Morality is fake. It's just another way to be controlled by others.

Sythe says in another thread that morality exists, and, basically, is based on the black and white of life and death. When life is promoted, morality is served, and when death is promoted, morality is not served.

HOWEVER:

When a person's (the victims) life is threatened by another, Sythe might consider it morally correct to kill the threat.

Therefore, morals ended a life to protect another. Thats a pretty big, albeit simple hole in the theory.

But here's the real cheese:

Furthermore, the threat may have been endangering the victims's life because the threat needed something:food, shelter, water. Therefore, that threat's actions were pro-life, only, it was the threat's life and not the victim's. What this means is that morality not only ended a life, it ended a life whose's actions were moral.

How can morality exist when actions that are morally right(pro-life) to one, are morally wrong (pro-death) to another?

And thats just factually, because you can't dispute that situation's valid basis.

Imagine how many more holes are opened in morality when we percieve it with opinions, and not facts? What if Person A opined that the threat had no reason to attack the victim, because perhaps there was food or water or shelter available that the threat chose to ignore. However, Person B might say that the threat was correct, because the victim had refused to share his food, water and shelter with the threat, and therefore, the victim deserved it.

No two people would have the same morality.

What's funny is that that is true.


In much the same way that God or Law is supposed to be perfect, Morality is supposed to be something that 100% of people adhere to. But not everyone believes in God or follows his directions, and not everyone thinks the Law is corect or follows its actions. Morality is no different. Search for 10 minutes and you'll find people who believe that the Holocaust was right, that abortion is wrong, that religion is wrong, that religion is right, etc. etc.

If morality exists, we would all know the "right" opinion. But it doesn't, so no one knows the right opinion. And thats beautiful, because it means that we all have our own opinion, and our own freedom to believe that opinion.


But, obviously, how I can say there is no morality when everyone believes it, and we all as humans feel a twinge of doubt and fear when we do something morally "wrong"? This is because morality is a code based upon survival. When Caveman A stole from Caveman B, he got killed. Caveman A didn't have any children because he died. Caveman C, who bartered honestly from Caveman B, had 10 children. Cavewoman C3, Caveman C's third daughter, killed someone, and also got killed, in retribution, again without children. Over the past millions of years, Cavepersons A's and C3's genes got pulled out of the gene pool because those cavepeople got killed before they could reproduce (or their offspring were killed too). This is how morals developed. Because we have imprinted in our genes that stealing something is a great way to die, we try not to steal. It is purely a matter of survival, in much the same way that attempting jumping off a cliff would freak out the body as well.

HOWEVER

PEOPLE

STILL

STEAL
LIE
CHEAT
MURDER
AND TORTURE

And this is because Caveman D robbed Caveman B blind and got away scot-free. He married Cavewoman C7, who never understood why her father bought what he could take, and convinced her to convice C3 to kill his enemy. He didn't get killed for killing, someone else did. His children passed on the genes. So over time, again, humans got the genes for taking the risk, stealing, killing and everything else.

The only reason that we think stealing is wrong and killing is bad is because there were many, many more Caveman A's and C3's than there were Caveman D's. Therefore, the voices in our brain that call for survival are generally against stealing and killing, because the majority of the time these things are bad for survival.

No bolt of lightning ever struck D down. No ray of light ever bore C up to heaven. Morality doesn't exist because the only reason we believe in it is for survival. And as soon as survival of one clashes with survival of another, its over for morality.


The moral (ha!) of the story:
Don't let other people tell you what is morally right. It's your opinion. If you support something that others consider morally wrong, let them show a factual proof for their opinion. Because their morals are nothing more than opinions. Vice versa, though, if you meet a racist on the street and you happen to think he is morally wrong, that has no bearing on what you can do to him. He is entitled to his opinions because we all deserve that freedom. But if you happen to be jewish and him a violent anti-semite, your survival instinct, (your morals) may be in alignment with the facts:that he is trying to kill you. So you may consider what you are doing morally right, but all it is really is, is survivalist. Who the fuck bends over and lets themself be killed? Caveman E, and he got fucking scraped.

This was fun.

 

But you see, we do not base "morality" on personal opinions. We base morality on human morals. A human moral is a HUMANE moral. Humane, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals." Our morals are not based on our opinions, they are based on our human instinct. Morally right means that it is humane. Thus being, an inhumane act is morally wrong.

A Moral, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong." The distinction between right and wrong is established by, as mentioned countless times, humane and inhumane acts.

So, morality does not control you, it persuades you. You make the choice between right and wrong, that choice is not made for you (leaving religion aside please).

My final point, all humans share common morals. I say common because opinion can change what you THINK morals can be, but cannot change what morals are. Morals are, and will be for a long time to come, the choice between dark and light, humane and inhumane, good and evil. And our definition of all of these does not waiver, it is concrete, and does not change according to opinion. Thus being, opinion cannot change the concrete ideals that are good and evil.

