Okay sure, you're right in the "Where does morality originally come from?" sense, but let's be honest here, probably 90% of the USA grew up in a religious household, and learned morality through religion.
Incorrect. Most Americans learned morality from the nascent philosophical Enlightenment tradition of morality that is the foundation of the United States.
You know, the tradition that says slavery and genocide wrong, that equal rights is a moral ideal, and that everyone should have the freedom to believe what they want. You certainly don't find these morals in the Bible—a book that actually commands slavery, genocide, and killing unbelievers.
Most religious people in America simply cherry-pick the select few parts of the Bible that align with our culture's secular Enlightenment morality and ignore the vast swaths of their religion that contradict it.
Qingu on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
On topic: I see humans as a flaw, to be honest. Sure, some species cause the extinction of another, but thats just how it is. Humans, however, cause dozens of different types of animals and plants to become extinct every week, and I just don't see how thats right. We're literally raping the world for our own benefit.
And on the medical point, frankly, medicinal science is halting the natural checks and balance system employed by nature (ie diseases, viruses, etc). Sure, I want the overall advancement of the species, but I don't think this is the way to go...I think our existence with the Earth should be harmonious, not destructive.
You only think that because you don't know how the world works.
And you only think that our killing thousands of species is "wrong" because of your human morality, which by your argument means absolutely nothing.
Morality deals with a priori principles -- that "thou shall not kill" is, in itself, true.
Except when it isn't? Such as in Deuteronomy 20:16 when God commands you to kill an entire culture of people so they don't make your culture impure?
"Thou shalt not murder" is true in and of itself ... because it's a tautology. The word "murder" is defined as "unlawful killing."
I think that was kinda his point about morality and ethics. It is always morally wrong to kill, however in some specific situations under certain moral frameworks it is acceptable, which would be ethics.
Do what god says and do not kill are both moral imperatives. To kill on god's command is ethical.
Of course typically when I think I know what poldy is talking about, his next post delves into theories of metaphysics and semantics denser than a neutron star.
Morality deals with a priori principles -- that "thou shall not kill" is, in itself, true.
Except when it isn't? Such as in Deuteronomy 20:16 when God commands you to kill an entire culture of people so they don't make your culture impure?
"Thou shalt not murder" is true in and of itself ... because it's a tautology. The word "murder" is defined as "unlawful killing."
I'm pretty sure God can change the rules.
EDIT: For the OP, fascinated by ants.
Sherlock Holmes sez: "What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
are you arguing that because there is no big father in the sky, that all life is meaningless, that morality and ethics and principle all derive from God, and without God there is no such thing as morality or ethics or principle?
help me out here i don't really understand what you guys are saying
Podly once started a thread wherein he posited the following "Atheists who say they have morals are hypocrites".
Morality =/= ethics.
This distinction does not exist. Morality and ethics are words for the same goddamned thing. Any distinction that you attempt to make will be purely your own construction, Poldy, and you've read enough language philosophy to know that without currency, your distinction will be essentially meaningless.
Incorrect. Most Americans learned morality from the nascent philosophical Enlightenment tradition of morality that is the foundation of the United States.
Yeah, this is bullshit. First, while the United States may have been founded with a certain approach to morality (who are you thinking of here, by the way? Locke? J.S. Mill?) by its political elites, the vast majority of the citizenry wouldn't have the privilege of being able to read those thinkers, and would most likely receive their moral upbringing from the institutions available to them. Such as the Protestantism. That's not to say that these sects of Christianity weren't influenced by the Enlightenment - they certainly were - but you are basically saying that since Thomas Jefferson read Locke, then the entire population of the U.S. from the beginning to the hereafter will always and has historically, derived their moral education from Locke (or whomever you are talking about).
You know, the tradition that says slavery and genocide wrong
I just want to point out that catholic (note the small 'c') Christianity established this sort of thing in the third and fourth centuries. The prohibition on slavery, that is - as far as genocide, I don't believe it was a word until the 20th century?
Furthermore, you are having a very rosy view of Enlightenment morality. There are really only two moral theories to consider during the early modern period, Kantian Deontology or Benthamite Utilitarianism, and both would absolutely allow for genocide under their respective systems. Same with slavery.
that everyone should have the freedom to believe what they want.
