Morality?
Ok, I'm going to start this and won't be able to make it back to check it til tomorrow.
Here is the question.
Hypothetical if you need it to be.
No god, no religion, no one else is pushing morals either 😉. What are the morals that would exist, and why bother with them?
And yes I know an large number of philosophers have discussed this, I am looking for the members of this forum to discuss it.
Hmm...I might have misunderstood the first post...are you saying NO ONE is promoting morals?
Well, the morals would obviously change with every generation, but I don't think it is possible to not promote morals.....isn't everyone doing that one way or another?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Code of Hammurabi.
Hammurabi kinda promoted them, didn't he.
Do you mean, if no one *enforced* morals, what would happen?
My opinion, is that if you were to remove the restraints of society, we would revert to natural instincts. Natural selection, survival of the fittest. There may be a select few with intelligence, that would see the error of this way of thinking, but they will be drowned out by the behavior of the masses.
Its a wonder that civilization ever came to be in the first place, I would of never expected it.
I think that most things that ""separates"" humans from animals is just disguised basic animal behavior. Many things that humans do, animals do too, but our highly envolved brain is capable of giving meaning to our basic animal instintive behavior making it look like a distinctive human, special etc etc... charateristic. Animals can do tricks, and for me morality is just a trick that humans are able to perform. While animals do tricks for food, humans do it for the sensation of being special. But it is just competition, that is pure animal behavior, not something exclusively human. I´m not generalizing, but exceptions are rare to find, and daily´s main preocupations and pleasures in life of many people is just animal behavior.
EDIT : I´m not saying that true morality does not exist, but I am saying that people does not sincerely follow it by their own will, and perhaps they do not even believe in it, or if they believe they can´t grasp it. People are like performing a trick when they are behaving in a moral, human, civilized way.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm...I might have misunderstood the first post...are you saying NO ONE is promoting morals?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways, what moralities would exist? Those we have around nowadays I suppose. Why bother with them? Cause you get ****ed in the ass by someone stronger if you don't.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Do you mean, if no one *enforced* morals, what would happen?
OK, maybe I didn't state this clear enough. We are speaking about you, not society. You have no one pushing you to behave morally, no religion pushing it, no philosophers saying utility or any other stance, no big strong man (or group) threatening to punish you in some way if you behave improperly, and for some reason society doesn't care. Everyone still responds to your actions, but your actions only gain a response from the person acted on. Would you live morally? What morals would you live by? Why would you choose each moral you would live by? I'm not looking deep, just looking to see how people think they would behave in the situation. I do not believe that everyone would respond the same.
I would probably maintain some sexual standards. Only due to the fact that a sexual partner may not appreciate promiscuity, and by behaving in a promiscuous way would reduce the frequency of sexual relations. Now if my sexual partner was open to promiscuity I might not maintain that type of behavior. There is also the issue of STDs, they would probably increase the need for anti promiscuous behavior. They don't seem to be that large a factor for many people today, so they may not play that large a role in moral decision. I would not force sexual relations, merely because to me an unwilling partner is not a turn on.
I believe that if possible I would steal given this hypothetical environment, but probably only from people I disliked.
Would I take into consideration children, their welfare, or the impact of my actions on them when I come into contact with others? Probably, mainly due to that evolutionary pang that occurs in me at the site of children that are not being treated well. Given this view, and the belief that most (not all) people have a similar view, I would attempt to have children, and have a number equal to the number I could support. The children would work twofold in purpose. First, they would be a protection against people that would treat me ill but that have the same view as myself. Second, they would be a signal to women that I was capable of providing for needs as well as protection.
....
There are a number of other moral aspects to be considered. I just threw a couple out to show some of what I mean. My goal is to view other peoples opinions on various moral issues, and why they would rationalize the morals they would live by. I'm not looking for a debate about whether morals would exist, I want a description of what moral you would live by, and why that moral exists for you.
I was not clear enough in the first post. I hope I have stated the question more clearly here, as well as given a decent enough example of the type of answer I am looking for.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think that most things that ""separates"" humans from animals is just disguised basic animal behavior. Many things that humans do, animals do too, but our highly envolved brain is capable of giving meaning to our basic animal instintive behavior making it look like a distinctive human, special etc etc... charateristic. Animals can do tricks, and for me morality is just a trick that humans are able to perform. While animals do tricks for food, humans do it for the sensation of being special. But it is just competition, that is pure animal behavior, not something exclusively human. I´m not generalizing, but exceptions are rare to find, and daily´s main preocupations and pleasures in life of many people is just animal behavior.
Thanks, this is pretty much what I was looking for 😉 Now for more thoughts, or debate about this rationalization for moral behavior.
