Morals?

[Whiterain]

I was contemplating making a thread on the human capacity for evil. This thread may suffice, I suppose.

I'm Talking about evil, sadism and torture.

While I am mentally ill and spiritually inclined to believe in the super natural, I respect modern day idea's of logic and ration toward it.

Man has an insatiable capacity toward evil - explained through mental illness, I suppose.

No other creature shows an affinity to punish, torture or take joy in the suffering or misfortune of others, at least it appears so.

No animal appears to torture others or take pleasure in killing? Man can be an inconceivably evil creature - explained by mental illness.

Sadism to be exact, perhaps a Humboldt squid takes joy in the inconceivable suffering of it's prey as it takes bites out of it.

Many creatures go directly for the kill.

Many take pleasure in punishing others, are sated or gratified by it in your everyday world. Perhaps some of yourselves, you're not mentally ill.

Maybe I am wrong

Perhaps animals only 'play' with their food when they think it's still alive...

 

[Ouroboros]

In a world without karma,

Karma does exist in a natural sense. We all grow older and will get the results of what we did in life. I've seen many families where a parent makes a bunch of bad decisions (only following their own desires), and end up with a broken family and no one to visit them when they're old, weak, and in need of company. You have to think about how you want things to end. People mostly live in the now, and not for how their life will continue to be.

In a sense you could say that my older self, 10 years from now, will be the judging god of my current affairs and decisions. I will create my own heaven or hell based on the decisions I make now.

 

[Bunyip]

In a world without karma, a judging god, or anything like that, how should we determine what is right and wrong?
I'm not asking because I think morals can't exist without god. I'm asking because I'm curious to hear what various types of atheists and non-theistic spiritualists (by this I mean Buddhists and others) say, and because I wonder if there is a logical set of morals that reasonable people can agree on.
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful comments!

I take the Socratic view that morals and ethics can be drawn from knowledge and reason alone. That given the tools to inform and consider moral questions through the lens of knowledge and reason we can construct a moral landscape without recourse to a moral authority.

 

[JRMcC]

Karma does exist in a natural sense. We all grow older and will get the results of what we did in life. I've seen many families where a parent makes a bunch of bad decisions (only following their own desires), and end up with a broken family and no one to visit them when they're old, weak, and in need of company. You have to think about how you want things to end. People mostly live in the now, and not for how their life will continue to be.

In a sense you could say that my older self, 10 years from now, will be the judging god of my current affairs and decisions. I will create my own heaven or hell based on the decisions I make now.

Good point! I believe I meant Karma that carries over into future lives in this case. You're actions do affect those who live after you're gone though, so in a sense it does carry over into future lives.

 

[JRMcC]

I take the Socratic view that morals and ethics can be drawn from knowledge and reason alone. That given the tools to inform and consider moral questions through the lens of knowledge and reason we can construct a moral landscape without recourse to a moral authority.

I agree that basic morals can be derived from reason, but when it comes to being utterly selfless I think explaining with logic is a serious stretch.

 

[Bunyip]

I agree that basic morals can be derived from reason, but when it comes to being utterly selfless I think explaining with logic is a serious stretch.

How so? Altruism can be drawn from reason and knowledge, we are a social species - forming social groups has survival advantages and altruistic behaviour can be a constructive and cohesive force in a complex social group.

 

[JRMcC]

I was contemplating making a thread on the human capacity for evil. This thread may suffice, I suppose.

I'm Talking about evil, sadism and torture.

While I am mentally ill and spiritually inclined to believe in the super natural, I respect modern day idea's of logic and ration toward it.

Man has an insatiable capacity toward evil - explained through mental illness, I suppose.

No other creature shows an affinity to punish, torture or take joy in the suffering or misfortune of others, at least it appears so.

No animal appears to torture others or take pleasure in killing? Man can be an inconceivably evil creature - explained by mental illness.

Sadism to be exact, perhaps a Humboldt squid takes joy in the inconceivable suffering of it's prey as it takes bites out of it.

Many creatures go directly for the kill.

Many take pleasure in punishing others, are sated or gratified by it in your everyday world. Perhaps some of yourselves, you're not mentally ill.

Maybe I am wrong

Perhaps animals only 'play' with their food when they think it's still alive...

Well, what other animal takes pleasure in watching a sun set? I don't think we're necessarily more evil than any other animal. What is evil to you? For me it's a word to describe something that we don't like at all. Is it a result of mental illness? Perhaps in a majority of cases, but even so that just means someone is acting abnormally. I don't believe in the classic objective morality. I think you need christian-type philosophy for that.

 

[JRMcC]

How so? Altruism can be drawn from reason and knowledge, we are a social species - forming social groups has survival advantages and altruistic behaviour can be a constructive and cohesive force in a complex social group.

Hmmm. That's true when you take a step back and view the society as a whole. But is that why an individual acts that way? Usually not. It often comes from a place of love. And other times it comes from a place of...being Christian and wanting to go to heaven. Or maybe being a Hindu and seeing yourself in all creatures and seeing all creatures in you.