Except in constitutional monarchy. Or absolutism. Or any other political philosophy or order that does not recognize the farce that is Lockean contract theory.
You certainly don't find these morals in the Bible—a book that actually commands slavery, genocide, and killing unbelievers.
Here we go again, taking one small slice of things out of context and then ignoring the rest. You must come from a Protestant background, Qingu, because the only other people I see who insist on reading the Bible out of context and ignoring all of the other traditions of the Church and biblical scholarship are Calvinists of one sort or another.
Most religious people in America simply cherry-pick the select few parts of the Bible that align with our culture's secular Enlightenment morality and ignore the vast swaths of their religion that contradict it.
The Bible is only a small part of the Christian religion. And, indeed, I find it particularly ironic that you are the one bemoaning people who "ignore vast swaths of their religion" - especially these vast swaths that are not in the scripture that, in fact, contradict or place into context all of the things that you find so objectionable.
Finally, I would ask you this: how many fundamentalist Christians are in your country? I would put forward that the secular Enlightenment morality that you keep referring to (but never making clear what exactly you are talking about...) is not reflective of the views of this group of people, a group which I understand constitutes a very large percentage of your population.
1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
say that morality is exclusive to religion? It seems to be extremely un-exclusive. So why would an atheist claiming to have morals be a hypocrite?
Edit: Mostly directed at you Podly, that thread you made last year was part of the reason I finally registered here at PA.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
say that morality is exclusive to religion? It seems to be extremely un-exclusive. So why would an atheist claiming to have morals be a hypocrite?
Edit: Mostly directed at you Podly, that thread you made last year was part of the reason I finally registered here at PA.
Well, I contend that morality is founded in a priori principles. So, even if the morality stems from some ambiguous metaphysical entity entitled "society," there is still no way to make something like "you ought not lie" true other than by its being true a priori. If an atheist is a physicalist, they don't have a way of making that true.
1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
say that morality is exclusive to religion? It seems to be extremely un-exclusive. So why would an atheist claiming to have morals be a hypocrite?
Edit: Mostly directed at you Podly, that thread you made last year was part of the reason I finally registered here at PA.
Well, I contend that morality is founded in a priori principles. So, even if the morality stems from some ambiguous metaphysical entity entitled "society," there is still no way to make something like "you ought not lie" true other than by its being true a priori. If an atheist is a physicalist, they don't have a way of making that true.
Wouldn't it be objectively true though that murder is wrong within a society like the United States though, or most if not all other societies?
Yeah, this is bullshit. First, while the United States may have been founded with a certain approach to morality (who are you thinking of here, by the way? Locke? J.S. Mill?) by its political elites, the vast majority of the citizenry wouldn't have the privilege of being able to read those thinkers, and would most likely receive their moral upbringing from the institutions available to them. Such as the Protestantism. That's not to say that these sects of Christianity weren't influenced by the Enlightenment - they certainly were - but you are basically saying that since Thomas Jefferson read Locke, then the entire population of the U.S. from the beginning to the hereafter will always and has historically, derived their moral education from Locke (or whomever you are talking about).
I'm not denying that actual, Biblical religious morality has not played a large role in aggregate "American" morality. I was specifically denying the assertion that religion overwhelmingly informs morality today. Though, as you point out, American religion has been overwhelmingly influenced by Enlightenment ideals—look at Christian abolitionism, which is in direct contradiction to Christianity's holy scriptures.
I just want to point out that catholic (note the small 'c') Christianity established this sort of thing in the third and fourth centuries. The prohibition on slavery, that is - as far as genocide, I don't believe it was a word until the 20th century?
You and your apologetics. Which church father outlawed slavery and killing unbelievers? Citation needed.
Furthermore, you are having a very rosy view of Enlightenment morality. There are really only two moral theories to consider during the early modern period, Kantian Deontology or Benthamite Utilitarianism, and both would absolutely allow for genocide under their respective systems. Same with slavery.
I'm using the term broadly, and it has obviously evolved and is still evolving. I think it's fair to say that equal rights and freedom of speech—arguably the most fundamental "morals" of American culture—came out of the Enlightenment tradition, and have nothing to do with Christianity (except where Christianity absorbed that tradition and changed itself to suit it).
here we go again, taking one small slice of things out of context and then ignoring the rest. You must come from a Protestant background, Qingu, because the only other people I see who insist on reading the Bible out of context and ignoring all of the other traditions of the Church and biblical scholarship are Calvinists of one sort or another.
