Home | Community | Message Board


SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,344
Loc: On the Border
Let us assume
    #3357924 - 11/14/04 12:54 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

that there is no possibility of a personal God nor an afterlife. I am not here to debate their existance, but to remove them, temporarily, from the moral equation. Let us also assume that we are safely beyond the reach of law. Why, then, should we behave in a moral fashion? Why should we not take what we want...when we want...letting no one stand in our way. Why should we intrinsically recognize the sanctity of human life and the rights of others under these conditions? It is nature's way for the strongest to win out...why not with us? This is NOT my view but why should it not be?

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the baddest motherfucker in the valley."


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3357942 - 11/14/04 01:00 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Well, we could simply have every man for himself, in which everyone would run the very high risk of injury or death. This would seriously diminish the quality of life for everyone, even the strong ones who do survive. It would be much more practical and favorable to get along with one another and agree not to initiate force against each other. Thus, it is in people's own long-term self-interest to cooperate and live peacefully with one another.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3357950 - 11/14/04 01:04 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

If one ONLY acts out of some fear of retribution or some eternal punishment, then one has NO moral stance whatsoever; even if that person's acts appear to be moral.

Morality is about freely CHOOSING that which you hold to of the highest ideal.

I had this discussion (for the hundreth time) today. One CAN be an atheist / agnostic AND be a moral person.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,344
Loc: On the Border
Re: Let us assume [Re: Swami]
    #3357961 - 11/14/04 01:08 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

"Morality is about freely CHOOSING that which you hold to of the highest ideal."

Do you mean that morality is independant of society? What if I decide that accumulating material possesions at any cost is my highest ideal? I too think that morality is not tied to religion...but why?


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3358299 - 11/14/04 02:28 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

"


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Edited by LunarEclipse (11/21/04 06:01 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinethe_phoenix
Stranger

Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: Let us assume [Re: LunarEclipse]
    #3358399 - 11/14/04 02:57 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

But in my opinion, that's an impossible scenario, people existing without inner gods. If there is no god then yes, we would be just like animals. In other words, we would be neither sencient nor humans.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3358617 - 11/14/04 04:04 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Because mankind was blessed with a higher order mind and rationality.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezahudulallah
Sexual Heretic

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3358883 - 11/14/04 07:16 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Through Love (morality - the only law) we create the transpersonal God within. You can hypothetically remove the personal God as it is mythology, but the transpersonal God remains.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibletak
geo's henchman
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/21/00
Posts: 3,762
Loc: nowhereland
Re: Let us assume [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3358953 - 11/14/04 08:28 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

This is how 99% of the human culture lives. We are not seperate from the animals, we only like to think we are. I dont think anyone can prove whether or not an afterlife or god exists at this point in time, so we are pretty much there. I think that we will do anything to get to the top, but in the process there it is inevitable to show love.

I think love for family will usually be there, and people who are drawn together by physical boundries will have to work together to rule the land. This will create a bond with locals, and while still stepping on toes, people will learn the beauty of friendship.

I also think that there would always be those people who have no "god" per say, but are extremely happy to be alive. Maybe people are just scared of being alone?

I am speaking out of my ass because as far as time goes every major society has been built behind a religion, and religion has formed the world we live today. However in a world where the strong survive, the only way for the weak to come up on top would be to scare the masses into some kind of morality.

o|-<]:


--------------------
The DJ's took pills to stay awake and play for seven days.


Edited by root-ninja-tak (11/14/04 08:30 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePopeHypocriteIII
Stranger

Registered: 03/31/04
Posts: 104
Loc: 123 Fake Street, Nonexist...
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
Re: Let us assume [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3358997 - 11/14/04 09:00 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Morality is not contingent on the possibility of reward or punishment, nor on the existence of prescribed rules from a higher authority. Indeed, relying on such things deprives a good act of a great deal of its moral worth, since observance of such rules becomes an exercise in obedience rather than the free exercise of compassion and reason. To be truly moral is to do what one believes to be the greatest good in a given situation, irrespective of what one personally stands to gain, whether materially, in terms of self-image or any other fashion.

