There is no Morality

[Diuretic]

Interesting theory, but would you care to offer some supporting evidence?

About prejudice being natural? Test the water here.

No, about the rest of the post. The offhand remark about prejudice, I'm just putting down to natural projection of personal flaws onto other people as a way of justifying oneself. I don't waste time in bothering to answer what is essentially an emotional problem one needs to take up with one's therapist.

Okay, nothing about the substance only a presumption that you know anything about me. At least that's sorted.

 

[Diuretic]

What part of "your entire post consisted of jumping to conclusions" was confusing to you? Where did you go wrong? Pretty much every word you uttered, and all the premises they were based on.

Can you be a bit more specific?

No. That's as specific as it gets. Every word of your post was crap, and all the premises it was based on were crap. Start over.

Okay, no specifics but generalisations aplenty. That doesn't give me much to work on.

 

[Intense]

Probably not, it probably precedes religion itself.

The golden rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts;[3] it was present in the philosophies of ancient Judaism, India, Greece, and China. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways, but its most common English phrasing is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Luke: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The "Do unto others" wording first appeared in English in a Catholic Catechism around 1567, but certainly in the reprint of 1583.[4]
Ethic of reciprocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I appreciate the info - but - not that this is a huge issue - it probably precedes religion, being useful for humans in overcoming our natural instinct to be wary of others outside our immediate circle.

You have got to think outside of the box more. Nomadic Circles would build and break apart on disagreements, rivalry, Jealousies. New groups always forming, staying big enough to ward off attack, but not too big. The very young and old, the first to go when food supply gets too low.

Farming communities would have more hold because of what is invested, even labor wise. Crops, Herds, benefiting more from numbers in Society, sharing work load and Protection. They would build with success and break up with disaster.

Life Experience tells You that what comes around goes around, and that is What leads to the Golden Rule. Self Preservation and Development, compounds and Multiplies when Shared or Taught. We are better Individually and Collectively.

 

[Diuretic]

The golden rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts;[3] it was present in the philosophies of ancient Judaism, India, Greece, and China. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways, but its most common English phrasing is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Luke: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The "Do unto others" wording first appeared in English in a Catholic Catechism around 1567, but certainly in the reprint of 1583.[4]
Ethic of reciprocity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I appreciate the info - but - not that this is a huge issue - it probably precedes religion, being useful for humans in overcoming our natural instinct to be wary of others outside our immediate circle.

You have got to think outside of the box more. Nomadic Circles would build and break apart on disagreements, rivalry, Jealousies. New groups always forming, staying big enough to ward off attack, but not too big. The very young and old, the first to go when food supply gets too low.

Farming communities would have more hold because of what is invested, even labor wise. Crops, Herds, benefiting more from numbers in Society, sharing work load and Protection. They would build with success and break up with disaster.

Life Experience tells You that what comes around goes around, and that is What leads to the Golden Rule. Self Preservation and Development, compounds and Multiplies when Shared or Taught. We are better Individually and Collectively.

I have to say I agree with your points. I'm one of those people who accept that the biological imperative is the driver for much human motivation, be it individual or collective in nature. Nomadic, subsistence type human groupings developed a set of customs that enhanced the survival of individuals and the collective, as you point out. In tough times because the very old (a relative term but encompassing those too infirm through age to contribute to food and water gathering) and the very young (who by definition can't contribute), they were left behind or dispatched.

Sedentary groups that practice farming aren't subject to the vagaries of subsistence so they can afford to ignore the customs of subsistence groups, again as you indicate.

The golden rule makes sense in the light of the biological imperative. To ensure its survival as a concept it makes sense to incorporate it into the religion of the group, the presumed existence of an omnipotent authority and an afterlife where one is called to account for one's acts in a previous existence would be fairly solid guarantees that most individuals would comply.

 

[Intense]

I appreciate the info - but - not that this is a huge issue - it probably precedes religion, being useful for humans in overcoming our natural instinct to be wary of others outside our immediate circle.

You have got to think outside of the box more. Nomadic Circles would build and break apart on disagreements, rivalry, Jealousies. New groups always forming, staying big enough to ward off attack, but not too big. The very young and old, the first to go when food supply gets too low.

