100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Where do morals come from??? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Take your example only change the truck (something we know was created) and replace it with a crystal, something we know formed naturally. Now how does that work? Better, ahhhh. So you are saying that universal morality is a naturally formed part of humanity? If the morality is universal, that means it's shared by all humans and is unchanging. If it could change, how could an isolated village in the Amazon jungle have the same universal morality as possessed by people living in New York City or London? So you are saying that part of human nature is an unchanging moral code that applies to every living human and it somehow occurred naturally? Care to explain how that could be? Think about it from a different perspective. Could there be something 'genetic' that 1. every human is predisposed to 2. has some kind of survival function 3. some environmental cue stimulated a universal moral behavior because of that predisposition 4. it is generaly instinctual, but can be 're-conditiond' either by classical or operant conditioning (learning). It would be difficult to provide examples because every example I can think of is currently considered a conditioned response, meaning we have learned it. But we learn some things much easier than others when we are genetically predisposed to that something. In every culture there are some type of morally accepted codes of conduct with regard to killing other humans. The fact that this exists in every culture may be related to some genetic factor which predisposes us to be the social creature that we ar; dependent on others for survival of the group. Therefore we may have a MORAL genetic predisposition not to kill other humans. BUT - culturally, there are many different rules regarding killing other humans - there is absolutely no doubt that those rules are learned (conditioned)but could it be that it is easier to condition different rules into humans simply because the genetic predisposition not to kill other humans already exists? Wouldn't that be a universal moral???? Nope. If it's genetic, then it could change over time with different populations. (as I already stated...) To be a universal morality, it must be static and unchanging. But as I pointed out earlier (you probably just missed it), you aren't talking about morality, you are talking about herd instinct. Here's the drowning man example written by CS Lewis: If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up," cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shuttle, Voyager, Hubble Space Telescope... Just to name a few 'human' tools that we have 'taught' to disobey EARTHS gravity... They don't "disobey EARTHS gravity". 
That's a nice try, but I'm not a six year old (which is how old you would have to be to buy that load of bull). Gravity can be overcome by pushing with enough force away from the source of the gravity, that's part of the Law of Gravity. Let one of those "tools" come an inch too close to earth and we'll see how well they can disobey gravity.
If you held the belief that THOU SHALT NOT KILL was an absolute moral code... and then found yourself upon a desert where no other food existed but an animal... Would you kill to eat... or die for your 'morals'... There is (at our current level of maturity as HUMANS) no 'universal morality'... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you held the belief that THOU SHALT NOT KILL was an absolute moral code... First of all: It's "Thou shall not murder". "ratsach" in the "qal" tense means "to murder, slay". KJV is a very good version, but the translation doesn't hold up in the modern vernacular. If you go back to the original Hebrew, you will see that it is clearly "murder" and not "kill". We aren't going to argue this again. Accept it and be right or reject it and be a fool, the choice is yours. Second of all" This commandment only applies to humans. There were laws on how animals should be slaughtered and how the meat should be prepared and served. Third of all: People violate morals all the time, but we are punished for it every time we remember doing so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take your example only change the truck (something we know was created) and replace it with a crystal, something we know formed naturally. Now how does that work? Better, ahhhh. So you are saying that universal morality is a naturally formed part of humanity? If the morality is universal, that means it's shared by all humans and is unchanging. If it could change, how could an isolated village in the Amazon jungle have the same universal morality as possessed by people living in New York City or London? So you are saying that part of human nature is an unchanging moral code that applies to every living human and it somehow occurred naturally? Care to explain how that could be? Think about it from a different perspective. Could there be something 'genetic' that 1. every human is predisposed to 2. has some kind of survival function 3. some environmental cue stimulated a universal moral behavior because of that predisposition 4. it is generaly instinctual, but can be 're-conditiond' either by classical or operant conditioning (learning). It would be difficult to provide examples because every example I can think of is currently considered a conditioned response, meaning we have learned it. But we learn some things much easier than others when we are genetically predisposed to that something. In every culture there are some type of morally accepted codes of conduct with regard to killing other humans. The fact that this exists in every culture may be related to some genetic factor which predisposes us to be the social creature that we ar; dependent on others for survival of the group. Therefore we may have a MORAL genetic predisposition not to kill other humans. BUT - culturally, there are many different rules regarding killing other humans - there is absolutely no doubt that those rules are learned (conditioned)but could it be that it is easier to condition different rules into humans simply because the genetic predisposition not to kill other humans already exists? Wouldn't that be a universal moral???? Nope. If it's genetic, then it could change over time with different populations. (as I already stated...) To be a universal morality, it must be static and unchanging. But as I pointed out earlier (you probably just missed it), you aren't talking about morality, you are talking about herd instinct. Here's the drowning man example written by CS Lewis: Do you think instinct is genetically driven? Do you think instinct can be overridden by cultural conditioning? Do you think instinct can lie dormant if there is no environmental stimulus to cue it up? Also – what is there in what I posted that leads you think that a universal human moral, regarding killing (or possibly even harming) other humans, has ever changed? As for the comment on “herd instinct” I must have missed it, so can you explain the context in which you are using the term? Here's the drowning man example written by CS Lewis:
If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts,
We don’t THINK about instinct, we react to it, so right off the bat, Mr. Lewis is in error. obviously the stronger of the two must win.
