Morality.

[Hetzer]

I know we've had this before, but usually as a sideline of other topics.

So, right and wrong...do they actually exist? Killing somebody, for example, is illegal and not 'right' for the person being killed. But is it actually 'wrong'? And if so, why? Your proofs if you please, in either direction.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[Mr.Everready]

I believe in capital punishment, so in some situations killing is right.
____________________
the undemocratically unelected mod of the Scottish section

[yuri2085]

A 'proof' in the logical sense does - I assert - not exist when regarding questions of morality.
Sorry I won't jump into your discussions as much as I used to Hetzer, just seem to be busy

[Mr Hammers]

I don't believe there is any other measure other than our own personal moralities. The universe doesn't care one way or the other if I'm a fine, upstanding citizen or an evil murderous criminal.

So, in answer to the question, do they actually exist? No, I don't think they do.
____________________
A Guide To Powerbands

[Bishbash]

I have often thought this about 'laws' and right and wrong. It was one persons view on the matter, turned into a law which the countries population must abide by or else. Don't get me wrong, most laws work and are important for the country and how we all 'get along'. But...

I always thought back when man was man, when we killed to eat etc, we actually were free to do pretty much anything we want and only the strongest survive, it's nature no?

You see the animal population of the world still living like this, but I suppose that is what separates us 'humans' with supposedly more intellect than the animals, wanting to survive and be fair towards one another.

Personally I think your example is wrong, I would never do it as I was bought up like that. But, killing is right in some scenarios and others it is not.

Anyway, why do you ask?
____________________
My current bikes are - YZF-R1 & GS 500 E

Trackday videos - https://www.youtube.com/user/bishbash13

[Grimnir]

[bazza]

[Hetzer]

I'm plotting nothing.

Revelations over recent months have given me to understand that we exist by virtue of the 'god' that made us, it seeking to understand if good over evil is a constant even in the face of almost complete ignorance of true reality.

As pure consciousness we are unable to choose one over the other, it being impossible to do anything other than simply be.

But, as physical manifestations, we can and do.

But it seems to me the dice are loaded in this experiment, given that our only purpose seems to be to experience pleasure, and that is more greatly gauranteed for the majority by a system of morality in which evil is diminished.

So let me put this question...if you could kill, rape, steal, do anything you liked, with no possibility of punishment whatsoever, would you do it? If not, why not? The answer I predict most will give (in some form or other) is that empathy, if not subverted by poor nuture, is hard-wired into our brains. Is that, then, 'morality'? Nothing more than a product of survival evolution? Or a spark of the 'divine'?

Going further...if you knew that upon death you are not judged by any other entity than yourself, and that therefore what happens to people in this world isn't actually all that important, would you be tempted to go on a 24/7 rampage?
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[sebastianw]

Society exists as a framework within which a man (woman) can achieve the most he (she) is capable of.

One should do everything to the best of one's ability, try to achieve excellence in all things including killing. (arete) (kultur, bildung, kraft)
Morality is not the same as the law.

You (or I )have the capability to know what is right or wrong in particular circumstances and act accordingly. The law is there to protect vested interests (mostly).

[Hetzer]

[Mr Hammers]

[Hetzer]

[sweetleaf]

I'm undecided on the whole 'is there a god' thing, and I despise religion. I also don't tend to worry about consequences until it's too late.

So, yes, it's simply empathy that stops me from doing nasty things to people / animals. Even if someone really hurt someone I cared for, I wouldn't be able to deal out retribution. I would leave that to family members who don't suffer from empathy in the way I do.

As for morals, they're just an invention of religion.

[Hazylogic]

Well according to the social contract that you abide by it is wrong.

Whether it is right or wrong is also subjective to the individual on a personal level. Moot point though, as if the law gets involved, then they go through their legislation and decide for you.

As to the other point that Bishbash made regarding only the strong surviving, i only come up with more questions rather than answers.