 

[Bunyip]

Hmmm. That's true when you take a step back and view the society as a whole. But is that why an individual acts that way? Usually not. It often comes from a place of love. And other times it comes from a place of...being Christian and wanting to go to heaven. Or maybe being a Hindu and seeing yourself in all creatures and seeing all creatures in you.

Or being a parent and loving your grand children, or being a bachelor but loving your community, or being a teacher and loving you world.

 

[JRMcC]

Or being a parent and loving your grand children, or being a bachelor but loving your community, or being a teacher and loving you world.

Does the teacher love her students because it's logical to do so?

 

[Bunyip]

Does the teacher love her students because it's logical to do so?

In the bigger picture yes. Of course it makes sense not only to love our own children and value them, but to love the children of others also. If we cherish, educate and protect our children we end up living in better, more equitable, more prosperous and more peaceful communities.

 

[JRMcC]

In the bigger picture yes. Of course it makes sense not only to love our own children and value them, but to love the children of others also. If we cherish, educate and protect our children we end up living in better, more equitable, more prosperous and more peaceful communities.

Agreed there, but what accounts for the teacher's love on an individual level, not in the bigger picture?

 

[Bunyip]

Agreed there, but what accounts for the teacher's love on an individual level, not in the bigger picture?

We are not really individuals, that is a modern myth. We are a social species, it is who we are. We humans are a we, not an I. You can no more live without society than you can live without oxygen - trust me on this, I've tried it.

 

[JRMcC]

We are not really individuals, that is a modern myth. We are a social species, it is who we are. We humans are a we, not an I. You can no more live without society than you can live without oxygen - trust me on this, I've tried it.

Oh boy that opens up a new door, this could go a while. You'll have to let me know how far you wanna take this . Maybe someone will jump in, otherwise I'll pick it up tomorrow with a fresh mind. Thanks for the good conversations today!

 

[Bunyip]

Oh boy that opens up a new door, this could go a while. You'll have to let me know how far you wanna take this . Maybe someone will jump in, otherwise I'll pick it up tomorrow with a fresh mind. Thanks for the good conversations today!

As far as we can.

 

[Whiterain]

Well, what other animal takes pleasure in watching a sun set? I don't think we're necessarily more evil than any other animal. What is evil to you? For me it's a word to describe something that we don't like at all. Is it a result of mental illness? Perhaps in a majority of cases, but even so that just means someone is acting abnormally. I don't believe in the classic objective morality. I think you need christian-type philosophy for that.

Evil as in evil? morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:

Synonyms
1. sinful, iniquitous, depraved, vicious, corrupt, base, vile, nefarious. Seebad1. 2. pernicious, destructive. 6. wickedness, depravity, iniquity,unrighteousness, corruption, baseness. 9. disaster, calamity, woe, misery,suffering, sorrow.

Sadistic, pathological liar, sociopaths?

 

[JRMcC]

We are not really individuals, that is a modern myth. We are a social species, it is who we are. We humans are a we, not an I. You can no more live without society than you can live without oxygen - trust me on this, I've tried it.

This is definitely true in a sense. I would agree that we are all non-different in some important ways. But individuals make different choices and have different motives, even if most of us are very similar.

So you're saying we're a social species, and that a teacher who loves his/her students does so because it is beneficial for the society. I'm just not sure I understand. Some people don't love others, some do. I would think these two groups are driven by different things. It's one thing to say that love toward others is logical, but it's another thing to say that people love others because it's logical. Maybe you could clarify or expand.

 

[JRMcC]

Evil as in evil? morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:

Synonyms
1. sinful, iniquitous, depraved, vicious, corrupt, base, vile, nefarious. Seebad1. 2. pernicious, destructive. 6. wickedness, depravity, iniquity,unrighteousness, corruption, baseness. 9. disaster, calamity, woe, misery,suffering, sorrow.

Sadistic, pathological liar, sociopaths?

I see. What is it about evil that you'd like to discuss? I just think evil is an aspect of reality that we should try to keep under control.

 

[Bunyip]

This is definitely true in a sense. I would agree that we are all non-different in some important ways. But individuals make different choices and have different motives, even if most of us are very similar.

I'm really sorry, but I don't see how you got from what I said to the notion that we are all similar and so on. I meant that we are all part of a community, not that we are non-different.

So you're saying we're a social species, and that a teacher who loves his/her students does so because it is beneficial for the society. I'm just not sure I understand. Some people don't love others, some do. I would think these two groups are driven by different things. It's one thing to say that love toward others is logical, but it's another thing to say that people love others because it's logical. Maybe you could clarify or expand.

Well yes, we love the children of others because it is good for our societies. Altruism has social benefits. Sure, not all people feel that way, just as not all Moslems, Buddists or Christians feel the same way.

 

[JRMcC]

I'm really sorry, but I don't see how you got from what I said to the notion that we are all similar and so on. I meant that we are all part of a community, not that we are non-different. Well yes, we love the children of others because it is good for our societies. Altruism has social benefits. Sure, not all people feel that way, just as not all Moslems, Buddists or Christians feel the same way.

So I agree that altruistic behavior is beneficial for society. But I'm not yet convinced that people behave morally and/or altruistically for logical reasons. I also think you have to account for both the society as a whole and the individual when explaining the existence of altruistic behavior.