Farming communities would have more hold because of what is invested, even labor wise. Crops, Herds, benefiting more from numbers in Society, sharing work load and Protection. They would build with success and break up with disaster.

Life Experience tells You that what comes around goes around, and that is What leads to the Golden Rule. Self Preservation and Development, compounds and Multiplies when Shared or Taught. We are better Individually and Collectively.

I have to say I agree with your points. I'm one of those people who accept that the biological imperative is the driver for much human motivation, be it individual or collective in nature. Nomadic, subsistence type human groupings developed a set of customs that enhanced the survival of individuals and the collective, as you point out. In tough times because the very old (a relative term but encompassing those too infirm through age to contribute to food and water gathering) and the very young (who by definition can't contribute), they were left behind or dispatched.

Sedentary groups that practice farming aren't subject to the vagaries of subsistence so they can afford to ignore the customs of subsistence groups, again as you indicate.

The golden rule makes sense in the light of the biological imperative. To ensure its survival as a concept it makes sense to incorporate it into the religion of the group, the presumed existence of an omnipotent authority and an afterlife where one is called to account for one's acts in a previous existence would be fairly solid guarantees that most individuals would comply.

If You add Consequence and Conscience to the Equation, there is more incentive to walk that extra mile too.

 

[amrchaos]

"Working out what was good for us and what was bad for us" is called morality. Societies are formed on common beliefs, and the vast majority of societies has been formed based on a common religious belief. Name one that wasn't.

Hang on. Apparently we agree that morality is "working out what was good forus and what was bad for us". I'll just put that aside for a moment because I'm not going to claim that there is an agreement until it's acknowledged.

"Societies are formed on common beliefs."

Are they? Or do common beliefs follow the gathering that becomes a society? And could it be the case that societies are actually formed out of a need for humans to cooperate with one another to respond to the biological imperative?

If "the vast majority of societies has been formed based on a common religious belief" then that assumes that the religious belief existed prior to the society existing. How could that be?

Careful--it could mean common beliefs shared by individuals in that society, not trans-societal beliefs that are shared.

Like was said earlier--SOME religions used to require human sacrifices.

SOME religions used to keep temple prostitutes.

SOME religions stoned people for what was considered major infractions by its members.

But not all religions did the same thing. Nor is there one religion that established all the cultures and societies that exist today.

I just realized that this is almost proof that all religions are man made.

"No one religion established all societies or culture. "​

 

[Intense]

Hang on. Apparently we agree that morality is "working out what was good forus and what was bad for us". I'll just put that aside for a moment because I'm not going to claim that there is an agreement until it's acknowledged.

"Societies are formed on common beliefs."

Are they? Or do common beliefs follow the gathering that becomes a society? And could it be the case that societies are actually formed out of a need for humans to cooperate with one another to respond to the biological imperative?

If "the vast majority of societies has been formed based on a common religious belief" then that assumes that the religious belief existed prior to the society existing. How could that be?

Careful--it could mean common beliefs shared by individuals in that society, not trans-societal beliefs that are shared.

Like was said earlier--SOME religions used to require human sacrifices.

SOME religions used to keep temple prostitutes.

SOME religions stoned people for what was considered major infractions by its members.

But not all religions did the same thing. Nor is there one religion that established all the cultures and societies that exist today.

I just realized that this is almost proof that all religions are man made.

"No one religion established all societies or culture. "​

From the perspective that You Carry Around Your Religion Inside You, You are Born with it, Live developing it, and Die with it. The Fact that there are so many similarities, suggest Common Principles by the Design of Our Natures.

 

[mudwhistle]

Careful--it could mean common beliefs shared by individuals in that society, not trans-societal beliefs that are shared.

Like was said earlier--SOME religions used to require human sacrifices.

SOME religions used to keep temple prostitutes.

SOME religions stoned people for what was considered major infractions by its members.

But not all religions did the same thing. Nor is there one religion that established all the cultures and societies that exist today.

I just realized that this is almost proof that all religions are man made.

