Must morals be inevitable if humans have a consciousness?

[Just_me_Mike]

Whether we are talking about actions via Karma, the Golden Rule, our own sense of right and wrong, or whatever you wish to add to the discussion;

Does consciousness force, mandate, or otherwise "must" breed some sort of guidance to who we are and what we do.

I think not, but how about you?

 

[MSizer]

No, I don't think conciousness forces us to be moral beings. Morality is a suite of sociobiological traits IMO which foster social cohesion. I think though that we are intelligent enough now though to go beyond our past ideas about morality, particularly the ones that are generated in the anterior cingulate gyrex and appeal to executive cognition to make more systematic and reasoned decisions about our actions than we did in the past. Of course we won't see such an enlightenment spread widely throughout humanity in our lifetimes, since far too many people are either morally illiterate or too tied to their emotional tendencies IMO. The idea that scientific research can give us reason to potentially re-evaluate some of the moral teachings from tradition, particularly religious texts, is simply impossible to fathom for some people. It's a sign or moral illiteracy IMO, and it's widespread throughout the globe.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No, I don't think conciousness forces us to be moral beings. Morality is a suite of sociobiological traits IMO which foster social cohesion. I think though that we are intelligent enough now though to go beyond our past ideas about morality, particularly the ones that are generated in the anterior cingulate gyrex and appeal to executive cognition to make more systematic and reasoned decisions about our actions than we did in the past. Of course we won't see such an enlightenment spread widely throughout humanity in our lifetimes, since far too many people are either morally illiterate or too tied to their emotional tendencies IMO.

I think my challenge to your response would be somewhere along the lines of, who cares about social cohesion?
We are told to believe that it is the right thing to do, but to conclude that we must assume a whole host of things. Kind of like stuffing a bill before it goes to senate.

I wonder without moral development if we would just be different and not really care about cohesion. Of course not assuming the worst that we become cannibals and so forth.

 

[Sunstone]

It's probably arguable that morality of one sort or another is inevitable in social animals.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It's probably arguable that morality of one sort or another is inevitable in social animals.

I agree. Morality is the consequence of societal living.

 

[Sunstone]

What a narrow sense of biodiversity (not to mention boxed in sense of civil order) you have! I have never had a moral qualm, never felt a twinge of guilt, never once considered the 'righteousness' of my action once in my life. Thank God.
Not all of us share your genetic and psychological disorders.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you go off and study a little evolutionary psychology?

 

[tumbleweed41]

What a narrow sense of biodiversity (not to mention boxed in sense of civil order) you have! I have never had a moral qualm, never felt a twinge of guilt, never once considered the 'righteousness' of my action once in my life. Thank God.
Not all of us share your genetic and psychological disorders.

Did any one accuse you of having such feelings? I really do not care if you have experiance qualms, guilt or righteousness.

You seem to think morality is the equivalent of good or bad feelings.
Morality is what humans and other animals do in order to live together in a group.
Morality changes as the group dynamics change. It is far different now than what it was for the first hominids to wonder into the savanna.
Morality differs in isolated groups.
Morality differs from person to person.
But it all boils down to actions that make it easier to live in a society.

 

[indian tea]

What a narrow sense of biodiversity (not to mention boxed in sense of civil order) you have! I have never had a moral qualm, never felt a twinge of guilt, never once considered the 'righteousness' of my action once in my life. Thank God.
Not all of us share your genetic and psychological disorders.

have you ever considered embracing the word sociopath?:flirt:

I agree some form of morality would inevitably exist...due to group societal living...
which is not what the orignal question was though....without some form of morality said group would break down....this really doesnt have anythign to do with consciouness= implicit morality

 

[indian tea]

. Capitalism is what humans do in order to live together in a group.

:sarcastic

 

[tumbleweed41]

Morality is psychosocial tropism, formation of patterns of value-modification and inborn ego subversion.

Do you have access to studies done on this supposed psychosocial biological tendency in humans?
Sources?

 

[Sunstone]

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you go off and study a little evolutionary psychology?

You've yet to say anything that would render my suggestion you get a real education any less valid.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Do you have access to studies done on this supposed psychosocial biological tendency in humans?
Sources?

Yeah, like I'm going to bother talking to a self-described liberal hippy. I'd rather argue with a Creationist.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[thedope]

No, a mind without anxiety is wholly kind. Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so.

 

[indian tea]

'Mental' diagnosise are epistemically and ontologically meaningless. 'Something I don't approve of, so I am going to give it a word with negative connotations. I don't like what s/he chooses to do, or how s/he thinks, therefor something must be wrong with him/her!' Pseudoscientific rationalizations, just like calling homosexuality a 'disease'.


Wrong. That's only true of stupid people. Even then, morality just as frequently leads to breakdown as not. Moral tropism is the #1 source of government, which is the arch-enemy of civil society.

You humanists are all a bunch of pretentious jagoffs.

:help: morality...it could be a set of ethics that say it great to have sex 20 times a day with your neighbor, his kids and their wife....
but its still a set of morals.... see bonobo chimps...

I dislike being referred to as a humanist

what you described fits in well with a socipath though...hence my tongue in cheek mention of it...

 

[dust1n]

You humanists are all a bunch of pretentious jagoffs.

...as she rubs the mental clit right from the computer chair.

 

[dust1n]

Does consciousness force, mandate, or otherwise "must" breed some sort of guidance to who we are and what we do.

It depends on what you mean. Does consciousness force, mandate, etc. morals on every individual. Nope, there have been plenty of exceptions.

Does consciousness force, mandate that morals will exist in the accumulation of all humans? Well, obviously, since it was not of our own wills to have them (those of us that do). Even if humanity shredded the idea of absolute morality, there will still be new forms with foundations in Existentialism or various other little guidelines. It is highly unlikely that we will escape morality on this planet from someone at sometime. You would need like a super huge human filter or brain washer.

 

[Sunstone]

...as she rubs the mental clit right from the computer chair.

She's got a lot of free floating anger and a tendency to sling BS in a rather pretentious and overly defensive way. Unfortunately, RF is not in the therapy business. We're just a forum. We're not here for patients, we're not set up to do psychiatry no matter how badly someone needs it. So, I don't think she's in the right place.

 

[dust1n]

She's got a lot of free floating anger and a tendency to sling BS in a rather pretentious way. Unfortunately, RF is not in the therapy business. We're just a forum. We're not here for patients, we're not set up to do psychiatry for those who need it. So, I don't think she's in the right place.

It's okay. She has to use some kind of filler to make up for the lack of substance.

 

[dust1n]

And now an egalitarian. This is like a cancer.

I am an ontological nihilist, anarchist, and absurdist. I don't even disagree with you on some points. The only cancer your posts are attached to is decency and reason.

 

[Sunstone]

And now an egalitarian. This is like a cancer.

All joking aside, get some help. Unfortunately, you won't find it here. We're not in the therapy business. But you can't solve your problems by bouncing around religious forums all your life. Find a therapist you can trust and get some help.