Assume, for the time being, that there is no inherent meaning to existence, for without God we would be obliged to decide our own worth and purpose. And from here an interesting point arises: suggesting that human life loses value if it is not a product of divinity shows a lack of compassion, for we should acknowledge the inherent worth of others, just as we would wish to have our own individuality and dignity respected without recourse to any external factors. We cannot morally take the notion that God is dead and use it as a licence to fulfil whatever greedy and petty ends strike our fancy at the expense of our fellows, unless we would be prepared to universalise such behaviour and to accept it as the norm. Small degrees of self-sacrifice ultimately benefit the whole.

But are there incentives to behave morally, beyond vicarious pleasure or a sense of moral self-satisfaction? Well, at some level we do require the acknowledgement of others to confirm our sense of identity (unless we are irretrievably lost to egotism) and if this belief were to become universal we would be assured of the regard we seek. And I don't think anyone could deny that they have benefited in some way from the affection or guidance provided by other people. But secular social contract theory is, at heart, ideologically centred. That's why it is so hopeless at compelling action; we must either choose to behave morally or be forced to submit to a behavioural guideline.

There is no soft or easy option, no way to stop a person simply choosing to except themselves from a harmonious system. But I, for one, am prepared to accept the exercise of moral behaviour as an end in itself, divorced of compulsion or instrumentality. I know my ideology has a gaping hole in the centre, but although I accept that consistent morality and harmony are not attainable as long as we exhibit the behavioural traits that currently run rampant, that does not mean that such things should not be strived for. To suggest so would be to suggest that no pursuit is worthwhile unless it can be done immaculately. And if we cannot lift our thoughts beyond a sense of self in order to ensure something as important as respect within our society, we are poor moralists indeed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,344
Loc: On the Border
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3359132 - 11/14/04 10:32 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

I tend to feel that morals were established because they are practical. Morals have nothing whatever to do with right or wrong (whatever that is), God, or even being a nice person. Morals are rules that have established themselves as survival mechanisms. Now, like all things created by humans a fair amount of dogma has found it's way in. Certain humans have created their own "morals" (not our universally accepted laws for co-existing) that concern politics or marketing (can you say organized religion). These individuals would have you accept moral notions conscerning the music you listen to, the movies you watch, drugs, firearms, etc... as "moral" notions. True morals are not cultural or political, but universal.


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinethe_phoenix
Stranger

Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3359310 - 11/14/04 12:01 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Yes, true morals are universal. Whereas god *IS* them, as we go from god to humans, the fundamental to the conventional, the universal to the specific, humans merely *ACT* morally moreso than embodying it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,851
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 4 months, 6 days
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3359358 - 11/14/04 12:10 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Huehuecoyotl said:
It is nature's way for the strongest to win out...why not with us?




Perhaps we as a species have an extra variable that distinguishes us from nature?

It isn't nature's way for the strongest to "win". Nature's way is balance as a whole. Emphasis on individual species to be strong exist because of pressures from other species, from the checks and balances. Survival requires being strong enough to resist these pressures.

Of course, one group of a certain animals suriving is going to effect other animals because of the roles the surviving animals play. It is a constant flucation with no real progress, only continual balance. Nature is essentially concerned with the sustainment of life itself, not any form of progress. Perhaps nature exists as a "nest", if you will, for a conscious species to emerge. :grin:

Anyways, I realize I'm not being so clear (dead fuckin' tired), but the main point is that emphasis on the strong surviving only exists on the level of an individual species in nature, and is only actually relevant to that species - the balance as a whole is continously kept.

Which brings me to what I mentioned earlier, there is a distinguishing variable between human beings and nature that illustrates why the idea of natural selection actually harms our species' chances of survival, and, therefore, shows that use of morals benefits our survival.

Humans our naturally networking, civilizing creatures. We live together and we specialize. We form groups. The same principles of nature as a whole, of balance, apply to our individual species. Not only this, but we aren't competing species concerned only with our own group's survival, because we are one and the same species.