"No one religion established all societies or culture. "​

From the perspective that You Carry Around Your Religion Inside You, You are Born with it, Live developing it, and Die with it. The Fact that there are so many similarities, suggest Common Principles by the Design of Our Natures.

Deep.....very deep....

 

[Diuretic]

You have got to think outside of the box more. Nomadic Circles would build and break apart on disagreements, rivalry, Jealousies. New groups always forming, staying big enough to ward off attack, but not too big. The very young and old, the first to go when food supply gets too low.

Farming communities would have more hold because of what is invested, even labor wise. Crops, Herds, benefiting more from numbers in Society, sharing work load and Protection. They would build with success and break up with disaster.

Life Experience tells You that what comes around goes around, and that is What leads to the Golden Rule. Self Preservation and Development, compounds and Multiplies when Shared or Taught. We are better Individually and Collectively.

I have to say I agree with your points. I'm one of those people who accept that the biological imperative is the driver for much human motivation, be it individual or collective in nature. Nomadic, subsistence type human groupings developed a set of customs that enhanced the survival of individuals and the collective, as you point out. In tough times because the very old (a relative term but encompassing those too infirm through age to contribute to food and water gathering) and the very young (who by definition can't contribute), they were left behind or dispatched.

Sedentary groups that practice farming aren't subject to the vagaries of subsistence so they can afford to ignore the customs of subsistence groups, again as you indicate.

The golden rule makes sense in the light of the biological imperative. To ensure its survival as a concept it makes sense to incorporate it into the religion of the group, the presumed existence of an omnipotent authority and an afterlife where one is called to account for one's acts in a previous existence would be fairly solid guarantees that most individuals would comply.

If You add Consequence and Conscience to the Equation, there is more incentive to walk that extra mile too.

It's interesting that you identify those two concepts. Consequence is a sort of acknowledgement of the practicality of a decision or custom I think. And conscience is - again only being tentative here - is an internalisation of the customs and mores of the group. But both are important.

 

[mudwhistle]

I have to say I agree with your points. I'm one of those people who accept that the biological imperative is the driver for much human motivation, be it individual or collective in nature. Nomadic, subsistence type human groupings developed a set of customs that enhanced the survival of individuals and the collective, as you point out. In tough times because the very old (a relative term but encompassing those too infirm through age to contribute to food and water gathering) and the very young (who by definition can't contribute), they were left behind or dispatched.

Sedentary groups that practice farming aren't subject to the vagaries of subsistence so they can afford to ignore the customs of subsistence groups, again as you indicate.

The golden rule makes sense in the light of the biological imperative. To ensure its survival as a concept it makes sense to incorporate it into the religion of the group, the presumed existence of an omnipotent authority and an afterlife where one is called to account for one's acts in a previous existence would be fairly solid guarantees that most individuals would comply.

If You add Consequence and Conscience to the Equation, there is more incentive to walk that extra mile too.

It's interesting that you identify those two concepts. Consequence is a sort of acknowledgement of the practicality of a decision or custom I think. And conscience is - again only being tentative here - is an internalisation of the customs and mores of the group. But both are important.

Very intuitive, thought provoking, and deep as well.

Now try saying it in English.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm still trying to get to grips how moronic Cec is. I mean, I knew she was, but sheettt, does she have to keep on proving it over and over again?

Arrogance and a lack of knowledge, and a feeling of superiority aside - still no excuse for being a dumb arse....

 

[midcan5]

Well did we figure this out yet? I noticed no one answered my question in 118, so do we agree that acts can be moral and not bound to any overarching principle? Do some actions, deemed moral, need any explanation or commandment or are they simply the right thing to do.

Why do some feel without commandments or a commander we would somehow change. Has any criminal ever argued he thought dishonesty was a moral activity, seems the poor crook got his tenets reversed and now shown the way is sure to become an upstanding citizen.

Suppose a religion told you to help no one but yourself, a dog eat dog religion. Self interest raised to religion. How long would the religion last you think? Not long, because at heart, religions consist of social elements, and then there is redemption. If you exclude others from the (your) moral universe can you be good. Interesting thought, do all religions have redemption as fundamental? Is that essential?

