Morality

[firedragon]

In my tantra-yoga tradition morality is tightly related to dharma and spiritual progress.
We believe that every living being is moving from crude to subtle towards spiritual liberation.
In order to do so a living being needs to be able to thrive, it needs food, shelter (proper living environment), freedom of expression etc.. Usually the natural circumstances will provide these.
The living beings evolve through clash and cohesion, through overcoming countless problems.

So what is an immoral act or thought against a living being?
It is the thought of or actually performing an act to hinder the natural progress of another living creature.

Darwinian evolution means the fittest survive. Unless you believe in another kind of evolution.

Tell me. Lets say a reptile kills a gecko who was going to kill a fly, is that not an "act to hinder the natural process of another living creature" (the same criteria you used)?

 

[Mock Turtle]

MT. Muslims have for a long long time, since maybe the 9th or 10th century believed in evolution. I would like to ask you to not just say things like "convenient answer". Rather, if you have a doubt about something, why not clarify it?

OK, I'll change 'convenient' to 'different' if that helps.

 

[Marcion]

Darwinian evolution means the fittest survive. Unless you believe in another kind of evolution.

Tell me. Lets say a reptile kills a gecko who was going to kill a fly, is that not an "act to hinder the natural process of another living creature" (the same criteria you used)?

An animal has no choice, it has to follow the will of God, through it's instinctive reactions.
Higher animals may sometimes show empathy towards other species (dolphins, dogs, elephants etc.).

But humans have a mind that can know how another living being can thrive.
So that makes that humans can choose between moral and immoral options.
This means humans don't have to follow their lower (animalistic) impulses.
Of course there are many people who are animals in human disguise as it were.
They are the immoralists in our society.

 

[firedragon]

OK, I'll change 'convenient' to 'different' if that helps.

Haha. Alright alright.

 

[firedragon]

An animal has no choice, it has to follow the will of God, through it's instinctive reactions.
Higher animals may sometimes show empathy towards other species (dolphins, dogs, elephants etc.).

But humans have a mind that can know how another living being can thrive.
So that makes that humans can choose between moral and immoral options.
This means humans don't have to follow their lower (animalistic) impulses.
Of course there are many people who are animals in human disguise as it were.
They are the immoralists in our society.

So what is the evolution mechanism that you spoke of?

 

[Brian2]

No, it's very different.

If God tells us, the only way for us to know is for God to tell us.

If it's embedded into the fabric of reality, then we can discover it by investigating reality.

Therefore, if objective morality was embedded into the very fabric of reality and does not exist simply because God says it, then we should be able to discover this objective morality by investigating the universe. What investigation to you propose would allow us to discover morality?

Do whatever we wanted and look at the results in many instances.
It has not stopped us from doing what is evil however.
If we ask the question where in the universe could morals be found, I would give the answer, in us. (animals don't seem to function at that level on the whole even if we humans think we see it at work at times).
If we look at us in history we can get a reasonable idea of what behaviours have been seen as wrong in societies.
If we take common wrongs as a guide that might tell us something about morality in the fabric of the universe.

 

[Brian2]

Natural morality - Wikipedia

Darwin asserted that social animals survive better (so are selected by nature to survive) if they look out for one another. Thus, altruism, sympathy, and other good traits are inherited and bred into the species.

Atheists seem to be winning the war of morality. There are boy-raping priests, and greedy pastors.

It's a good thing boy raping priests don't breed their traits into their offspring then.
Do you think that atheists are more moral than religious people?

 

[Left Coast]

In my opinion it does not "maximise wellbeing of all in society" (In my view it was one of the biggest atrocities one could fathom). It was in their view. Thats why they did it. So your it your view, it is justified because it was what they deemed was "maximising well-being of all in society".

Sure, but their assessment was incorrect. Some people think the Earth is flat. Those people are just wrong. Paying lip service to the well being of others while actually murdering them does not put you in the same moral category as someone who actually helps others.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, but their assessment was incorrect.

Absolutely. that is why Sociological relativism fails as an ontology.

Thats the reason I asked two questions in the OP which no one has so far responded to. Epistemology and ontology. People seem to think that just because some people are different, subjective morality is the right way to go and no other thing exists or will. The same person eventually has to agree that as you said "their assessment was incorrect" which you had said as if I said "it was correct" .

Peace.

 

[osgart]

Yes there is an absolute morality, that is objectively true regardless if any humans follow it or not. It's a cause and effect that plays out time and time again. Since we are animals by nature it's hard to attain it entirely. It's simplicity is discoverable, though many miss it altogether.

It's all based on deserve and trustworthiness. The absolute morality is the qualities of virtues and they have self defense built in to them.

Honesty can be your best friend or worst nightmare. Honesty will only tell you what you deserve to hear.

Relative morality is like shifting sands, and chameleons, you never know what you are going to get and it's all based on subjective desires and goals. Not exactly trustworthy. It falls to whims.

Morality takes root in what people take to heart for the desire to live.

 

[F1fan]

An animal has no choice, it has to follow the will of God, through it's instinctive reactions.

What you mean is that animals behave according to their evolved traits and abilities for survival and reproduction.

