Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Elohist, Feb 12, 2017.
It depend where you are, and your condition.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Because the stress of chaos, confusion, destruction, theft / pillaging, murder, abuse, bullying, torture, rape, tyranny, disrespect, rudeness, wallowing about in perpetual poverty, hunger, homeless misery, and so forth tends to eventually breed a desire for constructive organizing, morality, industrious fellowship, amenities, charity, formal conduct, etiquette, venerated values / principles, etc. IF an isolated community or atavistic cesspool is ever exposed to a contrary example of itself or acquires knowledge of the alternate possibility of such (whether its barbarous circumstances would permit the installation of enhancing changes or not).
Today monsters, madpersons, and bastard antics are usually only cool when they're fake / bogus facades marketed as escapist entertainment to vegetative youth and occasional adults bored of their provincial routines. Excepting when the bipedal sphincters literally dominate a domain, thereby compelling genuflection and sycophancy from the members, employees, followers, residents or overall population.
I'm very doubtful about whether morals have any objective existence independent of the social groups in which they arise. It's true that morals do seem to have a universal aspect, but that's because we generalize our moral intuitions and project them onto others. If I feel that x is wrong, then not only will I believe that I shouldn't do x, I'll believe that you shouldn't do x either.
I don't expect that space aliens will necessarily have morality that coincides very well with our own. That might depend on their biology as much as anything. If they are organized like social-insects, then they probably wouldn't place much value on individuality. Hive organisms might favor surrendering themselves to further the purposes of the group much more than they value their own or others' individual lives.
If the aliens are solitary intelligences, they might not have any social instincts at all. They might be curious about other sentient beings, but feel no moral obligations concerning them. Nor would they have any expectations that you will behave morally. They might not have any concept of what morality is at all.
(Which suggests the question of whether a uniquely one-of-a-kind monotheist God would have any sense of morality, if morality is a function of evolution in social groups.)
Why be good? Pleasure is the why.
I believe empathy plays a great part in our efforts to help a person or animal in gereat distress.
Our mirror neural system allows us to experience the observed discomfort and produces the same chemical reaction in our brain.
This creates a natural desire to help and relieve the shared agony.
you can react with happiness or any other passive emotion instead, and break the chain reaction from producing pain.
No you can't.. The mirror neural system records all personal experiences and physical chemical reactions and *remembers*.
Ask yourself, why you wince when watching someone else getting hurt? Read up on the mirror neural system, it's a remarkably ability, shared by many other animals
Yes of course .
To be good ; is not only a pleasure to the self ; but more importantly ; it is the evolution of society .
Not to disagree but can we also look upon altruism as a form of insurance?
You have a surplus of beneficial acts that are available to you and it makes zero practical sense to bestow them all on your own good person. They have to be "shared out" and it is the ways in which this is done that can be seen as how altruistic (=good?) you are.
Yes. the "favours" you bestow may fall on stony ground but not all will and it is reasonable to expect some payback in the medium to long term.
Cynicism meets altruism.
I agree with that . To be good is to obey laws. Laws are made to help us to be less selfish.
Except when laws are unjust, then it's our duty to disobey them.
Have you participate in an uprising by force ? Many innocent people get hurt. See Syria LIbya,
Why do you assume that not following unjust laws requires an uprising by force?
Sounds right to me, but... see second quote.
In my opinion the idea of a monotheist God with an established morality should not be discarded right away.
We don't know what is the origin of life, assuming it is not a random event, it could have a purpose. God could be a highly superior being who gave us the sense of morality for our development. A single human wouldn't achieve much, but millions of them working together... (Morality being the tool that allows to work together).
Why would he have a sense of morality? Maybe he is not the only of his kind.
Is this a crazy idea?
Life originating from inert matter as a random event and then evolving to have a sense of morality is less crazy?
I don't have to think , it happens, in different degree.
So you do not believe nonviolent protest is possible?
Whether my conscious choices are considered good or bad by others... i expect a payoff from those choices... dont you.???
You are just making things up, Our process of thought is different
No. You implied that not following laws was tantamount to uprising by force:
That's a non sequitur.
Origin is asking you to clarify that implied assertion.
OK, then never mind.
Separate names with a comma.