Is morality a buzzword, /his/?
>If morality is subjective, then it is irrational, derived from empathy, biases molded by the environment etc and without inherent worth.
>If morality is objective, then it requires a higher source to validate it, thus it is theistic. If morality is theistic, it is a human code of conduct arbitrarily set by a superior being, thus it is just as irrational from a human perspective, no action being bad in itself, but because the god(s) deemed it as such for humans.
Do we have to have so many threads on this subject every day?
If your world-view is that of an Atheist, then yes morality is entirely within the human brain. If your world-view is that of a Theist, then it depends on the qualities of your god. You've even established this in your greentext.
All this thread will be, as they always are, endless arguments between people with these two differing world-views.
Every word is a buzzword like every idea is a spook. When you will ever learn, anon?
>>1219294
morality is a spook
>>1219309
>If your world-view is that of an Atheist, then yes morality is entirely within the human brain.
And the honest atheist is a materialist, ergo a nihilist, thus morality is an obsolete concept.
>If your world-view is that of a Theist, then it depends on the qualities of your god.
Yet morality entails more than a code of conduct. You wouldn't call the laws of a country or the rights and obligations of a worker as being inherently good or bad.
The Abrahamic God for example has approved of genocide in certain circumstances, yet condemns murder. This is a clear example of how it is nothing more than ethics, not morality proper. Morality is based on emotion.
>>1219326
Morality is just a standard, it is a rule to follow. Human morality is based on emotion, absolutely. But a lot of Theists would argue that morality lies in accordance with the divine, not with man. If morality is just right and wrong, good and bad; and if there is a god which contains morality within it, then what is good and bad would be based on whether it is in accordance with god's morals, and would be objective in that regard.
>>1219375
Yes, but why do we attach to it an emotional aspect? Rational theism would perceive it as a code of conduct.
For example, you don't ''''love'''' your neighbor, wife etc. You only treat them in accordance with the ways of conduct set by the god(s). To me it is even more confusing when most self-proclaimed atheists believe in such things as higher(or absolute if you will) emotions.
I don't know if this makes me mentally impaired or what not, but I cannot understand how someone can claim to have loved or hated in this sense. I can have a complex emotion composed of sexual attraction, an instinct of domination and a self-imposed conception of 'lover', 'relationship' and what not, but that is not ''''love''''. Same with hate. A subjective perception of disgust or a situation in which frustration and fear make me impose my will on someone through a violent outburst is not ''''hate'''''.
>>1219410
If you're just treating them "in accordance with the ways of conduct" then you're right, you're not really loving your neighbour, and not really treating them in accordance with the ways of conduct set by god.
>>1219431
To me morality is a product of emotions and emotions are deified instincts. I do not think that a human can experience emotions any deeper than any other mammal, only that we somehow managed to create a schism between instinct and perception as a result of language and a higher state of sentience.
>>1219473
Atheist morality is just as absurd, I'm not making a case about theistic or objective morality, but morality in general.
>>1219442
>any deeper than any other mammal
Not him, but humans are very unique compared to all other species by almost any criteria you wish to measure it by.
>>1219483
Morality separated from world-view is meaningless.
>>1219489
We are unique in our ability to analyze ourselves, but I do not think that any of our emotions are different from mammals, it is mostly language that allowed us to categorize clusters of feelings as concepts such as love, hate, fear, disgust etc.
What makes human emotions different? It is still a matter of biochemical balances and the reactions of our body. Human happiness implies the release of the same chemicals, human fear implies the same adrenaline rush and fight-or-flight response, human ''''love'''' implies the same hormonal action and so on. The first humans, before mastering language, were no different from chimps in regards to emotions. To me it seems that the evolution of language directly correlates with the evolution of emotions and morality.
>>1219507
Would you define a completely nihilist outlook as a 'worldview'?
>>1219512
Yes. It's a conceptualization of the world as meaningless.
>>1219512
>but I do not think that any of our emotions are different from mammals
So do you think every mammal has the exact same emotions, would a walrus feel the cold less than a mouse, does an orang-utan have a completely different set of conditions to respond to than a wolf?
>>1219524
Depends what you mean by exact. Different species have different behavioral patterns, but the basic emotions are the same. Human specific emotions are all clusters of basic reactions to stimuli. Fear is fear, 'affection'(a.i. the instinctual protection for offspring) etc are all the same. It is only through language that a false dichotomy is set between reactions to stimuli and 'emotions'.
>>1219544
>Different species have different behavioral patterns, but the basic emotions are the same
I think you're wrong for the most part, if you look at it from an evolutionary time frame, then how would mammals arise as a separate group from their ancestors? And if change occurred then, wouldn't the emotions also be subject to change over time.
>>1219554
But what are basic emotions if not a wording for the human interpretation of different stimuli? Both the common mammal and us experience the same basic stimuli, yet the human concept of self permits us to put arbitrary labels to clusters of emotion only as to forget that they are a product of language and not biology in itself.
>>1219587
I think that using 'the common mammal' for comparison is a massive oversimplification.
>>1219587
And an example would be regular vision compared to the colour blind.
>>1219591
A feral child with no knowledge of language is no different than a chimp in his emotions. Do not forget that biologically we aren't that different to our earliest ancestors and that which separates us from an animal when it comes to emotion is our ability to identify and intellectually question and express them through language.