I know that you never got around to responding back in our last discussion, but if you are going to accuse me of taking passages of the Bible "out of context" you are going to need to defend your assertion. You keep on saying this, and you never back it up. You never explain what you think the proper context is. It's incredibly annoying, and the main reason I got so bent out of shape with you in our last discussion.
The Bible is only a small part of the Christian religion.
It is the foundation of the Christian religion. Without the Bible, there would be no Christianity. The fact that Christianity has evolved nonBiblical traditions and that most Christians are ignorant of the Bible doesn't mean you get to marginalize its importance.
Finally, I would ask you this: how many fundamentalist Christians are in your country? I would put forward that the secular Enlightenment morality that you keep referring to (but never making clear what exactly you are talking about...) is not reflective of the views of this group of people, a group which I understand constitutes a very large percentage of your population.
I've seen upwards of 25% of voters being evangelicals. And yes, I agree with you: their morality does come from the Bible as opposed to the enlightenment. Except when it doesn't, and they run contortions of dishonesty around themselves to avoid acknowledging the fact that their literal 100% true Bible commands the very un-Enlightenment ideas of slavery and killing unbelievers.
Well, I contend that morality is founded in a priori principles. So, even if the morality stems from some ambiguous metaphysical entity entitled "society," there is still no way to make something like "you ought not lie" true other than by its being true a priori. If an atheist is a physicalist, they don't have a way of making that true.
Except there is powerful evidence about the biological universality of some basic moral decisions (the runaway train car questions). Given that the answers to the train car questions are the same across cultures & religions (heck, it's been translated for tribes in the Amazon rain forest) does that not suggest an a priori source for morals.
[Wouldn't it be objectively [/] true though that murder is wrong within a society like the United States though, or most if not all other societies?
I don't know how you are using the terms "objectively," "true," or "wrong."
You're gonna have to expand on this for me to see your point, if there is one besides semantics. We have definitions for these words, I use words according to what they mean.
Well, I contend that morality is founded in a priori principles. So, even if the morality stems from some ambiguous metaphysical entity entitled "society," there is still no way to make something like "you ought not lie" true other than by its being true a priori. If an atheist is a physicalist, they don't have a way of making that true.
Except there is powerful evidence about the biological universality of some basic moral decisions (the runaway train car questions). Given that the answers to the train car questions are the same across cultures & religions (heck, it's been translated for tribes in the Amazon rain forest) does that not suggest an a priori source for morals.
It actually suggests an evolutionary source for morals. Since we evolved from social apes that also have morals.
I'm a little late to the thread, but to the OP, I have a couple of points to make.
One, feel free to not respond, but how old are you? I ask because when I was a teenager I had similar ideas, as humanity is virus-like (true), and that the "earth" would be better off without our species. The inevitable conclusion is we destroy ourselves and everything around us.
Now, I've grown up, my views have shifted. A lot of people in this thread are smart, and a lot of what they have said I've come to agree with based on my own experiences. I remember in college I had a professor who hated me, I'm an athiest, he knew it, he was also a pastor, and very religious. There was an essay talking about morals, a global code we should live by. It was essentially asking us what morals we believed in. Maybe I didn't clearly get my point across, because he gave me a shit grade, but my point was this: what morals I believed in didn't matter. It was relative. How could I say to some African tribe that their cannibalism is wrong? Is it any worse than anything else the society I live in does and approves of? From their point of view, it's the right thing to do. I have my own morals I live by, and by all accounts, I'm a better person than most who follow religion. A lot of religious people fail to see why I have morals. Just because I don't believe I'll be burning in Hell in the afterlife doesn't mean I shouldn't help someone out when I'm able to.
While I still believe those things to an extent, I also recognize the harm it does for everyone to do whatever they want all the time, under the guise of "it's their nature", or "it's their culture." People should be allowed to do what they want, as long as it does not harm anyone else. A pretty basic code. So, when I say I believe one could say "it's in their nature/culture for some middle-easterners to murder their children because they went and got married to someone they wanted to, or remove the clitoris from young girls to prevent promiscuity," I also can say, "Fuck it, I think it's wrong, and people should go in and stop it."
