Morality distortion.

posted on July 9th, 2009, 7:37 pm

A house is still a horse by any other name are you sheer its morality you are seeing or is it just a regard for other that you are defining as morality?

morality was not around so it was not morality, morality is a concept not a real thing.

morality is only morality if defined as such.

Example of what I am saying.


Be for humans had fire and they started one it was not relay fire it was just strange to them now its fire to us it did not exist until we named it.

What you see if people caring for one another but its hardly morality. To get this concept you can look at thing throw what we now know you have to try to get how they where then.

Another example:

If I when back in time before the gun and described abacus as a early computer people how think I was strange, Because computers did not exist to them, and if I when to some intercity kid with no knowledge of history and ask him what a abacus he would be confused it dose not exist for him.

So when we say morality around before god was defined as we know him can you say that was morality or is that what we call it but not what it was?

posted on July 9th, 2009, 7:51 pm

Ewm, things still exist regardless if we name them or not . The Universe could care less if we named that marble a strubak, but either way that object still exists, even if its name and concept changes. Such is the same with morality. There is a difference between concepts and reality for sure--but you keep crossing the boundary between the two without making a distinction. Morality exists in humans, but not because we define the behaviors associated with it as morality. That is the philosophical context. We do not exist because we think. We exist regardless of whether we think or not. I could even take this one further and get us into circular logic using your proposed philosophy (which happens to be impossible to prove because it relies on itself for being proven): morality exists because we have named it but we named it because we have the innate sense that that is what morality is. So we are left at square one, which is that morality as we have currently defined it (and remember, I asked YOU to give me a definition that satisfies you) exists regardless of whether we named it or not because we are just trying to create some common way for us to communicate with eachother.

posted on July 9th, 2009, 8:05 pm

everyone has their own moral code, weather or not they call it that, or their concience, or elmo, it is what it is.  Everyone has had their laws of right and wrong.  Christianity did not invent it.

[ewm90]

posted on July 9th, 2009, 8:14 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on July 9th, 2009, 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well it matter what you call it because names have different definition.

So it may not have bean morality if it was not morality what could it have bean lets look:

Kindness, regard for others, self awareness and awareness that others are like you.

When using morality one has serration behavioral attributes to that world mean don't work well in this world we live in well.

Morality exists in humans, but not because we define the behaviors associated with it as morality.

morality is not a thing its a not clear concept of behavioral codes that are different from person to person. when you say morality it could be any number of things one could be referring to.

But what ever morality is, Its not a good discretion of human beavers. When can see fully what proper one could make up stuff to fill in the blacks leading to people doing what works for them wile hurting others. and being justified in not taking responsibility for the impact because they where right in there view of morality.

Agin you are justified in what you are saying is right but if the system of come to that conciliation is not working how can you be share what you are saying is relay right or wrong hows to say? There no way to check.

What I can say if there is much much beater ways to judge ones actions that perdure constant and agreed upon results.


----

Very correct and what we have when using Morality is confusion. I mixed up Christianity with Morality my mistake thanks for pointing that out.

everyone has their own moral code, weather or not they call it that, or their concience, or elmo, it is what it is.  Everyone has had their laws of right and wrong.  Christianity did not invent it.

posted on July 11th, 2009, 5:20 am

most people have a basic construct of morality.  its in our genes or consciousness or whatnot.  the same little kid that smacked his brother with the wiffle bat cause he wanted the ball will go over and give him a hug and show remorse without any interference from parents at all. 

there is a reason why people that never shot anyone have a difficult time killing someone for the first time, whether its cops, soldiers or a gangbanger.

religion is a necessary tool for human society.  if a society gets rid of religion you get the soviet union and nazi germany both of which outlawed religious worship except of course anything involving the state itself.  on the other hand if it gets too powerful you get iran and much of the islamic world.  there is a fine balancing act where you can get the benefits of a religious society but not the overzealous ideology.

religous people give more money and time to charities, often the first to sign up for wars, and in general are more willing to help other people.  last time i checked there werent many food or medical stations in africa from atheist organizations.  we seem to have a nice balance in this country,  freedom of religion but its not state sanctioned or endorsed. 

im semi religious myself and i prefer the company of the same but i would not like the people in my church to running the country.  my porn would disappear and in general life would become much more boring. 

posted on July 11th, 2009, 9:09 am

religion is a necessary tool for human society.  if a society gets rid of religion you get the soviet union and nazi germany both of which outlawed religious worship except of course anything involving the state itself.  on the other hand if it gets too powerful you get iran and much of the islamic world.   there is a fine balancing act where you can get the benefits of a religious society but not the overzealous ideology.

I actually don't believe it is necessary for society, but I guess that is an argument for another thread. And I think you are generalising too much. Nazi Germany was actually a Christian state, and if fact the whole anti-semitism campaign arose from Hitler's desire for a totally Christian and Aryan world. And I also don't believe religion being too powerful is responsible for the problems in the middle east.
E.g. Iran's problems now come from a biased election.

religous people give more money and time to charities, often the first to sign up for wars, and in general are more willing to help other people.   last time i checked there werent many food or medical stations in africa from atheist organizations.   we seem to have a nice balance in this country,  freedom of religion but its not state sanctioned or endorsed. 

