do they actually exist? isnt it just human perspective and an illusion.
peace.
peace.
morals...
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
morals are certainly not an illusion but god is, but morals are most certainly relative.
man by his very nature is a social animal, and with society comes morals, else all society would be chaos, they have to exist for man to exist.
they are part and parcel of what being human is.
man by his very nature is a social animal, and with society comes morals, else all society would be chaos, they have to exist for man to exist.
they are part and parcel of what being human is.
well say im not a human, and im a rock, isnt everything you humans speak of irrelevent to my existance as rock type matter,
morals and ethics are a fickle subjective subject in my personal opinion, its immoral to kill somebody to human law in all society nowdays, but its natural to kill to eat, homanid type species ate each other, homo sapien has been discovered to have ate neanderthal and the hobbit species also possibly other type of homanid animals like ourselves, cannibalism is survival of the fittest, so now it is immoral to do what we naturally are allowed to do,
in nature there is no morals or ethics, there is just the law of the land, survive or die, thats the meaning of life, (to survive) thats what we are all built for. survival, and if i have to eat one of you i will do it and not be guilty atall,
peace.
morals and ethics are a fickle subjective subject in my personal opinion, its immoral to kill somebody to human law in all society nowdays, but its natural to kill to eat, homanid type species ate each other, homo sapien has been discovered to have ate neanderthal and the hobbit species also possibly other type of homanid animals like ourselves, cannibalism is survival of the fittest, so now it is immoral to do what we naturally are allowed to do,
in nature there is no morals or ethics, there is just the law of the land, survive or die, thats the meaning of life, (to survive) thats what we are all built for. survival, and if i have to eat one of you i will do it and not be guilty atall,
peace.
Cannibalism, i do believe, is illegal! 
Anyways, i think your (above) post is rather imature. Everyone knows why its 'wrong' to kill another person etc etc, morals are a way to structure everyday life for people, to then live coherantly amongst others.
Anyways, i think your (above) post is rather imature. Everyone knows why its 'wrong' to kill another person etc etc, morals are a way to structure everyday life for people, to then live coherantly amongst others.
john smith said:Cannibalism, i do believe, is illegal!
Anyways, i think your (above) post is rather imature. Everyone knows why its 'wrong' to kill another person etc etc, morals are a way to structure everyday life for people, to then live coherantly amongst others.
i actually was completely serious in all aspects of that last post, i do not think its immature but i accept that you think this,
why is it wrong to kill a person?, seriously why?
we kill other animals all of the time, we are an animal we cannot forget this, we arent super high biengs like gods, we are just animals, we kill, we get killed, its natural how can you justify killing anouther species of animals and call it "survival" or the "food chain" well the food chain says i am a big guy and im very strong and the thing i do best is fight. so a smaller weaker male is prey to me if i am hungry and i can get hold of him, if i were standed on an island or confined somewhere with no food except somebody else (anouther human) then i would eat them to survibe and not feel any different than eating a dolphin or monkey (wich i would also do),
why should i feel bad for eatng somebody that i dont know?, if i were stranded with my wife i would kill myself before i kill her, but i do have morals, but im just a human, morals dont actually exist outside of the human mind, therefore are figments of our imagination
peace.
So if i came up to you, fought you, stuck a knife in your guts and walked away, whilst you were screaming and writhing on the floor in absoloute agony, YOU are telling me you would have no quams about it?
You wouldnt be thinking that i'd wronged you in anyway?
You would forgive me even though i'd not asked for forgiveness??
I do not believe that you could, i do not believe that any human being is capable of such a thing.
Chi, i respect the fact that you accept what i believe, however i cannot accept what you believe, your argument, as it is utterly floored.If your ( may i say rather insane) argument was constructive and 'proper' ( note the inverted commas) then wouldnt this be the way society lives today?
Because Chi, you better thank 'God' that your argument/dream is not reality, because there is always a 'bigger fish', someone will ALWAYS be stronger, bigger and better at fighting than you, which will ultimatly end in your demise.
However big and tough you THINK you are in a relativly peaceful/calm society, you would be like a chicken is too a fox when faced with some of the 'thugs' and 'crimminals' which are thankfully behind bars, because they not only thought like you "Why is it wrong to kill a person?,seriously why?", but carried your argument out in action!