I basically believe in hedonism. I believe that even in our world people act based on hedonistic principle. Religion just defines some abstract, often delayed, forms of pleasure. I feel that man has created complex moral behavior patterns to reach a point of pleasure, whether it be an instant physical pleasure, or a believed in distant in time spiritual pleasure. I also believe that morals at times only exist to avoid pain, in the same way as one pursues pleasure. I believe that all that separates us from animals is the complexity that our pleasure seeking and pain avoiding takes. So I believe that any given moral is just the pattern required to avoid pain or attain pleasure.
Originally posted by Regret
OK, maybe I didn't state this clear enough. We are speaking about you, not society. You have no one pushing you to behave morally, no religion pushing it, no philosophers saying utility or any other stance, no big strong man (or group) threatening to punish you in some way if you behave improperly, and for some reason society doesn't care. Everyone still responds to your actions, but your actions only gain a response from the person acted on. Would you live morally? What morals would you live by? Why would you choose each moral you would live by? I'm not looking deep, just looking to see how people think they would behave in the situation. I do not believe that everyone would respond the same.
I think my morality would be the same. Derived from the idea of self-ownership. No person or group of persons has the right to initiate force on another person. That covers things like stealing, murder, and gaybashing.
As far as sexual morality goes I think it's impossible to say. If I grew up naked and didn't know any different would I be embarrassed to walk around naked. Probably not. If all nudity mores were gone tomorrow would I be embarrased to walk around naked. Definitely.
Originally posted by Regret
Could you provide an example of the reasoning that would give you some moral stance? To clarify what emotion and logic are in terms of making your decision.
I don't think that's an easy task to accomplish. Unless you're balancing both emotions and logic with both hands. You either logical or emotional. You can't be both...I think we discuss this before on another thread which I pointed that emotions hamper logic and leads to irrationality.....
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't think that's an easy task to accomplish. Unless you're balancing both emotions and logic with both hands. You either logical or emotional. You can't be both...I think we discuss this before on another thread which I pointed that emotions hamper logic and leads to irrationality.....
I agree. I think though, that some areas of morality could be based on emotion while others could be based on logic. Love and relationships often seem governed by a combination, depending on what part of it is being discussed. I don't think that the reasons behind personal morality are always logical, nor are they always irrational. That is part of what I am looking for, I want to see what reasoning people go through to come up with their morals. The statement earlier that logic and emotion are how the moral comes into existence is not an answer, it is a statement as to which tools are used in that process.
Originally posted by Storm
As we see to this very day, disgust plays in role in people' s opposition to, for example, homosexuality.
Yes, homosexuality seems to be given moral distaste often due to irrational/emotional factors. It seems that most men I know dislike it based on disgust, even if they claim religion or some other cause for the moral stance. I myself find that my stance is probably highly driven by my emotional response to the image of the act. It is interesting to note that I have less of a reaction to the idea if there are multiple men and a single woman, even if sexual contact is non existent in either idea. Also my emotional reaction is nearly opposite in the situation of two women. But then this could be due to the fact that I cannot place myself in the woman woman picture, and thus it does not impact me. I do have to, based on my religious beliefs, take the stance that all of the non-monogamous sexual encounters are immoral. So, given my hypothetical, I would probably view gay men as immoral and lesbian women as non-factors in my moral decision. Without my religious views that would seem to be the stance.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't think that's an easy task to accomplish. Unless you're balancing both emotions and logic with both hands. You either logical or emotional. You can't be both...I think we discuss this before on another thread which I pointed that emotions hamper logic and leads to irrationality.....
Not necessarily. I totally agree with Storm, Morality is based mostly on emotion and logic.
And yes, you CAN be both...i consider myself conflicted between emotion and logic ALL the time. But I contain both characteristics.
In the event where you know someone is torturing another person. The victim had wronged the other person, pretty bad. The other person now has thier victim and will torture them out of vengeance.
Depending on what logic you possess, you can easily conclude that this torture is morally acceptable based on the "eye for an eye" logic.
However, your emotions can tell you "no....this is wrong....somehow, this is wrong. You cannot allow him to torture the other guy....no matter what the reason is....do something about it."
Both emotions AND logic can be equally positive OR negative.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not necessarily. I totally agree with Storm, Morality is based mostly on emotion and logic.And yes, you CAN be both...i consider myself conflicted between emotion and logic ALL the time. But I contain both characteristics.
In the event where you know someone is torturing another person. The victim had wronged the other person, pretty bad. The other person now has thier victim and will torture them out of vengeance.
Depending on what logic you possess, you can easily conclude that this torture is morally acceptable based on the "eye for an eye" logic.
However, your emotions can tell you "no....this is wrong....somehow, this is wrong. You cannot allow him to torture the other guy....no matter what the reason is....do something about it."
Both emotions AND logic can be equally positive OR negative.
You are conflating "the principles of reasoning," with "a mode of reasoning." The mode of reasoning you describe is not logical at all.