bit more specific on what "morality" means to you in your quest.

 

[Legion]

I see you read my other posts. I appreciate the thought my posts provoke.

OK, I'll take your bait. But first, maybe you should clarify what YOU consider moral, you're question is rather vague to be asking if we need "morality."
Obviously "morality" has different meanings to different people. It is evident in the posts on this forum. For example, I believe it is immoral for a man
to perform fellatio on another man. Others here don't. Others here think it is immoral (offensive) to have statues of Confederate soldiers on public land.
Your buddie Jack thinks ALL Christians are immoral and offensive. You might want to be a bit more specific on what "morality" means to you in your quest.

I'm considering the question posed in the OP in this thread.

Is morality necessary? That means any form of morality, no matter who defines it or what it comprises.

Is morality of any description necessary?

If you think so, please tell me why.

 

[RB 60]

I'm considering the question posed in the OP in this thread.

Is morality necessary? That means any form of morality, no matter who defines it or what it comprises.

Is morality of any description necessary?

If you think so, please tell me why.

Yeah, "buddie" is how we toothless uneducated hillbilly gun owning trailer trash spell it.

Again, yes. Morality is necessary for the survival of civilization. Isn't that why it's called civilization? (civil can also be somewhat defined as moral, no?)

Yes, again, your definition of "morality" may differ from mine. Being more descriptive will get you more descriptive replies.

I just did, in the vagueness of your question.

 

[Legion]

Yeah, "buddie" is how we toothless uneducated hillbilly gun owning trailer trash spell it.

Again, yes. Morality is necessary for the survival of civilization. Isn't that why it's called civilization? (civil can also be somewhat defined as moral, no?)

Yes, again, your definition of "morality" may differ from mine. Being more descriptive will get you more descriptive replies.

I just did, in the vagueness of your question.

I respect you, your beliefs and your opinions, as you know.

I'm not sure you are attempting to answer the question posed in the OP.

This is not intended to be an argument between differing versions of morality or debate the relative merits thereof.

It is an attempt to discern whether or not morality is even necessary.

Doe that clarify the question a bit more?

 

[StoneByStone]

Which theories are those?

Morality is not the same as mental health, is it?

Nobody has advocated decriminalizing rape or murder.

Social progress isn't necessarily beneficial to a society. Ironically, many feel that social progress is a product of immorality, don't they?

Human history is rife with examples of people and indeed entire segments of society fighting each other for survival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

Morality isn't the same as mental health, but there might be a strong connection there. The only people who lack empathy do have some form of mental illness or depression. And people who are mentally stable are usually more empathetic and giving.

If we didn't have a concept of morality, then rape and murder would be legal. Everything would be legal.

Not every social change is necessarily good, but without morality, there would be no positive changes. We'd still be living in caves, fighting off the other tribes looking to kill us. Basically, the society that Libertarians want.

Yes, this is why we need laws. It's also why social progress is a good thing. When people's basic needs aren't taken care of, they're forced to fight for survival.

 

[Legion]

Morality isn't the same as mental health, but there might be a strong connection there.

"Might be."

The only people who lack empathy do have some form of mental illness or depression.

According to...?

And people who are mentally stable are usually more empathetic and giving.

Opinion + generalization.

If we didn't have a concept of morality, then rape and murder would be legal. Everything would be legal.

I disagree. That's a false conclusion.

Not every social change is necessarily good, but without morality, there would be no positive changes.

That's a supposition based on confirmation bias, isn't it? What your definition of morality happens to be is not universally shared; ergo, how is imposing your moral standards on others moral? Do you tell yourself that it's "for their own good", because you think you know what's best for everyone?

We'd still be living in caves, fighting off the other tribes looking to kill us. Basically, the society that Libertarians want.

I think you'll find that many people who consider themselves "moral"worldwide still do live in primitive conditions, even in caves, and inter-tribal warfare is common, even in supposedly "advanced" societies.

Basically, the society that Libertarians want.

Please try to keep exaggerated political aspersions to yourself. This is APP, and the question before us is intended to be apolitical.

Yes, this is why we need laws.

No one has advocated the abolishment of law. Laws tend to be enacted by the strong and wealthy, often for the benefit of the strong and wealthy. Is that "moral"?

It's also why social progress is a good thing.

You reached a conclusion without a justification. One person's progress is another person's ruin. Another problem with progress is that no amount of it can ever be enough.

When people's basic needs aren't taken care of, they're forced to fight for survival.

People fight for survival constantly, and always have, as far as I know. Once basic survival needs are met, many times people fight for status and luxuries. It's nothing to do with morals. Abraham Maslow developed a popular theory concerning that phenomenon.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

yes. see my sig. a society with not morals means, no trust, no society at all, just depraved individuals constantly fighting, and no stability to do large endeavors. totally regressive.

if you're against morality, you gotta at least let people have guns. but if you're against morality, you dont have the decency to consider that.

moral development is the truest indicator of intelligence.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

"Might be."



According to...?



Opinion + generalization.



I disagree. That's a false conclusion.



That's a supposition based on confirmation bias, isn't it? What your definition of morality happens to be is not universally shared; ergo, how is imposing your moral standards on others moral? Do you tell yourself that it's "for their own good", because you think you know what's best for everyone?



I think you'll find that many people who consider themselves "moral"worldwide still do live in primitive conditions, even in caves, and inter-tribal warfare is common, even in supposedly "advanced" societies.



Please try to keep exaggerated political aspersions to yourself. This is APP, and the question before us is intended to be apolitical.



No one has advocated the abolishment of law. Laws tend to be enacted by the strong and wealthy, often for the benefit of the strong and wealthy. Is that "moral"?



You reached a conclusion without a justification. One person's progress is another person's ruin. Another problem with progress is that no amount of it can ever be enough.



People fight for survival constantly, and always have, as far as I know. Once basic survival needs are met, many times people fight for status and luxuries. It's nothing to do with morals. Abraham Maslow developed a popular theory concerning that phenomenon.

so any person known to be against morality, probably shouldn't be trusted.

keep talking.

 

[Legion]

so any person known to be against morality, probably shouldn't be trusted.

keep talking.

Who said that they're against morality?

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

legion, you're not enlightened....