Tell me how can you possibly percieve that killing a person is the 'correct' thing to do?
You wouldnt be thinking that i'd wronged you in anyway?
You would forgive me even though i'd not asked for forgiveness??
I do not believe that you could, i do not believe that any human being is capable of such a thing.
Chi, i respect the fact that you accept what i believe, however i cannot accept what you believe, your argument, as it is utterly floored.If your ( may i say rather insane) argument was constructive and 'proper' ( note the inverted commas) then wouldnt this be the way society lives today?
Because Chi, you better thank 'God' that your argument/dream is not reality, because there is always a 'bigger fish', someone will ALWAYS be stronger, bigger and better at fighting than you, which will ultimatly end in your demise.
However big and tough you THINK you are in a relativly peaceful/calm society, you would be like a chicken is too a fox when faced with some of the 'thugs' and 'crimminals' which are thankfully behind bars, because they not only thought like you "Why is it wrong to kill a person?,seriously why?", but carried your argument out in action!
Tell me how can you possibly percieve that killing a person is the 'correct' thing to do?
EmptyForceOfChi said:
whether it's right or wrong depends on the situation. usually it's wrong because life is precious and it has taken a long time to create it.
the things is, we aren't animals, we are gods. god lives in every being.
only our bodies are animal, not we, not the mind.
morals do exist, since animals, plants and matter also follow morals (natural laws)
humans are the only ones capable to not follow nature because we have become aware of the mind which created nature and is above nature.
if humans are so honourable, then why is there so much violence/killing/murder/rape/lying/stealing etc going on everywhere in the world, there isnt a single non violent culture living on this world today. there is killing rape etc everywhere,
i dont think we have that many morals i think there all just fickle and subjective, some people dont have morals, you cant say everybody does because some people clearly do not care what they do, or who they hurt,
im not complaining i accept bad things they make the good parts of life appreciated. im just stating what i see is true in my personal opinion,
morals in my area you dont see to often.
peace.
i dont think we have that many morals i think there all just fickle and subjective, some people dont have morals, you cant say everybody does because some people clearly do not care what they do, or who they hurt,
im not complaining i accept bad things they make the good parts of life appreciated. im just stating what i see is true in my personal opinion,
morals in my area you dont see to often.
peace.
Morals are just the word we apply to the behaviors that allow us to function as social creatures (as geezer pointed out). All creatures have "morals". Even plants have "morals" inasmuch as they emit stress chemicals when attacked (by blight for example) to give early warning and heighten the protective response of the plants around them. True morals are not something you can decide upon. They're built in by millions of years of evolution. Simple really.
super,
well dosent that go against the definition of a "moral" for a moral to be implied wouldent it have to be a conscious decision, like a belief system of honour,
wouldent what your speaking of be instinct and chemical reaction within biological systems, that dosent really classify as a moral does it, its a reaction, not an opinion or set of rules for one to follow,
if that were the case, wouldent a animal hunting for pray be called a moral, when infact its just called hunting, survival, survival isnt a moral, its a built in instinctive rule, not an opinion of what somebody thinks is right.
peace.
well dosent that go against the definition of a "moral" for a moral to be implied wouldent it have to be a conscious decision, like a belief system of honour,
wouldent what your speaking of be instinct and chemical reaction within biological systems, that dosent really classify as a moral does it, its a reaction, not an opinion or set of rules for one to follow,
if that were the case, wouldent a animal hunting for pray be called a moral, when infact its just called hunting, survival, survival isnt a moral, its a built in instinctive rule, not an opinion of what somebody thinks is right.
peace.
Correct. "Morals" is a concept created by people to explain aspects of our behavior before we understood evolutionary biology. Just like "spirits" were created as an explanation for epileptic fits and psychosis before we understood brain structure and chemistry. No one "invented" basic morals. They're inherent in a species. Now if you want to talk about the "moral" value of not eating meat at certain times of the year or covering your women with sackcloth, then we're into the realm of contrived human bullshit, so to speak.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
Of course they exist.
Yes it is j ust human perspective.
No it is not an illusion. It's a perspective.
When you turn a prism a millionth of a degree and see a color shift, is that an illusion?