Anyways, I think I got really off topic, and rather than do the smart thing and proof-read whatever the hell I just typed above, I'll go to my next point.
OP, the current trend is to "go green." We are at the point where there is an awareness of how humans affect our environment, and people are actively trying to fix it. You're saying you want harmony with the Earth (ecosystem), would you be opposed to a future where everything is electric, and we have no hazardous emissions? Where everything we do we offset by growing things, convert building tops to greenhouses? Form more green buildings, find a way to safely breakdown and remove things that sit in landfills? Where we can set up habitats to ensure animal survival? Where, with the remains of those species that we made extinct (or those that were extinct before our time), we could bring back to life?
I see that as the goal, the desire is there, the idea is gaining acceptance. You aren't looking at the big picture. At the start, we might have had minimal impact to the "earth," and right now, we are in the middle, where everything we do is hazardous to the earth, but in time, because of those growing pains, we will understand how to reverse that, while keeping our way of life. Does that make any sense, and do you agree with any of that?
EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, you seem to want to go in the past, and freeze humanity at that state. That can't happen, and it couldn't work. What I'm saying is maybe you should be looking ahead instead of behind. If you feel strongly about your desire to help and improve 'earth', then look into what you can do to get humanity to that point in the future where we can undo everything bad, and keep everything we have that is good.
Wait, you want us to return to a hunter-gatherer society and yet you also support the 'natural advancement' of our species? What?
I think everything should go to a certain extent.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
This is a statement made in complete ignorance of human history.
Please refer to the megafauna of Australia and North America and how harmoniously we lived with them as hunter-gatherers.
(Pro-tip, it was pretty heavy on the hunter side).
Also, on the topic of natural progression, agricultural societies became the norm because they won out in natural selection over migratory hunter tribes.
NotASenator on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
[Wouldn't it be objectively [/] true though that murder is wrong within a society like the United States though, or most if not all other societies?
I don't know how you are using the terms "objectively," "true," or "wrong."
You're gonna have to expand on this for me to see your point, if there is one besides semantics. We have definitions for these words, I use words according to what they mean.
Now you're just being evasive, unless you really think that they only have one meaning. I could see your statement being interpreted in the following way
1) All societies have morals, and since many people believe them, they are sociological facts.
2) Since people interact with society, and societies are built on cultural traditions, which themselves are built upon certain historical propositions, of which comprise morals, people interact with morals.
3) There are laws which forbid murder, and thus murder is always transgression of the law.
4) Societies have ideals, and morals are ideals; people, generally, have the same ideals as their society; thus, people within a society share morals.
[Wouldn't it be objectively [/] true though that murder is wrong within a society like the United States though, or most if not all other societies?
I don't know how you are using the terms "objectively," "true," or "wrong."
You're gonna have to expand on this for me to see your point, if there is one besides semantics. We have definitions for these words, I use words according to what they mean.
Now you're just being evasive, unless you really think that they only have one meaning. I could see your statement being interpreted in the following way
1) All societies have morals, and since many people believe them, they are sociological facts.
2) Since people interact with society, and societies are built on cultural traditions, which themselves are built upon certain historical propositions, of which comprise morals, people interact with morals.
3) There are laws which forbid murder, and thus murder is always transgression of the law.
4) Societies have ideals, and morals are ideals; people, generally, have the same ideals as their society; thus, people within a society share morals.
in addition to many others.
Not being evasive really, on purpose at least.
Something along the lines of 1) and 3) is what I was thinking about.
[Wouldn't it be objectively [/] true though that murder is wrong within a society like the United States though, or most if not all other societies?
I don't know how you are using the terms "objectively," "true," or "wrong."
You're gonna have to expand on this for me to see your point, if there is one besides semantics. We have definitions for these words, I use words according to what they mean.
Now you're just being evasive, unless you really think that they only have one meaning. I could see your statement being interpreted in the following way
1) All societies have morals, and since many people believe them, they are sociological facts.
2) Since people interact with society, and societies are built on cultural traditions, which themselves are built upon certain historical propositions, of which comprise morals, people interact with morals.
3) There are laws which forbid murder, and thus murder is always transgression of the law.