Therefore, survival of the fittest doesn't apply to our species as a balanced whole because we all benefit from being a species as a whole. This is why our tasks are specialized, this is why we civilize, this is why we are now basically one global civilization. Our best chances of survival as a species require us to get along, to network, to respect and support all members of our species, because each person can offer something that someone else can't.

This doesn't mean, of course, that we haven't blurred, obscured, and fucked this all up... we're still evolving into our nature. Earth is our substrate, we've been injected in various different areas, and we've been colonizing and merging into one mycelial network ever since. Soon the fruits will emerge.  :mushroom2:

:wink:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :satansmoking:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinestefan
work in progress

Registered: 04/11/01
Posts: 8,932
Loc: The Netherlands
Last seen: 1 month, 14 days
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3359519 - 11/14/04 01:21 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

people are group animals (don't know the proper english word :smirk:) and that's how it works


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,866
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: Let us assume [Re: stefan]
    #3360082 - 11/14/04 03:33 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

"one can not steal, one can not own"
-unknown :P


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/14/04
Posts: 10,344
Loc: On the Border
Re: Let us assume [Re: Gomp]
    #3360954 - 11/14/04 07:11 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

"one can not steal, one can not own"

If I catch someone stealing what I metaphorically can't own an ass beating will follow. Ownership and theft may be abstract concepts, but the ass beating they recieve will be VERY real.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,866
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: Let us assume [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3361464 - 11/14/04 09:06 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

""If I catch someone stealing what I metaphorically can't own an ass beating will follow. ""

see? :P hehe
if you have the object, you have it, so if someone take it, and you take it back (beating or no beating) you have it, still, you do not own it? anyone could take it if they're bigger or something? :P hehe

what one steal, one think can not be stolen, if one think he owns?


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMoonshoe
Blue Mantis
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,145
Loc: Iceland
Re: Let us assume [Re: Gomp]
    #3362002 - 11/14/04 11:45 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

we are a species that relies on each other for survival. individually we are weak and poorly suited for lifes harsh realities. it is our ability to form massive cooperative communities for the collective good that makes us able to be safe, fed, reproduce etc. We learned very early on to supress our animalistic instincts in order to form societies. if we lived in the way you are describing (totally based on desires without any social or personal concience) than society would collapse, and hummanity itself shortly after. that is why even in the abscence of a personal god or afterlife people do not behave like savage freaks. they rely on other people for everything.

Also, many thousands of people today dont believe in any god or afterlife, but they are still good people (mostly) they act towards others out of a basic understanding or empathy of what their actions cause others to feel. Humans form relational love bonds of all kinds. Nice person, lover, mother, sister, friend, etc and that is enough reason for them to treat those people morally.

blah blah blah blah blah


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,866
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
Re: Let us assume [Re: Moonshoe]
    #3362027 - 11/14/04 11:52 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

""if we lived in the way you are describing""

would it differ if it was 'the ways' :P


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMoonshoe
Blue Mantis
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/28/04
Posts: 27,145
Loc: Iceland
Re: Let us assume [Re: Gomp]
    #3362078 - 11/15/04 12:06 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

gomp, mmmkay?


--------------------


Everything I post is fiction.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why God (or some Higher Power) is needed for morality
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Paleocon 8,015 158 12/10/07 08:26 PM
by Icelander
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,635 31 06/14/03 12:42 PM
by NewToTrippin
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 4,250 35 04/24/03 07:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Do Basic Human Morals Exist
( 1 2 all )
mrfreedom 3,509 24 05/28/02 09:55 AM
by Sclorch
* Morals & religion (christian accountabilty cont.) joeshitragpicker 623 5 01/30/04 12:40 PM
by jpod
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 13,796 157 12/21/04 08:31 AM
by deafpanda
* A debate on the subject of the morality of drug use. neuro 1,361 7 02/21/03 07:10 AM
by Sclorch
* The Nonsense of Morality
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 3,312 70 10/25/05 09:54 PM
by Deviate

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
1,480 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.048 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 21 queries.