>>1219594
That is not an emotion.
>>1219601
But the examples I've seen have been able to some extent acquire skills which are completely absent in our closest relatives, there was the potential for regular development initially.
>Do not forget that biologically we aren't that different to our earliest ancestors
I'm a pretty big paleolithicboo, but we are quite difference to our early ancestors, Homo sapiens is quite a recent species.
>>1219605
But it's a difference in how you perceive reality, conceivably other difference exist.
>>1219614
>Homo sapiens is quite a recent species
I was talking about the earliest ancestors within the species, not earlier hominids. While almost identical to us in anatomy(and intelligence!), they were closer to chimps than modern humans in behavior.
>>1219619
Of course there are, but when it comes to emotion, can you pinpoint any feeling that is exclusive to humans? Things like 'love' and 'hate' boil down to our interpretation of those clusters of primary feelings which exist in both humans and other mammals.
>>1219633
>they were closer to chimps than modern humans in behavior
Proof?
>can you pinpoint any feeling that is exclusive to humans?
Not being able to pinpoint something doesn't mean it doesn't exists, just look at statistics.
>>1219638
Any book on prehistorical human societies. Usage of tools and the development of mysticism and art aside, they were organized similarly socially. Evolutionary psychology has also outlined this connection pretty well at this point.
>Not being able to pinpoint something doesn't mean it doesn't exists
Well, of course, but the difference between that and theism, is that the concept of god is clearly defined. You must have a definition first and foremost. So again, WHAT might exist?
>>1219657
But in terms of evolution they're equally distant from the ancestor with chimps regardless of behaviour. and I'm not the original anon you replied to, I'm not a theist.
>>1219666
Only the behavior matters in this regard, since emotions are more or less aspects of behavior formulated in language by someone who is both subject and observer. The thing with chimps is that they act in a similar fashion to primitive humans, both in individual and social behavior, so that begs the question if the difference between us and them isn't in the range of emotions and what not, but only in the ability of introspection. It isn't that we have superior, more complex emotions, but that by having the ability of more complex thoughts, we can also group those rudimentary emotions together into different concepts. And those concepts, just like language itself, can be corrupted and we end up identifying the human condition with those formulated concepts, not with that biological reality on which they were originally based.
>>1219294
>inherent worth.
literally nothing has inherent worth you fucking idiot, a freshly dead mouse is worth more to a cat than you, and literally all the gold in the world wouldnt matter to a cat
>>1219696
Exactly, then why do we care about morality and proclaim memes such as 'justice' or 'rights'?
>>1219691
I think that chimps have similarities with us, but just because many different factors interact to result in behaviour, doesn't mean that the influences aren't able to be analysed separately, and it's ridiculous that you're looking at it as broadly as "mammals".
>>1219705
because we want those rights for ourselves too, if the price of not getting killed by rondom people is to not kill rondom people then ill take it
>>1219766
Yet humans have no inherent worth, so why is there the concept of rights instead of privileges?
>>1219791
>Yet humans have no inherent worth
we have value to ourselves, the fact that were are basically nothing on a cosmic scale is irrelevant, and again, if i want my life to not be miserable i should probly treat people with some kind of justice and in turn receive thats justice from other people, you can call that morality or whatever else
>so why is there the concept of rights instead of privileges
call it whatever the fuck you want, if it really makes you feel better then you can call them basic privileges. i really dont know how the semantics change anything, unless when you say 'right' you mean some shit proclaimed and set in stone by god or some higher power, youre wrong then
What do you people think about objective morality tied to conscious mind? If we consider humans as the Universe understanding itself through conscious mind, than obviously the basic objective moral principle will be the support of well-being of those conscious beings
>>1219933
>If we consider humans as the Universe understanding itself through conscious mind
why would anyone do that?
>>1219937
Because we are the Universe, anon
>>1219953
oh right, you think i would remember a thing like that
>>1219294
>2016
>not being beyond good and evil
Buzzword is a buzzword.
>>1219294
Mortality exists to benefit society. You can't advance if everyone is murdering and stealing. It's an evolutionary trait, but ofcourse it can go too far where you feel like giving up your lands and betraying your people for dem poor syrianz
>>1219294
I think morality can be objective without appealing to a higher source.
Does mathematics appeal to a higher source? No it does not, in the same way morality is merely a rational system for determining human action which will lead to the best life. Applied reason.
It is something that everyone has a capacity to act out but some people choose not to.
>>1219512
Our brain is built with the smallest most internal part being basically the same as a reptile would typically have. Then there is a layer that your typical mammal would have. Then there is a layer which none other than ourselves on Earth possess.
>>1219326
>thus morality is an obsolete concept
Depends on your definition of "morality". I would define it as "Actions which contribute to the net health and happiness of society". Since I have a rational reason to support society I have a rational reason to behave morally.
Just don't be a dick.
>>1219294
If morality is a theistic construct wouldn't rationality itself be a theistic construct?
I think morality has a use a tool for self-improvement. In exalting that which you feel helps steer you towards being the person you wish to be, and demonizing that which you feel holds you back, a moralistic framework could see utility in making you greater.
>>1219294
I recommend you read The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis.