4) Societies have ideals, and morals are ideals; people, generally, have the same ideals as their society; thus, people within a society share morals.
in addition to many others.
Podly, I think you (and others) tend to make morals conceptually more complex than they are.
Here's how I define morals: they are codes governing animal behavior. (I say "animal" because it's clear that other social animals also have morals.)
Like all other things having to do with animal behavior, morals evolve. Some morals are better suited for the environment than other morals. The "environment" here can mean either the natural environment or the socioeconomic environment in which animals find themselves. These morals tend to survive and propagate more than morals that are not suited.
So, in large societies, the moral "unprovoked killing is wrong" tends to be common. This moral is necessary for large societies to form in the first place. Interestingly, many smaller tribes have no problem with unprovoked killing, which leads to spirals of revenge violence. Lacking such a moral, these tribes have not succeeded in propagating their culture and creating larger societies.
Morals which are claimed to be "universal" seem universal for the same reason that eyes in the animal kingdom seem universal. Eyes have independently evolved 40 times in the animal kingdom. Having eyes is just a "good idea"—being able to see confers huge advantage and so this trait is incredibly common. Similarly, "do not randomly kill"; "do not have sex with your family members" and "do not steal" confer huge advantage re: the stability of human (and ape) societies, and so these morals are common throughout the world.
Also, regarding the word "law," I understand "law" to mean a moral that is enforced by society at large. Writing makes it easier to have laws.
Posts
I already knew you were going to say that. Because I've undergone precognitive therapy.
Awesome levels critical.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
woah
will I commit any crimes in the future?
Yes. All I can say is: Remember to turn left.
You'll know when.
Right.
No, no: Left. LEFT.
You know, the tradition that says slavery and genocide wrong, that equal rights is a moral ideal, and that everyone should have the freedom to believe what they want. You certainly don't find these morals in the Bible—a book that actually commands slavery, genocide, and killing unbelievers.
Most religious people in America simply cherry-pick the select few parts of the Bible that align with our culture's secular Enlightenment morality and ignore the vast swaths of their religion that contradict it.
Right!
But still, psychiatry is still somewhat more science than philosophy anyway.
"Thou shalt not murder" is true in and of itself ... because it's a tautology. The word "murder" is defined as "unlawful killing."
And you only think that our killing thousands of species is "wrong" because of your human morality, which by your argument means absolutely nothing.
Your entire worldview is based upon ignorance.
I think that was kinda his point about morality and ethics. It is always morally wrong to kill, however in some specific situations under certain moral frameworks it is acceptable, which would be ethics.
Do what god says and do not kill are both moral imperatives. To kill on god's command is ethical.
Of course typically when I think I know what poldy is talking about, his next post delves into theories of metaphysics and semantics denser than a neutron star.
I'm pretty sure God can change the rules.
EDIT: For the OP, fascinated by ants.
Sherlock Holmes sez: "What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently; "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."
What if God says "Thou shalt not follow Me (God)."
What then?
This distinction does not exist. Morality and ethics are words for the same goddamned thing. Any distinction that you attempt to make will be purely your own construction, Poldy, and you've read enough language philosophy to know that without currency, your distinction will be essentially meaningless.
I would most definitely go to Aristotle. He'd have things ship shape in no time at all.
Yeah, this is bullshit. First, while the United States may have been founded with a certain approach to morality (who are you thinking of here, by the way? Locke? J.S. Mill?) by its political elites, the vast majority of the citizenry wouldn't have the privilege of being able to read those thinkers, and would most likely receive their moral upbringing from the institutions available to them. Such as the Protestantism. That's not to say that these sects of Christianity weren't influenced by the Enlightenment - they certainly were - but you are basically saying that since Thomas Jefferson read Locke, then the entire population of the U.S. from the beginning to the hereafter will always and has historically, derived their moral education from Locke (or whomever you are talking about).
I just want to point out that catholic (note the small 'c') Christianity established this sort of thing in the third and fourth centuries. The prohibition on slavery, that is - as far as genocide, I don't believe it was a word until the 20th century?
Furthermore, you are having a very rosy view of Enlightenment morality. There are really only two moral theories to consider during the early modern period, Kantian Deontology or Benthamite Utilitarianism, and both would absolutely allow for genocide under their respective systems. Same with slavery.