Not true – eating is instinctual but we can override it by our own will – and our will is not instinctual. Also, the stength of an instinct often lies in environmental factors and not between competing instincts. We stop digesing our food (instinctually)if we are forced to run for our lives. There's no competition it's a matter of survival. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses.
Only a few sentences ago Lewis is discussing two instincts in conflict – NOW he is saying that some man made moral law must be considered before instinct can be responded to as if they are suddenly no more than impudent impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing.
Ok – so here is that term “herd instinct” but I don’t have a clue what the hell Lewis is talking about. WHAT HERD INSTINCT and in regards to what action? Is he talking about morals, instinct, or impulses - do you know? I sure can't figure out what he's talking about. He has this guy sitting there having an internal cognitive argument over whether altruism is instinct, moral, or duty - do you think we sit around determining which instincts to respond to? But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is.
What does that even mean? Other than physiological function of the body – can you even tell me what behaviors humans possess that are actions of instinctual? The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up," cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.
Sorry Spider, but I don’t think you should be using Mr. Lewis to help you prove your points because he can’t even prove his own. He jumps around in this paragraph so much and tries to equate that which cannot be equalized and injected unrelated things into his anecdote to make a point which makes no sense at all. Perhaps that makes for good episodes in the exploits of Narnia but it does not make for sound philosophical rhetoric or even logical explanations of human behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don’t THINK about instinct, we react to it, so right off the bat, Mr. Lewis is in error. Oh, so we don't think about things that are instinctual? Okay, let's say I accept your position over CS Lewis, what then? Not true – eating is instinctual but we can override it by our own will – and our will is not instinctual. You JUST said that we can't think about instincts, but now you are saying we don't have to obey our instincts. Obviously it is you who are wrong and not just wrong but contradicting yourself. The sheer arrogance to think that you can take 5 minutes to whip out a post which refutes the writings of one of the 20th centuries most renowned scholars. smh But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses.
Only a few sentences ago Lewis is discussing two instincts in conflict – NOW he is saying that some man made moral law must be considered before instinct can be responded to as if they are suddenly no more than impudent impulses. First, he's talking about natural law, not "man made moral law". Second, he's talking about how when two instincts are in conflict, there is sometimes a moral law telling us to side with the lesser instinct. I guess you are taking umbridge with the word "impulse", you really aren't clear at what you are disagreeing with. Since I can only assume that the offender is the word "impulse", I will point you to the definition of instinct: "a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse], or capacity", which clearly says that an instinct is a "natural impulse". You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing.
Ok – so here is that term “herd instinct” but I don’t have a clue what the hell Lewis is talking about. WHAT HERD INSTINCT and in regards to what action? Is he talking about morals, instinct, or impulses - do you know? I sure can't figure out what he's talking about. Oh, so you were going on about the use of the word "impulse". Well, instinct and impulse are synonymous, so that takes one variable out of the equation. You would have to read all of Mere Christianity to see that he is using "Herd Instinct" because one of his detractors used the term. If you read the book in context, it becomes clear that "herd instinct" is meant to mean "acts in ways that are beneficial to the herd". So in the example, the desire to save the persons life and the desire to preserve your own life are both "herd instincts". He has this guy sitting there having an internal cognitive argument over whether altruism is instinct, moral, or duty - do you think we sit around determining which instincts to respond to? Are we reading the same quote? It's clear that it's a question of "Save the drowning man" or "Self preservation by staying on shore". Are those not instincts? Helping those in danger and self preservation? It seems you were so eager to disagree that you didn't even carefully read what CS Lewis wrote. In the competition between those two instincts, if "Self Preservation" were the stronger, the natural law would goad you into saving the man. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is.
What does that even mean? Other than physiological function of the body – can you even tell me what behaviors humans possess that are actions of instinctual? It clearly means what he wrote! In the competition between two instincts "Self preservation" and "Helping others", if "Helping others" is the weaker instinct, it can't make itself stronger. It can't be another instinct that makes the weaker instinct stronger. So it's something else, a moral code that encourages us to obey the weaker instinct and save the drowning man. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up," cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.