 

Did you read the post?

I spent the first half proving that you cannot define morality because everyone has a different opinion on it.

Are you pro-abortion or pro-life? Moral debate, yet people are on both sides of it.

pro-humanitarianism? or no handouts to the needy? moral argument, yet we take sides.

You have no idea what good and evil is. I'm not insulting you, because no one does. We think killing is bad because it gets us killed, not because its bad. We don't actively think that of course, but subconsciously we do.

And nor can you say morals are 100% humane, when many would consider it morally right to kill someone they consider morally wrong.


And if you choose to make your own morals control you, i have no problem with it (seriously, did you read the post). What I said was, don't let someone else's definition of morality control you. Because your freedom to have a different morality is a beautiful thing.

 

I'd say that morality isn't absolute. It's just a natural product of evolution, improving group cooperation and reducing the amount of incest etc.

 

Ok, first i read the post yes. And I can see where you are coming from but how you are going about it is wrong. Morals are not affected by opinion, people know what they are doing is morally wrong or right. What is morality? Morality is whatever mankind sets it to be as a whole. We believe killing is morally wrong, yet we perform it anyway. So first, morality is not affected by opinion because "morally right and wrong" is the same for everyone, but they choose to act or not. They know if what they are doing is right or wrong.

And yes, i was wrong, morals are never 100% humane. Thank you.

Finally, someone else's definition of morality is like someone else's definition of right and wrong. It leans to morally right or wrong, and this "Control" leans the persuaded towards right or wrong. Morality is the basic distinction between right and wrong, and these definitions vary. But man kind has set basic principles for what is right and wrong.

 

There's a term for when an individual has no sense of right or wrong and this is not a rare occurrence which is common in young adults. It's possible for someone to legitimately have no sense of right and wrong.
I do agree that the term morality can have multiple different definitions from different aspects.

 

It is not that they have NO sense of right or wrong, it is that they have not been taught the common definition, or do not fully understand. As they grow, they learn. It is a part of life.

Already mentioned opinion about multiple views.

Such a friendly conversation :laugh:

 

You make an excellent point by saying morality is really a matter of right and wrong, but i can easily argue that right and wrong and morality are just synonyms.

And its mighty epic sounding to say immorality is a matter of actions, but again, examples like the abortion debate and the capital punishment debate show that people have very different senses of morality (or right and wrong ).

 

Morality is no longer "what is right and what is wrong". It varies based on situation and instict. Bigotry and violence without merit is most obviously immoral.

Ignorance is no excuse for lack of morality.

 

Are you responding to someone, or just adding that point?

 

Responding to you and also adding that point

 

Finally, someone using their brain.

I completely agree with you. There are way too many loop holes in morality for there to exist simple laws such as "don't kill" or "don't steal" or "don't lie." If you put someone in a context where the benefits of killing, stealing, or lieing are much greater than not doing these actions, then it is truly obvious that you should indulge in these actions for the greater good. Sometimes the benefits may not be that great, such as you have less people dieing other than a lot of people dieing, but that would still be better.

I personally think that "morals" have to be learned by the individual, and not forced upon anyone. Of course the individual should be told at a young age the consequences of his/her's actions such as killing, stealing, lieing, but that is of course what childhood is for. The individual needs to be wise enough to know how to weigh his options and outcomes in his head to truly know the right thing to do.

 

How does morality allow a person to control you? It's the universal rule book of life that says life isn't fair. People are idiots and people are legitimate.

 

This is somewhat true. My views tend to be too ideal for the entire human population. We all know that the number of smart and reasonable people is way outnumbered by the not smart and reasonable people. If my idea of morality is implemented, people simply won't be wise enough to make the right decisions and will most likely abuse the system for their personal good, and society will eventually collapse.

No matter how reasonable my views are, they simply aren't compatible with the human race, unless a miracle happens and everyone becomes an intellectual. Therefore I think we must implement a system which is compatible with the human race and social stability, no matter how right or wrong it is.

 

How do you suppose we implement this "system" into life itself or even society for that matter?

 

Well from the way things are going right now, I think the only way is revolution. No one inside the government would promote such a thing because they have too much money to lose by deviating from the current system. But anyways I believe we are using an outdated system of democracy that needs to be reinvented, we need to take it to its next stage.

As Benjamin Franklin said about the constitution:

"I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

His full speech here: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/franklin_on_const.htm

 

Are you saying that it is impossible for a rapists son, (son derived from a rape victim..) to be a kind, gentle person? To not have the urges to rape someone?

It is possible, and genes have nothing to do with it.

Our actions are based on our landscape, and past.