Except in constitutional monarchy. Or absolutism. Or any other political philosophy or order that does not recognize the farce that is Lockean contract theory.
Here we go again, taking one small slice of things out of context and then ignoring the rest. You must come from a Protestant background, Qingu, because the only other people I see who insist on reading the Bible out of context and ignoring all of the other traditions of the Church and biblical scholarship are Calvinists of one sort or another.
The Bible is only a small part of the Christian religion. And, indeed, I find it particularly ironic that you are the one bemoaning people who "ignore vast swaths of their religion" - especially these vast swaths that are not in the scripture that, in fact, contradict or place into context all of the things that you find so objectionable.
Finally, I would ask you this: how many fundamentalist Christians are in your country? I would put forward that the secular Enlightenment morality that you keep referring to (but never making clear what exactly you are talking about...) is not reflective of the views of this group of people, a group which I understand constitutes a very large percentage of your population.
You flip a coin and hope for the best. Them's ethics for ya.
say that morality is exclusive to religion? It seems to be extremely un-exclusive. So why would an atheist claiming to have morals be a hypocrite?
Edit: Mostly directed at you Podly, that thread you made last year was part of the reason I finally registered here at PA.
Well, I contend that morality is founded in a priori principles. So, even if the morality stems from some ambiguous metaphysical entity entitled "society," there is still no way to make something like "you ought not lie" true other than by its being true a priori. If an atheist is a physicalist, they don't have a way of making that true.
Wouldn't it be objectively true though that murder is wrong within a society like the United States though, or most if not all other societies?
You and your apologetics. Which church father outlawed slavery and killing unbelievers? Citation needed.
I'm using the term broadly, and it has obviously evolved and is still evolving. I think it's fair to say that equal rights and freedom of speech—arguably the most fundamental "morals" of American culture—came out of the Enlightenment tradition, and have nothing to do with Christianity (except where Christianity absorbed that tradition and changed itself to suit it).
I know that you never got around to responding back in our last discussion, but if you are going to accuse me of taking passages of the Bible "out of context" you are going to need to defend your assertion. You keep on saying this, and you never back it up. You never explain what you think the proper context is. It's incredibly annoying, and the main reason I got so bent out of shape with you in our last discussion.
It is the foundation of the Christian religion. Without the Bible, there would be no Christianity. The fact that Christianity has evolved nonBiblical traditions and that most Christians are ignorant of the Bible doesn't mean you get to marginalize its importance.
I've seen upwards of 25% of voters being evangelicals. And yes, I agree with you: their morality does come from the Bible as opposed to the enlightenment. Except when it doesn't, and they run contortions of dishonesty around themselves to avoid acknowledging the fact that their literal 100% true Bible commands the very un-Enlightenment ideas of slavery and killing unbelievers.
Except there is powerful evidence about the biological universality of some basic moral decisions (the runaway train car questions). Given that the answers to the train car questions are the same across cultures & religions (heck, it's been translated for tribes in the Amazon rain forest) does that not suggest an a priori source for morals.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I don't know how you are using the terms "objectively," "true," or "wrong."
That and the fact that it has gotten to 11 pages...
I've been trying. I really have.
Its like, the perfect storm of stupidity.
You're gonna have to expand on this for me to see your point, if there is one besides semantics. We have definitions for these words, I use words according to what they mean.
One, feel free to not respond, but how old are you? I ask because when I was a teenager I had similar ideas, as humanity is virus-like (true), and that the "earth" would be better off without our species. The inevitable conclusion is we destroy ourselves and everything around us.
Now, I've grown up, my views have shifted. A lot of people in this thread are smart, and a lot of what they have said I've come to agree with based on my own experiences. I remember in college I had a professor who hated me, I'm an athiest, he knew it, he was also a pastor, and very religious. There was an essay talking about morals, a global code we should live by. It was essentially asking us what morals we believed in. Maybe I didn't clearly get my point across, because he gave me a shit grade, but my point was this: what morals I believed in didn't matter. It was relative. How could I say to some African tribe that their cannibalism is wrong? Is it any worse than anything else the society I live in does and approves of? From their point of view, it's the right thing to do. I have my own morals I live by, and by all accounts, I'm a better person than most who follow religion. A lot of religious people fail to see why I have morals. Just because I don't believe I'll be burning in Hell in the afterlife doesn't mean I shouldn't help someone out when I'm able to.
