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

My point in the post makes the attempt at proving that survival of self naturally intersects with survival of others. Morality is only believeable when times are good. It is said that only a couple missed meals separate you and me from murder, and this is 100% fact.

When the chips are down, survival of self precludes survival of others every time. And therefore, your definition of morality dies at the time when it should be most important to everyone involved.

Furthermore, you can't make references to "proper rational morality" when my other point is to say that as long as morality is defined differently by everyone, its existence is crippled by its obvious lack of omnipotence. My point is that morality's lack of ability to define us all in the same way shows that it is an entirely human conjecture that is therefore defined independently between all of us.


Furthermore, I attempt to prove scientifically that morality is simply an unconscious evolutionary tool that is less about what is good and more about what works. Unless you can prove me wrong on that point, it stands that morality is on the same level of unconscious action that attracts men to large breasts and people to get goosebumps in dangerous situations.

 

How can you support freedom and call anyone a savage?

I don't understand you. Freedom is freedom to be anything. You're free to have a problem with someone else's views, but you can't desire to eradicate those views on the one hand and supportm "freedom" on the other. I have no problem with what you think, but I do have a problem with what you seem to want to do.

 

Who is condoning fraud, theft, or violence?

I am only condoning the freedom of choice. You should choose to believe something is right or wrong, based on the facts and your perception of them. But I should not be telling you that, you already live that way.

My message should be directed at the people who allow themselves to be controlled by what others say. Morality is personal. Faith is personal. Life is personal. Only obey those who you choose to obey.

 

But see you are condoning fraud, theft, and violence. You are saying that all should be able to determine their personal rights and wrongs. That they should not let others persuade their rights and wrongs. This means a burglar could think what he is doing is "right" and not let others persuade him. You must put this a different way, because you are saying that EVERYONE has the right to determine their rights and wrongs.

I am not against freedom, i am against freedom being used to commit crimes. As long as a person's freedom does not hurt (emotionally or physically) others, I'm for it. But you cannot say that right and wrong are determinable every which way and cannot be influenced.

 

Just because the burglar thinks it is right doesn't make it right.

Thats my point! There is no right! The only wrong is that which ends in retribution and the only right is that which ends in peace. (Thats not a condonement of unatoned crimes, although it does sound that way. Its a condonement of anything wherein the "victim" or his representatives(the government) chooses not to make you atone for what you did.)

Basically:
Stealing from someone generally gets you some kind of retribution for losing their stuff. So if you steal, be prepared for retribution, because the other thinks it is wrong.

And because the abject majority of people do not want things taken from them, their government reflects this. And if the person who plans to steal thinks it is right to steal, it doesn't matter, because he then must atone, if caught.

Now, I said do not let other people define your morality. But in the contracted situation of standard society, by benefitting from society, you consent to society's rules. If you don't like it, then leave society.

 

I guess I exaggerated a little bit there, but let me explain myself: from the way things are, there are hungry, diseased kids in Africa who sometimes have multiple siblings with parents who can barely provide food for them. In cases as extreme as these, reproduction should be limited to prevent the suffering of the children.

But anyways, you took that little tidbit and went on with your "from the perspective..." nonsense with no mention of anything I talked about in this thread at an attempt to sound intelligent.

 

Because you are saying it is.

Except, considering the society-based lifestyle's short run and the running-away-from-lions-scavenging-food lifestyle's long run, you are scientifically wrong when you say that our minds are not animal.

Subconsciously, we are a lone hunter suspicious of others. Where do you think handshakes came from? Courtesy? They are an ancient way of symbolizing that your hands are free of weapons.

Now, pre-historical evidence seems to support your argument, that humans have lived in groups for ever. However, it was, as I originally postulated, that necesity of certain actions, for survival, developed. Ug couldnt kill Uk because either Uk's brother would kill Ug, or Ug understood that without Uk to help hunt, the entire clan would die. Not because Ug thought it was bad morally, but because it was just bad, for him.


1. All humans are born with the desire to survive.
2. The desire to survive is the root of all human action.
3. Human survival is dependent on whatever action in the situation would end in survival.
4. Humans have an ingrained user's manual that directs them in the action that puts them in the direction of survival.
5. Whatever answer to a survival situation is given to the human by its brain is the answer most often employed.
6. The answer most often employed is necesary to human survival.
7. The answer most often employed, being necesary to survival, is later on, with greater awareness and scope, redefined as morality.
8. Human survival is dependent on morality.

Sure, that works. Except at point 6, somethings the answer is wrong. And therein lies the rub ^_^ .

 

Morality is, as I see it, a valid concept. It is just that it does not mean what its proponents want it to mean. "Morality" is the name of a certain type of mind-set which I consider to be a subclass of the mind-set-type "fixed idea". Fixed ideas as such are not myths, but their intended objects of reference generally are.

Take fairy tales. Fairy tales certainly exist; they are what one reads to the children at bed-time. But the objects of fairy tales, dragons etc., don't exist.

So to say that morality does not exist, just because the moral concepts have no reference, is a confusion of level just the way
denying the existence of fairy tales is.

 

Dispute of Dispute of 4:Animals do not know these things either, they are taught by their mothers. Only animals such as sea turtles(that die in droves and are born in huge amounts) are left to fend for themself entirely. Much like humans without education, animals in capitivity often cannot even feed themself in the wild.
Dispute of Dispute of 6:
In the abject majority of cases, human instinct serves to protect the human effectively, even in modern times.

As for point 7:
My point is based on the scientific idea that any brain-pang, shiver, or sense of fear on the body when comitting a crime, is the only morality we might have. Because you say I cannot redefine morality, and you're absolutely right. I used the wrong word. I should have reconsidered, or something like that.

However, that brings back an integral point of this:

How can you define morality? What makes your morality better than my definition? What gives you that right? You are not better than me. No one is. But no one is better than you either, and same for everyone. We are all entitled to believe what we believe. So your definition is your definition. Dont tell me your morality is the definition of morality.

 

I actually have to apologize, because I guess I thought I was being clear but I wasn't (or you're avoiding the question spectacurlaly).


That website is absolutely right, the word morality is the concern of good and evil blah blah.

What I meant was:
How is your definition of what is Good and what is Bad superior to mine?

What makes your opinion on what is good, superior? That is my question. And considering this is the 4th time I asked it (albeit more clearly), I hope i finally get an answer.

Keep in mind what I said earlier(with the new eyes of finally getting down to my real question and context):

 

Dude the government is the main reason this shit is going on in Africa. I have seen videos of the government tearing down private businesses when they have grown too large.