Higher animals may sometimes show empathy towards other species (dolphins, dogs, elephants etc.).

Sometimes, which makes us question what it means to be a "higher" animal.

But humans have a mind that can know how another living being can thrive.
So that makes that humans can choose between moral and immoral options.

This means humans don't have to follow their lower (animalistic) impulses.
Of course there are many people who are animals in human disguise as it were.
They are the immoralists in our society.

That gets thrown out the window fast if people are hungry. So morals can be said to be a luxury when life is good and secure. You tell me what you would do (let's assume society has collapsed and there's no police or law) if your family was starving and you knew your neighbor was hoarding food and not sharing. Would you honor your neighbor's attitude and let your kids starve?

It's easy to be moral and idealistic when you sit on your couch typing comments with a pantry full of food.

 

[Left Coast]

Absolutely. that is why Sociological relativism fails as an ontology.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

In terms of relative vs. absolute morality, it depends what we mean by those terms. Morality is a tool invented by humans to facilitate our interactions. We're a social species and thus benefit from facilitating interdependence on one other.

If someone doesn't care about the well being of others, there's nothing I can point to that "objectively" proves that they must care about it. However, the fact is that most people do care about it, so if we start with that shared premise, we can objectively assess actions to determine whether they help or harm (or a combination of the two) ourselves or others.

 

[F1fan]

Absolutely. that is why Sociological relativism fails as an ontology.

Not true. Sociological relativism only explains why a select group or culture or nation will believe what they do when it has unique views, not try to justify what they believe. That Nazis decided to target and exterminate the Jews of Europe can be explained. It was successful for the Nazis in the short term, but fatally flawed and immoral long term.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes there is an absolute morality, that is objectively true regardless if any humans follow it or not. It's a cause and effect that plays out time and time again. Since we are animals by nature it's hard to attain it entirely. It's simplicity is discoverable, though many miss it altogether.

It's all based on deserve and trustworthiness. The absolute morality is the qualities of virtues and they have self defense built in to them.

Honesty can be your best friend or worst nightmare. Honesty will only tell you what you deserve to hear.

Relative morality is like shifting sands, and chameleons, you never know what you are going to get and it's all based on subjective desires and goals. Not exactly trustworthy. It falls to whims.

Morality takes root in what people take to heart for the desire to live.

So what would a world look like if we all adhered to some objective (or absolute) morality?

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

In terms of relative vs. absolute morality, it depends what we mean by those terms. Morality is a tool invented by humans to facilitate our interactions. We're a social species and thus benefit from facilitating interdependence on one other.

If someone doesn't care about the well being of others, there's nothing I can point to that "objectively" proves that they must care about it. However, the fact is that most people do care about it, so if we start with that shared premise, we can objectively assess actions to determine whether they help or harm (or a combination of the two) ourselves or others.

Social relativism is when morals or beliefs depends on the sociology and that's "right".

Anyway, you said morality is a tool invented by humans to facilitate our interactions. Can you provide proof for it?

 

[osgart]

So what would a world look like if we all adhered to some objective (or absolute) morality?

No wars, and a lot of peaceful discretion. Everyone would do something about the issues that matter. No crime. No excessive greed. Continuous exploration and knowledge that never gets abused. Love for all fellow living creatures. Joyful relationships. Honor never broken. More and more opportunities to do beneficial things for society.

 

[firedragon]

So what would a world look like if we all adhered to some objective (or absolute) morality?

I think this kind of question calls for guesswork. Someone will respond with some guesswork, and you will respond with some other guesswork. No one can answer this question because its a hypothetical "if" and the outcome is a result, not a decision.

If you want answers, you know that you will get a utopia or chaos, which are both "faith's" and its the same case with any other shade of grey. Hope you understand.

 

[F1fan]

No wars, and a lot of peaceful discretion. Everyone would do something about the issues that matter. No crime. No excessive greed. Continuous exploration and knowledge that never gets abused. Love for all fellow living creatures. Joyful relationships. Honor never broken. More and more opportunities to do beneficial things for society.

That would require solid mental health across our species, and a good understanding of how our brains function at the emotional level, and the discipline to fight off emotional impulses, and a strong social and cooperative philosophy. Those with low intelligence will have a hard time understanding complex concepts, so they will be a problem.

Humans evolved brains capable of abstract thought, but our emotion centers are still very primitive, just as in other animals that rely on fight or flight fear mechanism. So we humans struggle to manage our "monkey minds" and our success depends on many factors.

That about 40% of Americans were attracted to a corrupt person like trump for president illustrates how reason does not automatically prevail over emotional decisions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No wars, and a lot of peaceful discretion. Everyone would do something about the issues that matter. No crime. No excessive greed. Continuous exploration and knowledge that never gets abused. Love for all fellow living creatures. Joyful relationships. Honor never broken. More and more opportunities to do beneficial things for society.

Sounds like a society of clones more than anything, and perhaps something for the future, although I doubt such would come about.

 

[osgart]

Sounds like a society of clones more than anything, and perhaps something for the future, although I doubt such would come about.

Clones? How so?