While I still believe those things to an extent, I also recognize the harm it does for everyone to do whatever they want all the time, under the guise of "it's their nature", or "it's their culture." People should be allowed to do what they want, as long as it does not harm anyone else. A pretty basic code. So, when I say I believe one could say "it's in their nature/culture for some middle-easterners to murder their children because they went and got married to someone they wanted to, or remove the clitoris from young girls to prevent promiscuity," I also can say, "Fuck it, I think it's wrong, and people should go in and stop it."
Anyways, I think I got really off topic, and rather than do the smart thing and proof-read whatever the hell I just typed above, I'll go to my next point.
OP, the current trend is to "go green." We are at the point where there is an awareness of how humans affect our environment, and people are actively trying to fix it. You're saying you want harmony with the Earth (ecosystem), would you be opposed to a future where everything is electric, and we have no hazardous emissions? Where everything we do we offset by growing things, convert building tops to greenhouses? Form more green buildings, find a way to safely breakdown and remove things that sit in landfills? Where we can set up habitats to ensure animal survival? Where, with the remains of those species that we made extinct (or those that were extinct before our time), we could bring back to life?
I see that as the goal, the desire is there, the idea is gaining acceptance. You aren't looking at the big picture. At the start, we might have had minimal impact to the "earth," and right now, we are in the middle, where everything we do is hazardous to the earth, but in time, because of those growing pains, we will understand how to reverse that, while keeping our way of life. Does that make any sense, and do you agree with any of that?
EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is, you seem to want to go in the past, and freeze humanity at that state. That can't happen, and it couldn't work. What I'm saying is maybe you should be looking ahead instead of behind. If you feel strongly about your desire to help and improve 'earth', then look into what you can do to get humanity to that point in the future where we can undo everything bad, and keep everything we have that is good.
This is a statement made in complete ignorance of human history.
Please refer to the megafauna of Australia and North America and how harmoniously we lived with them as hunter-gatherers.
(Pro-tip, it was pretty heavy on the hunter side).
Also, on the topic of natural progression, agricultural societies became the norm because they won out in natural selection over migratory hunter tribes.
Now you're just being evasive, unless you really think that they only have one meaning. I could see your statement being interpreted in the following way
1) All societies have morals, and since many people believe them, they are sociological facts.
2) Since people interact with society, and societies are built on cultural traditions, which themselves are built upon certain historical propositions, of which comprise morals, people interact with morals.
3) There are laws which forbid murder, and thus murder is always transgression of the law.
4) Societies have ideals, and morals are ideals; people, generally, have the same ideals as their society; thus, people within a society share morals.
in addition to many others.
Not being evasive really, on purpose at least.
Something along the lines of 1) and 3) is what I was thinking about.
Psychiatrists are physicians.
Damn you! I was just coming in here to say it sounds like the OP just got done watching the BSG finale.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't know, parts of it sounded too much like The Matrix to me.
Here's how I define morals: they are codes governing animal behavior. (I say "animal" because it's clear that other social animals also have morals.)
Like all other things having to do with animal behavior, morals evolve. Some morals are better suited for the environment than other morals. The "environment" here can mean either the natural environment or the socioeconomic environment in which animals find themselves. These morals tend to survive and propagate more than morals that are not suited.
So, in large societies, the moral "unprovoked killing is wrong" tends to be common. This moral is necessary for large societies to form in the first place. Interestingly, many smaller tribes have no problem with unprovoked killing, which leads to spirals of revenge violence. Lacking such a moral, these tribes have not succeeded in propagating their culture and creating larger societies.
Morals which are claimed to be "universal" seem universal for the same reason that eyes in the animal kingdom seem universal. Eyes have independently evolved 40 times in the animal kingdom. Having eyes is just a "good idea"—being able to see confers huge advantage and so this trait is incredibly common. Similarly, "do not randomly kill"; "do not have sex with your family members" and "do not steal" confer huge advantage re: the stability of human (and ape) societies, and so these morals are common throughout the world.
Also, regarding the word "law," I understand "law" to mean a moral that is enforced by society at large. Writing makes it easier to have laws.