[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Also, I don’t think we can really begin to understand “where morality comes from” until we know what it precisely is.[/quote]
I maybe wrong, but I find the following an authoritative definition. That morality is defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.
Do good and avoid evil.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Also, I don’t think we can really begin to understand “where morality comes from” until we know what it precisely is.[/quote]
I maybe wrong, but I find the following an authoritative definition. That morality is defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.
Do good and avoid evil.[/quote]Yer makin me nervous with all this “I may be wrong” stuff Chris.
And I would “define right and fitting” as the nature, character and will of the God who is alone either qualified or authorized to either define or demand morality.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Also, I don’t think we can really begin to understand “where morality comes from” until we know what it precisely is.[/quote]
I maybe wrong, but I find the following an authoritative definition. That morality is defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.
Do good and avoid evil.[/quote]Yer makin me nervous with all this “I may be wrong” stuff Chris.
And I would “define right and fitting” as the nature, character and will of the God who is alone either qualified or authorized to either define or demand morality.
[/quote]
So, men are beasts incapable of creating their own code of ethics?
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]
Sadly, such a rational approach falls on deaf ears on PWI.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< So, men are beasts incapable of creating their own code of ethics?[/quote]Men are creatures, incapable of existing at all without the God, who having designed them and brought them into being, is also thereby alone capable and rightfully empowered to tell them what to do. Having now been corrupted by sin, men are not only creatures, but dead rebellious ones(same thing) as well. A dandelion is more qualified to produce a code of ethics.[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Sadly, such a rational approach falls on deaf ears on PWI.[/quote]And my favorite dandelion weighs in once again. =D
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure, we can extrapolate that. Since it has happened so many times throughout history that once man has created a stable society that meets his survival and comfort needs, he benignly, charitably cares for his fellow man, is satisfied with what he has, and little pink unicorns dance through rainbow meadows of honey flavored dew.
Yeah, the history of human civilization totally backs this up.
[quote]Cortes wrote:[quote]iVoodoo wrote:Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response. What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]Yeah, sure, we can extrapolate that. Since it has happened so many times throughout history that once man has created a stable society that meets his survival and comfort needs, he benignly, charitably cares for his fellow man, is satisfied with what he has, and little pink unicorns dance through rainbow meadows of honey flavored dew.
Yeah, the history of human civilization totally backs this up. [/quote]To loosely quote that giant of morality and historical ethics, the incomparable Ephrem of Holland, "Sadly, such a rational observation falls on deaf libertine leftist ears on PWI.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call “after-birth abortion” (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
http://jme.bmj.com/...100411.abstract
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Electricity’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, Electricity, lightbulbs, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides playing video games and watching TV ?
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure, we can extrapolate that. Since it has happened so many times throughout history that once man has created a stable society that meets his survival and comfort needs, he benignly, charitably cares for his fellow man, is satisfied with what he has, and little pink unicorns dance through rainbow meadows of honey flavored dew.
Yeah, the history of human civilization totally backs this up. [/quote]
Humankind is inherently selfish, and this selfishness is magnified when a society becomes rich enough to sustain its citizens comfortably.
That does not mean that that society actively cares for people outside of society.
Perhaps that, in time, the globalisation will lead to the inclusion of everyone but before that happens it does not mean that iVoodo wasn’t right.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure, we can extrapolate that. Since it has happened so many times throughout history that once man has created a stable society that meets his survival and comfort needs, he benignly, charitably cares for his fellow man, is satisfied with what he has, and little pink unicorns dance through rainbow meadows of honey flavored dew.
Yeah, the history of human civilization totally backs this up. [/quote]
The ‘perhaps’ indicates the theoretical basis of my observation, obviously there is not global Harmony, possibly because, no large scale society has ever properly provided for all of it’s citizens needs. If that is even possible is a whole other debate.
I could cite some peaceful and willingly communal tribes that have existed for millenia, but compared to the super-societies we have now, they really aren’t too relevant.
But do you really think it is impossible for people to genuinely care about others?
People are selfish, extremely so, once their own personal needs are met they usually, selfishly, provide for their family, and then after those needs are met they usually, selfishly, provide for their communities, and then after those needs are met they usually, selfishly, attempt to provide for the whole race.
The pursuit of personal power, and also general laziness throw a wrench in these pursuits, among other undesirable characteristics, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a logical, and worthwhile course of action to take.
This guy’s another one. There’s only so much time in this contingent created man’s life.
Hmm, I don’t look down upon you for believing in God, or for proclaiming Jesus as your savior.
I don’t try and demean your values, I listen, observe, and try to learn, hell, I even make sure to make my posts as politically correct as possible, so as not to offend anyone.
I understand your point of view, I get it, and if it leads to you being a “good” person, then I support it.
Why can you not do the same?
I believe in many of the same values as you, I donate to charity, I help with youth programs, etc.
If you feel that an absence of a deity or a scripture makes me, my views, or the good deeds I do lesser in any way, than I have no time for you.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
The pursuit of personal power, and also general laziness throw a wrench in these pursuits, among other undesirable characteristics, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a logical, and worthwhile course of action to take.
[/quote]
Good observation. There may be a common morality that all humans have but that does not mean we have other forces unrelated to morality pulling us in other directions.
The mirror neuron might explain why, and how, human morality evolved from behaviour, which then became magnified when humans gathered in great numbers after the invention of agriculture.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The mirror neuron might explain why, and how, human morality evolved from behaviour, which then became magnified when humans gathered in great numbers after the invention of agriculture.[/quote]
Wait… hunter-gatherers are amoral ? or maybe immoral ?
since we are speaking about evolution, 10 000 years is absolutely nothing. Our post-industrial mirror neurons are basically identical to the mirror neurons of a paleolithic bushman.