Sorry Spider, but I don’t think you should be using Mr. Lewis to help you prove your points because he can’t even prove his own. He jumps around in this paragraph so much and tries to equate that which cannot be equalized and injected unrelated things into his anecdote to make a point which makes no sense at all. Perhaps that makes for good episodes in the exploits of Narnia but it does not make for sound philosophical rhetoric or even logical explanations of human behavior. No, you are clearly not understanding what he wrote. I won't speculate as to why that is, but it's very clear that you didn't understand what you read and didn't seem very motivated to try to understand it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you held the belief that THOU SHALT NOT KILL was an absolute moral code... First of all: It's "Thou shall not murder". "ratsach" in the "qal" tense means "to murder, slay". KJV is a very good version, but the translation doesn't hold up in the modern vernacular. If you go back to the original Hebrew, you will see that it is clearly "murder" and not "kill". We aren't going to argue this again. Accept it and be right or reject it and be a fool, the choice is yours. Second of all" This commandment only applies to humans. There were laws on how animals should be slaughtered and how the meat should be prepared and served. Third of all: People violate morals all the time, but we are punished for it every time we remember doing so. I know what the actual biblical quote is... I was not refering to the BIBLE... I was refering to the way this concept is sometimes stated... if a person holds that KILLING is not a moral thing... but hunger is present and food (in the form of an animal) is the only thing available... Would that that person 'change' their moral based upon need. (why must you allways assume someone is referencing the bible) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll answer the last questions first.
(why must you allways assume someone is referencing the bible) Because what you said was a clear misquote of the Bible? if a person holds that KILLING is not a moral thing... but hunger is present and food (in the form of an animal) is the only thing available... Would that that person 'change' their moral based upon need. I have no idea and I don't see how it's relevant... But I guess if the issue was die of starvation or kill and animal for food (kill yourself or kill an animal), anybody would kill an animal for food. I don't care how vegan you think you are, a week without food will cure you of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uranus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll answer the last questions first. (why must you allways assume someone is referencing the bible) Because what you said was a clear misquote of the Bible? if a person holds that KILLING is not a moral thing... but hunger is present and food (in the form of an animal) is the only thing available... Would that that person 'change' their moral based upon need. I have no idea and I don't see how it's relevant... But I guess if the issue was die of starvation or kill and animal for food (kill yourself or kill an animal), anybody would kill an animal for food. I don't care how vegan you think you are, a week without food will cure you of that. I agree... and as far as you statement of 'misquote' from the bible... NEGATIVE... thou shalt not kill (as I relayed it) is a quote from animal rights people... If I had ment it as a 'quote' from the oft quoted book I would have so stated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider:
Humans cannot choose to obey or disobey Gravity, but we can choose to obey or disobey the natural law. That's why there are debates on if natural law exists or not. We do not "obey" gravity. So you still hold that natural law exists, but you aren't interested in why or how? That's an interesting position to take. It's like a farmer in the 1500's finding a truck in his field and spending all of his time wondering how it works, without ever thinking "Who made this" or "How did it get here".
My position pales in "interesting" comparison to this unfounded analogy. I hold universal morality exists. "Why" cannot be answered, for we have insufficient data. If the morality is universal, that means it's shared by all humans and is unchanging. If it could change, how could an isolated village in the Amazon jungle have the same universal morality as possessed by people living in New York City or London? So you are saying that part of human nature is an unchanging moral code that applies to every living human and it somehow occurred naturally? Care to explain how that could be?
Still failing to make and hold the necessary distinction between morality and moral codes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morals... Trust is not a moral... It is a learned response to stimuli. Morals (imho) are subject to the rules of the community. One quickly learns what the community will accept or expects of one. Yet many 'learn' morals also by what they find they can do without becoming 'outcast' by they community. and others 'learn' that in certian instances they can 'act' in ways the community does not accept as long as they hide those 'actions' from scrunity. While still others learn that they can 'act' in ways that are unacceptable by the community but no one will 'react' because of 'fear' (If you are 300 lbs 'bigger' than all the little monkyee's around you you can beat 'acceptance' into them). So the actual morals a person holds within are a 'self-learned' method of survival. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morals... Trust is not a moral... It is a learned response to stimuli. Morals (imho) are subject to the rules of the community. One quickly learns what the community will accept or expects of one. Yet many 'learn' morals also by what they find they can do without becoming 'outcast' by they community. and others 'learn' that in certian instances they can 'act' in ways the community does not accept as long as they hide those 'actions' from scrunity. While still others learn that they can 'act' in ways that are unacceptable by the community but no one will 'react' because of 'fear' (If you are 300 lbs 'bigger' than all the little monkyee's around you you can beat 'acceptance' into them). So the actual morals a person holds within are a 'self-learned' method of survival. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having morals is knowing right from wrong. Behavior is how we chose to define ourselves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me they come from the my genuine desire to do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having morals is knowing right from wrong. Behavior is how we chose to define ourselves but if we don't act on what we believe, our beliefs mean nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morals come from the conscience. . . either you have one or you dont. . no conscience. . no morals. . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uranus 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where everything else comes from...The Government
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where everything else comes from...The Government Now this is funny. which government. China... Bet them folks in Tinanmin square really thought that government is moral. Perhaps the government of Mubarak... Nah that one the people just showed some morals to. Iran... Sure as long as you bow down before the Ahotollas and Mullahs... Otherwise you die. US of A... Now there are some real morals... Representatives and Senators that chase boys... Representatives that cheat on wives, steal money, steal more money, make deals that should be considered a 'selling of the soul', prop up 'moral giants' like mubarak all over the world. Yeah governments really know there morals. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uranus oh now settle down Ima sure uranians have morals too....whooo hooo 
|
|
|
|
|