Oh, and the assertion that morals aren't relative is IMO, utterly indicative of denial (which is actually very interesting in this case, as the reason for the denial is strong morals!, which in turn serve society*, which help to the end of survival of the species). Different people have different morals, therefore morals are relative. I can conceive of a possible counter for that which isn't utter bullshit.
*Strong morals serve society** in a common bond and force of unity, in which the individual is more powerful as there is no room to doubt when an act requiring conviction could or couldn't be chosen.
Society is a tribe. A tribe requires specialized functions for the most part, but to aid motivation in the function of each, confidence and a common moral base add to the capacity per person... so the tribe is stronger so long as the common beliefs don't ultimately take from their odds of survival as a group (which in turn allows survival of the invidual)
Last edited:
Allegiance is literally self-sacrifice (a degree of suspended ego, rather, outwardly directed ego or something, ego that buys into the external rathre than the internal or something). The tribe is stronger when people are willing to sacrifice themselves to defend or enhance it.
wesmorris said:
morals are very constructive if humans want to enhance there human society,
what you said is true, morals do exist for people i wont argue with this,
morals are relative to humans yes,
maybe illusion was the wrong word, perspective as you stated is probably a wiser choice,
if you turn a prism to a degree where the light shifts to a different colour, hmmm if i were to think of it, yes its a optical light illusion from your perspective, because if i were to glance at it from a slightly different angle would i not see a different image to what you see, also isnt a light illusion possible?, isnt illusion a perspective.
do all animals that survibe well have morals?.
do morals exist to anything other than life forms with egos to match there morals.
peace.
I don't think it would be fair to characterize most other animals as having morals, as what might equate to it in them would be IMO, quite foreign and somewhat incompatable with the abstract notion of right and wrong that the average person is familiar with. I think those smarter apes or monkeys and some other species of some minimal intellect could compare to our own well enough.
I think you got it there with the ego thing. Perhaps morals are expectations that egos cannot completely depart from.
I think you got it there with the ego thing. Perhaps morals are expectations that egos cannot completely depart from.
can something that dosent exist to something else, but only exist to a certain part really exist atall,
?
i agree with what you said though nearly 100%.
peace.
?
i agree with what you said though nearly 100%.
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
Yes, as much as the number 1 is real.
Perhaps we should clarify what you mean by... exist.
A point of view establishes, by its definition, a particular perspective on reality. If you agree that you have a point of view, then you've deemed that POV real for the purposes of a logical progression from that assumption.
Can we ever say what is absolutely positively real outsides ourselves?
No, not IMO, but that we cannot is irrelevant to the practicality of presuming it we can. Logical analysis requires assumptions for a starting point, so we must assume something to be real (such as self) in order attempt analysis. Otherwise we're caught in an infinitely regressive abyss of self-consuming nothingness. Logic is chaos with no assumptions to ground it.
So our answers regarding the factuality of ontology are without exception, steeped in the presumptuous basis of our logical progression.
Thus, what is real must reflect in this manner.
Presuming the reality of one's self establishes that one's perspective is real.
So unless you reject self or define it in a manner that's currently beyond me, I'd say that perspective must necessarily be real, as it is a consequence of the definition of self.
Last edited:
is the number real though? truley real?,
or is the word that represents it real, or the object/charecter that represents it real,
peace.
or is the word that represents it real, or the object/charecter that represents it real,
peace.
EmptyForceOfChi said:
Hehe, yes, IMO, it is. Of course it is an extension of my mind, which to me is real per the junk above.
IMO, I'd say it is yes, truly real. I classify it as an abstract, which I consider a component of reality.
The character would seem to be ontologically real, and the meaning would seem to be real as an abstract - at least in my twisted little mind.
For more on the topic, see the link above to "abstracts again".
And on the logical tip: I was just pondering if you could use probability functions in place of assumptions and still garner a logical progression. In thinking about it for a minute though, I think that renders it "fuzzy logic", in which of course, boolean answers are implausible.
Last edited:
there would have to be assumptions made to come up with probabilitys. the assumption of the probable, maybe not consciously because a random machine could do that, but the idea still have to be pre proggrammed or with intension freedom of thought on our behalf,
assumptions are probabilities, the probabilities are assumptions in a sense,
peace.
assumptions are probabilities, the probabilities are assumptions in a sense,
peace.