nothing is objectively better than another. but one is more valued than another.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another Thread on Morality
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
nothing is objectively better than another. but one is more valued than another.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Sum, wmjbyatt touched on why nihilism is rejected in practice - it's a biological imperative.
IMO, there is no why, really, other than biology driving organisms to want to live. "Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive." Biological Imperative
Social contracts, including morality, are built on that. The debate you're having with yourself looks like a struggle to identify and separate existentialism from the social framework placed over it.
IMO, there is no why, really, other than biology driving organisms to want to live. "Biological imperatives are the needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence: to survive." Biological Imperative
Social contracts, including morality, are built on that. The debate you're having with yourself looks like a struggle to identify and separate existentialism from the social framework placed over it.
Pretty much.
One is valued by more individuals, but not more valued.
But it's not only survival, that's not the only set base for morality, so it seems. Some want to survive more than others (selfishness), some want to die for others (altruism), some feel that some people don't deserve to live (predators), some want others to be alive and happy, some want others to be alive and in pain, etc.
There are biological standards to kill also (teeth, strength, speed, sight, etc)
CarlinKnew
Well-Known Member
Yep. Problem?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
So there's your morality.
Lol
Because society together is not a person, saying it is, you are excluding those who disagree with your ideal society, such as murderers, saying they are not part of this society.
It's not really morality rather than what we do whether we like it or not. It's like saying "being made of atoms" is a moral.
Why? I don't want to sound harsh and ruin this thread, but it seems very hypocritical to say "do this, don't do this."
Not saying it's wrong, again, it's just pointless and irrational.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
It actually is only attributable to survival, even if it doesn't seem like it. Altruism, predatory behavior, etc., all fit into the metaview of species survival. So does religion (imo).
And though some can overcome the survival instinct, the overwhelming majority of living creatures don't.
Lol
Because society together is not a person, saying it is, you are excluding those who disagree with your ideal society, such as murderers, saying they are not part of this society.
But why can't what is valued by more individuals be more valued? Also yes, I am excluding murderers from society because they have no empathy or respect for other people.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
It's rational or irrational only according to an agenda. Otherwise, it simply is. No more, no less. The agenda forms the judgment.
CarlinKnew
Well-Known Member
Why's it hypocritical? I have a sense of what I consider to be acceptable behavior that I want myself and others to live according to. Others may have a different sense, and so we will disagree. That's morality in a nutshell. My sense of morality is certainly not pointless and irrational to me; maybe yours is to you.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Morality is a code of conduct. If you act by certain standards and criteria then that's your code of conduct/morality. Of course, not all sets of morality are the same or equal. Some are more evolved and rational than others.
I don't think altruism is for survival at all, most likely the opposite.
Majority saying yes, does not mean it ought to be so.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Can you explain how?
Why is there an "ought"? Again, it simply is.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Social animals cooperate for mutual benefit as it aides the survival of the group.
Because what a majority of a group votes on does not mean what the entire group wants.
Let's say 100 out of 150 want everyone to drive Chevy, 50 want Ford, how does it, by logic, equate that everyone in the group should drive Ford?
Let's go with a better example since Ford isn't like murder.
What if 800 out of 1,000 people say they want knowledge, the other 200 want ignorance. The 200's ignorance vote would include making their children ignorant, and their children's children ignorant, etc until the majority of the world is ignorant. It will affect the world greatly, their ignorance would so the 800 lock them up for being ignorant, to protect the world.
Just because 800 say yes, you are ignoring 200 people say no, and excluding them for it. To make it fair, let's say there is nothing excluding people from getting knowledge or being ignorant, there's no rules at all. The 800 can teach ignorant people and the ignorant people can tell them to stop listening. There are no rules.
Why is empathy or respect for other people good?