Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 So for a while now, one of the main reasons I have always held faith in a higher being is that I cannot bring myself to accept that life without any manner of absolute morality would be possible. What I mean by this is, aside from any manner of society or coexistence with other beings abiding by some form of shared moral boundaries, in order to truly believe that this life is without any absolute form of moral measure - I would have to presume that I could just as easily open a can of soda and drink it as I could take hold of one of my children (or any person for that matter) and violently murder them and have no conscience distinction between the two beyond what I deem appropriate. Again, I am not presuming morality is not possible absent a higher power; I am simply asking why this wouldnt be possible if you truly believed in no other higher form of morality beyond what you deem for yourself? If "right and wrong" are subjective to a moral measure, then we must cede that absent any absolute measure, any action we take could and should be deemed permissible according to each individual point of view. Thus, something as common as consuming some manner of food or drink is equal to taking action that would cause harm to another person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 law and morality came long before whatever belief you hold. our "law" is more of a bastardized over-regulated (and necessarily so) set of doctrines that have come from very primitive "Mala en se" offenses, which basically means universally condemned. Never understood people who need religion to make sense of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 law and morality came long before whatever belief you hold. our "law" is more of a bastardized over-regulated (and necessarily so) set of doctrines that have come from very primitive "Mala en se" offenses, which basically means universally condemned. Never understood people who need religion to make sense of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Did you even read the OP, assy? I dont think you did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Did you even read the OP, assy? I dont think you did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Did you even read the OP, assy? I dont think you did i tried but I never really found a question or statement so I improvised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Assy- Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by LynchProtoge Did you even read the OP, assy? I dont think you did i tried but I never really found a question or statement so I improvised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 sorry - edited! please take the time to read & respond accordingly, or not at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 sorry - edited! please take the time to read & respond accordingly, or not at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 If I follow you (not sure that I do), you're basically asking if there is morality in a vacuum. Outside of any societal structure and if morality isn't handed down from above, is there any difference between drinking water or eating a baby (borrowing your example)? Is that more or less what you're asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Phrophus Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 If I follow you (not sure that I do), you're basically asking if there is morality in a vacuum. Outside of any societal structure and if morality isn't handed down from above, is there any difference between drinking water or eating a baby (borrowing your example)? Is that more or less what you're asking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rey Gato Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rey Gato Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Altruistic behavior is a result of evolution. Animal populations are more successful when they cooperate rather than fight each other. Pretty simple to understand. Being nice gets you more women and thus better chance at reproducing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Altruistic behavior is a result of evolution. Animal populations are more successful when they cooperate rather than fight each other. Pretty simple to understand. Being nice gets you more women and thus better chance at reproducing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus If I follow you (not sure that I do), you're basically asking if there is morality in a vacuum. Outside of any societal structure and if morality isn't handed down from above, is there any difference between drinking water or eating a baby (borrowing your example)? Is that more or less what you're asking? yes...there is no morality beyond what we create/recognize/agree upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by Phrophus If I follow you (not sure that I do), you're basically asking if there is morality in a vacuum. Outside of any societal structure and if morality isn't handed down from above, is there any difference between drinking water or eating a baby (borrowing your example)? Is that more or less what you're asking? yes...there is no morality beyond what we create/recognize/agree upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 ^^ if you read my statement you would understand that 'morality' is a deeply ingrained evolved behavior. In a sense, altruistic behavior caused our species to become the top of the food chain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 ^^ if you read my statement you would understand that 'morality' is a deeply ingrained evolved behavior. In a sense, altruistic behavior caused our species to become the top of the food chain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by redeye5 Altruistic behavior is a result of evolution. Animal populations are more successful when they cooperate rather than fight each other. Pretty simple to understand. Being nice gets you more women and thus better chance at reproducing. Or, I could just as easily deem that killing for leisure is just as profitable for my purposes as being nice to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by redeye5 Altruistic behavior is a result of evolution. Animal populations are more successful when they cooperate rather than fight each other. Pretty simple to understand. Being nice gets you more women and thus better chance at reproducing. Or, I could just as easily deem that killing for leisure is just as profitable for my purposes as being nice to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 you could do that and you would have much less chance of passing your genetics to your offspring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members redeye5 Posted January 5, 2013 Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 you could do that and you would have much less chance of passing your genetics to your offspring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by redeye5 you could do that and you would have much less chance of passing your genetics to your offspring Your missing the point of the premise entirely. Read it again and relate to me what the premise is and what is wrong before offering another reason for your own premise - Otherwise I just wont respond to you anymore, no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LynchProtoge Posted January 5, 2013 Author Members Share Posted January 5, 2013 Originally Posted by redeye5 you could do that and you would have much less chance of passing your genetics to your offspring Your missing the point of the premise entirely. Read it again and relate to me what the premise is and what is wrong before offering another reason for your own premise - Otherwise I just wont respond to you anymore, no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.