Surely we were never really in a state of nature - only the strong survive. I'd be interested to learn, like Hetz says, about 'proofs' of when we were knocking the shit out of each other like animals. Possibly Neanderthals, running around in their bearskin pants, lived like this, but we have obviously developed passed this stage. Although, you could suggest that the feudal system offers something similar to a state of nature, yet those in charge were not wantonly slaying every serf, as they recognised that they both relied on each other - still they used reason and recognised that the strong need the weak to survive. They did not merely act out on some sort of primal level.

As humans we have the ability to choose to use compassion towards other humans. Yet there must be a reason as to why we sometimes don't have compassion towards others - this could be an argument as to why we do have a social contract, that we should be treating others universally and fairly in compliance with the contract. I suppose this is were the other part of our intellect, our ability to rationalise and reason comes into play.

This to me suggests that right and wrong does exist in accordance with the contract that we abide by. Obviously, there are flaws with the legislation we use - example being those irish chaps done for the Birmingham pub bombings. This alludes to: 'that if you can get away with something then you should do it.' Therefore, the right and wrong are mere codes of conduct that you abide by and what these codes do is limit you, through fear of reprisal, into not acting against the social contract. Yet even though it is flawed system, as the 7% have all the monies and the rest have just enough that they don't want to lose their toys etc, stopping any chance of an uprising, it does actually have some benefits; a primary one being that you don't live in constant fear of death.

As previously touched upon: this also suggests that you could be so inclined to act in a way that if you can get away with an action, that is going to result in an advantage for yourself, then you should do so. So an individual could act not simply out of a sense of right or wrong, but what is best for the individual - advantage or disadvantage - even if society dictates that the action is morally wrong to do so.

So this isn't a question of right or wrong, it is this really a question of: 'Why be moral?'

I'm afraid my dear Hetz, that this question has been asked since before Socrates-dude came upon the scene and the answer is still ongoing! I'm a firm believer in non of the theories out there and I try to abide by common sense and the laws of the social contract, obviously

[Irezumi aka Reuben]

Essentially what youre asking is are good and evil by way of nuture or nature.

In modern society it can be shown to be via nurture in the main. However this doesnt explain the 'anomalys' of people who disagree with them. For instance people in devout muslim countries who disagree with stoning etc.

It also does not explain how these rules came about in the first place. If like me you do not beleive in a higher power or entity (a god), they therefore must have been created by a person or persons in the first place. This implies that the justification of what is good and bad is therefore man made so a construct of nature, i.e. inbuilt.

What's good and bad is also a transient state. Is it right to steal, no I beleive would be most peoples answer. Is it right to steal food if it will keep you alive, yes I beleive would be the answer for most.

I beleive as with most people with most things you want a definitive answer, something quantifiable. Where as with most things, such as this, it simply does not exist.

So my answer to your question is, yes and no. And also, I dont know.
____________________
Pictorgraphicalfantastical

[Hazylogic]

[D O G]

Any act which is carried out when the purpetrator knows it will bring more emotional pain than pleasure to others is immoral.

[T1z3R]

fundamentally there is no right and/or wrong.

they were both created by hoomans.

moral and immoral are the same.

my opinion.
____________________
duck my sick!

[Hazylogic]

[snomag]

[D O G]

[sebastianw]

[Albion]

This might be worth a watch.


"Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life."


https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
____________________
A2 Passed on 07/05/08, CG125 bought on 21/07/08.

[Hetzer]

This is the problem, there is no answer. Not an ultimate one. The best we can come up with is "It furthers our pursuit of pleasure in this world." Pretty fucking lame.

"Here's your brain, you can ask questions with it, but you'll get no answers and will be able to work none out for yourselves."

Gee...impressed. Not.

I've ridden my wagon right off the edge of the insanity abyss, clear through one side of the universe and out the other, into the void. My mind is no longer firmly rooted within reality, reality is within my mind and it's tiny and small and sucks hugely. All this? For what?! Pleasure? How utterly pointless.

That's a perspective I'm no longer able to avoid. I'm on a form of auto-pilot, choosing good only because to choose bad is as pointless as choosing good, other than good keeps me in a hard-wired comfort-zone. Meh.

I'm running on the hope that death, the liberation of the consciousness from the physical brain, offers a comprehension that is untenable to said physical brain.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[Hetzer]