Primitive societies without complex social structures still contain a morality. If that is so, and all I have read confirms it, where does the moral agent find the answer.

Could a religion exist that claimed when you die you die, end of story. Well mere creature, do you think anymore of your dog. Is there a dog heaven. So be good, but don't worry no heaven or hell awaits you, see you at Church Sunday.

In the end religion is a leap - if people adhered to it would life be nicer?


"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." Gilbert K. Chesterton

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

 

[Intense]

Well did we figure this out yet? I noticed no one answered my question in 118, so do we agree that acts can be moral and not bound to any overarching principle? Do some actions, deemed moral, need any explanation or commandment or are they simply the right thing to do.

Why do some feel without commandments or a commander we would somehow change. Has any criminal ever argued he thought dishonesty was a moral activity, seems the poor crook got his tenets reversed and now shown the way is sure to become an upstanding citizen.

Suppose a religion told you to help no one but yourself, a dog eat dog religion. Self interest raised to religion. How long would the religion last you think? Not long, because at heart, religions consist of social elements, and then there is redemption. If you exclude others from the (your) moral universe can you be good. Interesting thought, do all religions have redemption as fundamental? Is that essential?

Primitive societies without complex social structures still contain a morality. If that is so, and all I have read confirms it, where does the moral agent find the answer.

Could a religion exist that claimed when you die you die, end of story. Well mere creature, do you think anymore of your dog. Is there a dog heaven. So be good, but don't worry no heaven or hell awaits you, see you at Church Sunday.

In the end religion is a leap - if people adhered to it would life be nicer?


"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." Gilbert K. Chesterton

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi

Even Scripture tells Us that We are Equipped with what We need to Discern, All of Us, whether We accept or reject, are given the Conscious choice. Whether You react Consciously or Subconsciously Midcan, the Code is within You. I've seen your post's for a long time now, and have no doubt of it.

Rand's Philosophy was Atheist and Self Serving. It did focus on overcoming malice, jealousy, unjustified possession, you want something or someone, you earn it. It was a strict code, fair in it's own rite. Rooted in Ability and competence. Removing unqualified obstruction. We should choose living Our Own Lives, rather than live for the control over others.

John Locke nailed it well.

Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself.

John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

 

[Intense]

I have to say I agree with your points. I'm one of those people who accept that the biological imperative is the driver for much human motivation, be it individual or collective in nature. Nomadic, subsistence type human groupings developed a set of customs that enhanced the survival of individuals and the collective, as you point out. In tough times because the very old (a relative term but encompassing those too infirm through age to contribute to food and water gathering) and the very young (who by definition can't contribute), they were left behind or dispatched.

Sedentary groups that practice farming aren't subject to the vagaries of subsistence so they can afford to ignore the customs of subsistence groups, again as you indicate.

The golden rule makes sense in the light of the biological imperative. To ensure its survival as a concept it makes sense to incorporate it into the religion of the group, the presumed existence of an omnipotent authority and an afterlife where one is called to account for one's acts in a previous existence would be fairly solid guarantees that most individuals would comply.

If You add Consequence and Conscience to the Equation, there is more incentive to walk that extra mile too.

It's interesting that you identify those two concepts. Consequence is a sort of acknowledgement of the practicality of a decision or custom I think. And conscience is - again only being tentative here - is an internalisation of the customs and mores of the group. But both are important.

I refer to Consequence as the result of Cause and Effect, intended and unintended, revealed and unrevealed.

I refer to Conscience as the Resource of the Individual, without which, it does not exist. The Group may benefit from Conscience, It cannot control It, It cannot Possess It, there is no Group Host, on This Planet, that I know of. Conscience is not born of Society, more likely in spite of it. Think of how unpopular The Prophets of Old were.

 

[theHawk]

Take God out the picture, take religion out the picture.

Are all humans built with a sense of morality?

If so, give examples. If so, prove it.

Or is that just faith based as well...

Religion is simply the beliefs of humans. So its impossible to take it out of the picture.

Humans created religions, which simply projects their morality.

Morality exists, if it didn't come from humans, where did it come from?