And since we are speaking about evolution, no amount of evolutionist studies will ever explain what morality is.
At the very best, you will get a description of the various behaviors we commonly call “moral”. which may or may not be moral at all.
To get an explanation of what morality is, you need to be able to affirm what morality prescribe, and by its very nature, science can’t do that.
you will never resolve any ethical problem by studying how and why morality evolved, because this approach is just another way to say that morality doesn’t exist, and is nothing more than a magnifying illusion.
You can say the same thing about Love, or Art, for that matter, if you really want to deny what you (know you) are.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The mirror neuron might explain why, and how, human morality evolved from behaviour, which then became magnified when humans gathered in great numbers after the invention of agriculture.[/quote]
Wait… hunter-gatherers are amoral ? or maybe immoral ?
since we are speaking about evolution, 10 000 years is absolutely nothing. Our post-industrial mirror neurons are basically identical to the mirror neurons of a paleolithic bushman.
And since we are speaking about evolution, no amount of evolutionist studies will ever explain what morality is.
At the very best, you will get a description of the various behaviors we commonly call “moral”. which may or may not be moral at all.
To get an explanation of what morality is, you need to be able to affirm what morality prescribe, and by its very nature, science can’t do that.
you will never resolve any ethical problem by studying how and why morality evolved, because this approach is just another way to say that morality doesn’t exist, and is nothing more than a magnifying illusion.
You can say the same thing about Love, or Art, for that matter, if you really want to deny what you (know you) are.
[/quote]
Strawman. I’ve not suggested morality, or moral behaviour, evolved after the invention of agriculture. I said the need for more intricate moral behaviour became necessary after humankind began to congregate in number larger then even seen before.
I don’t know what you mean by “what morality prescibes” as if morality is an entity that exists on its own. It doesn’t.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure, we can extrapolate that. Since it has happened so many times throughout history that once man has created a stable society that meets his survival and comfort needs, he benignly, charitably cares for his fellow man, is satisfied with what he has, and little pink unicorns dance through rainbow meadows of honey flavored dew.
Yeah, the history of human civilization totally backs this up. [/quote]
Humankind is inherently selfish, and this selfishness is magnified when a society becomes rich enough to sustain its citizens comfortably.
That does not mean that that society actively cares for people outside of society.
Perhaps that, in time, the globalisation will lead to the inclusion of everyone but before that happens it does not mean that iVoodo wasn’t right.
[/quote]
Wait, right about what?
At what point would we have to reach for either of you to be able to say this? "Okay, there it is, see, there are no longer any poor people, classes, prejudices, inequality, desire, or need for anything at all, and look, no one is being mean to anyone and suddenly everyone has become altruistic and kind and, by golly, moral!
You don’t see that, regardless of how “right” iVoodo may or may not be, the statement itself is absolutely meaningless? Hell, the first four words of your reply were, “Humankind is inherently selfish.”
I mean, under this rubric, Communism may work.
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:
Perhaps the ‘Roots of Morality’ are merely biological response.
What is the logical course of action once selfish and biological needs are met?
I would say the advancement and betterment of the race as a whole is the only viable next step, hence, morality, ethics, is simply a part of Human nature, a logical response to a completed goal.
What else is there to do besides try to be “good?”
Especially when you don’t have to worry about food, sex, water, shelter, etc.
[/quote]
Yeah, sure, we can extrapolate that. Since it has happened so many times throughout history that once man has created a stable society that meets his survival and comfort needs, he benignly, charitably cares for his fellow man, is satisfied with what he has, and little pink unicorns dance through rainbow meadows of honey flavored dew.
Yeah, the history of human civilization totally backs this up. [/quote]
The ‘perhaps’ indicates the theoretical basis of my observation, obviously there is not global Harmony, possibly because, no large scale society has ever properly provided for all of it’s citizens needs. If that is even possible is a whole other debate.
I could cite some peaceful and willingly communal tribes that have existed for millenia, but compared to the super-societies we have now, they really aren’t too relevant.
But do you really think it is impossible for people to genuinely care about others?
People are selfish, extremely so, once their own personal needs are met they usually, selfishly, provide for their family, and then after those needs are met they usually, selfishly, provide for their communities, and then after those needs are met they usually, selfishly, attempt to provide for the whole race.
The pursuit of personal power, and also general laziness throw a wrench in these pursuits, among other undesirable characteristics, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a logical, and worthwhile course of action to take.
[/quote]
See my comment above.
I do agree with ephrem. Humans are inherently selfish. This is a product of our biology and serves to ensure our survival, in many cases. They are also amazing, miraculous, beautiful creatures who overcome their basal urges to perform acts of selflessness that all of us recognize as good.
Morality has nothing at all do to with our current state of satiation. Nothing. Morality IS or it isn’t, and I can show you quite easily that all of us indeed believe that it is. It is not something that humans create, or that is innate to us. It is not something latent within us, waiting to break free when the correct conditions are met. Morality is something that we either adhere to or do not. Humans do and have not done this for the entirety of our history, and we will continue to do and do not so as long as we are around to make choices. There is a man in the foulest dumps of Bangladesh right now giving his last morsel of food to a dying stranger, and there is a Jerry Sandusky with a happy family, successful career, money, the respect and trust of his community, and a retirement package brimming with benefits who has no qualms committing the most atrocious evil.
Needs, no needs, what is good will always be good. What is evil will always be evil. And no matter what society looks like, there will always be plenty of both.