 

[Intense]

Take God out the picture, take religion out the picture.

Are all humans built with a sense of morality?

If so, give examples. If so, prove it.

Or is that just faith based as well...

Religion is simply the beliefs of humans. So its impossible to take it out of the picture.

Humans created religions, which simply projects their morality.

Morality exists, if it didn't come from humans, where did it come from?

It came from the same Source We came From?

 

[Diuretic]

If You add Consequence and Conscience to the Equation, there is more incentive to walk that extra mile too.

It's interesting that you identify those two concepts. Consequence is a sort of acknowledgement of the practicality of a decision or custom I think. And conscience is - again only being tentative here - is an internalisation of the customs and mores of the group. But both are important.

I refer to Consequence as the result of Cause and Effect, intended and unintended, revealed and unrevealed.

I refer to Conscience as the Resource of the Individual, without which, it does not exist. The Group may benefit from Conscience, It cannot control It, It cannot Possess It, there is no Group Host, on This Planet, that I know of. Conscience is not born of Society, more likely in spite of it. Think of how unpopular The Prophets of Old were.

What's your view of Locke's representation of the infant mind as tabula rasa?

 

[Intense]

It's interesting that you identify those two concepts. Consequence is a sort of acknowledgement of the practicality of a decision or custom I think. And conscience is - again only being tentative here - is an internalisation of the customs and mores of the group. But both are important.

I refer to Consequence as the result of Cause and Effect, intended and unintended, revealed and unrevealed.

I refer to Conscience as the Resource of the Individual, without which, it does not exist. The Group may benefit from Conscience, It cannot control It, It cannot Possess It, there is no Group Host, on This Planet, that I know of. Conscience is not born of Society, more likely in spite of it. Think of how unpopular The Prophets of Old were.

What's your view of Locke's representation of the infant mind as tabula rasa?

First off, I think that We are complex beings, I can see a part of the Mind, that is reactionary, as a blank slate, at Birth, that develops through Life Experience. Outward Self, which is conditioned. Yet We are so much more than that. Science and Genetics have progressed much since Locke's day, and would dis prove part of His claim. Say Identical Twins or Triplets, each with distinct Personalities, likes, dislikes. If that part of His theory were true it should not be hard to produce an army of like thinking beings, through raising Them in Identical Circumstance, yet there is something about Humanity, that blows that one away completely. We each have a Unique Being inside Our own selves. Society's effect does shape Us as We grow, that's a given. When We discover the Value of Principle, in Spirit, that Empowers and gives Reason and Purpose, like no other. Our Bodies are not interchangeable in that sense. I can't produce another You. Yet maybe through Procreation, You or Your Offspring may. We are born with things Inside of Us that Trigger through Life Experience. I Truly don't think that there is a substitute for any one of us in that sense. Natural Ability, talent, gift, different in each one of us from birth, or Our Maker, though Society benefits, it is not the source.

Does that cover it?

 

[Smartt33]

Hang on. Apparently we agree that morality is "working out what was good forus and what was bad for us". I'll just put that aside for a moment because I'm not going to claim that there is an agreement until it's acknowledged.

"Societies are formed on common beliefs."

Are they? Or do common beliefs follow the gathering that becomes a society? And could it be the case that societies are actually formed out of a need for humans to cooperate with one another to respond to the biological imperative?

If "the vast majority of societies has been formed based on a common religious belief" then that assumes that the religious belief existed prior to the society existing. How could that be?

Careful--it could mean common beliefs shared by individuals in that society, not trans-societal beliefs that are shared.

Like was said earlier--SOME religions used to require human sacrifices.

SOME religions used to keep temple prostitutes.

SOME religions stoned people for what was considered major infractions by its members.

But not all religions did the same thing. Nor is there one religion that established all the cultures and societies that exist today.

I just realized that this is almost proof that all religions are man made.

"No one religion established all societies or culture. "​

Of course, all religions are man made. Religion is man's way of reaching out to, or trying to find God. That is why so many Christians have come to realize that it is their relationship with God that is real. The relationship is established through His Word.

 

[mal]

What is this thing, you sober people call..............morality?

Nice...



peace...