That is a horible generalisation. For one thing, aetheists don't have a place where they meet and discuss their religious views, which is a shame really. Because there is where Christians organise all these wonderful things like the Red Cross, and the Salvation Army.
But I don't think it means religious people give more money and time to charities.

posted on July 11th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Yes, lets please keep this away from religion versus no religion. I mean, one could very well point to the fact that the lovable Bush basically halted progress against fighting AIDS due to his inane religious demands of "we won't send money if you use condoms" etc...

Religion is pretty much unofficially endorsed in the U.S. Nathanj. Lets see... what was that horrible row about the first Catholic president... . Not to mention every politican is questioned about their religious leanings, which sways many a voter.

both of which outlawed religious worship except of course anything involving the state itself.

This IS a religion. If you worship the state and have state sponsored personality cults, that is a religious dogma.

posted on July 11th, 2009, 3:41 pm

I Agree Dominus_Noctis,

No religion debates here they go now where the people how scalped religion where from a different time and to apply much or it to this time would not work and would spoon endless debating. Religion is a chose not a fact.

Yes, lets please keep this away from religion versus no religion. I mean, one could very well point to the fact that the lovable Bush basically halted progress against fighting AIDS due to his inane religious demands of "we won't send money if you use condoms" etc...

Religion is pretty much unofficially endorsed in the U.S. Nathanj. Lets see... what was that horrible row about the first Catholic president... . Not to mention every politican is questioned about their religious leanings, which sways many a voter.
This IS a religion. If you worship the state and have state sponsored personality cults, that is a religious dogma.

this topic is about morality and how one can remove it from ones life to crate a workable world around you.

posted on July 12th, 2009, 2:37 am

the world doesnt work around anyone and it never will.    lets say you manage to purge yourself of all emotions and rationilizations and morality.  your see that your neighbor is peeing on your lawn and you decide that you need something for the barbecue later on that night.  problem solved....fresh meat and no more dead grass.  while that might work with you.........it wont work with his family or the police.  you can do whatever you want as an individual society will usually win in the end by sheer numbers.

i do have to answer about the bush remark.  bush is wildly popular in africa right now specifically because of his AIDS programs.  in fact aids dropped 3%.  the first time that has ever happened in africa....ever.  condoms were given out to africans for years.........they never used them, why, probably the same reason many americans dont use them like they should.......they suck.  i will lie and cheat and steal to convince my gf to use the pill.  whatever it takes. 

and i have to answer the charity factor.  i liberal professor wrote a book a couple years ago compiling various studies showing that religous people give more money and time to charity period.  donate more blood etc.  there are also numerous resources online that you can check yourselves like the generosity index and the phylanthorpysts report.  on an anecdotal issue my company just got done with a drive for childrens hospital.  waukesha wi and greenbay wisconsin were in first place and those are heavily convervative/religious areas.  madison wi which is famously lefty and not so religious was dead last with only 50% of expected donations and madison is a larger club than many of the other ones that beat it out.  in fact the top stores came in over 200% expected donations.  this drive consisted of signs posted at the checkout lanes and cashiers asking if they wanted it added to their total.

ok now im done and dont want to ruin your thread.  back to you.

i do worry about you ewm since there is no reason to get rid or morality.  sociopaths are born like that and they spend their lives mimicking and trying to fit in with everyone else. 

so if they arent openly comfortable with it, why would you think that you would be ok with it.

posted on July 12th, 2009, 3:09 am

I got your concern is no morality = sociopath, could not be further from reality.

In fact after I gave up morality I have help so many more people and have huge goal to make a difference in the world. morality is no the only way to way once actions. People out there have bean so gabbled up by the way the world is they cant see it any other way.

nathanj, Thank you for your feedback! I real would like to keep political views out of this because it takes away from the topic.

i do worry about you ewm since there is no reason to get rid or morality.  sociopaths are born like that and they spend their lives mimicking and trying to fit in with everyone else.

A man/woman when one is young only know of the world throw what they are told and they make up (groin up) if they make some thing as the truth they stop looking for answers, I am think you made morality is the best way to way ones actions as the truth and you stopped looking for answers, Heres the key to get there is no truth to be had out there it all comes down to what works and dose not.

when one can see out side the box of morality that most people are trapped in you can see how it dose not work and crates allot of avoidable problems.

The resign I crated these post that where a risk to me is to help people on this forum have other options in life, so much for a sociopaths. The risk was is the Fo teams belief systems clashed with this I could have gotten in trouble but so for so good.

posted on July 12th, 2009, 3:41 am

i dont think the FO moderators are censor freaks.  i dont think you have to worry about them shutting down the thread.  the only thing that happened regarding me was that a topic i started about a gameplay idea turned into a picard rules/sucks fest and got moved to general topics.  which i can understand why they did that since my idea got lost half way through the thread. 

by the way picard still sucks 

if you want to take the sociopath concept out just fine.  take me for example.  im definitely not an emotional guy.  i love my cat but ive always said that 300 for medical care was the limit and anything more she gets put down.  i didnt cry when my grandmother just past away, in fact i had to walk around literally wondering if i was acting somber enough.  i use logic and reason for just about every decision i make, however i also incorporate  a deep set of albeit strange of moral rules that i do not stray from.  there is no reason to not have both of them.  morality is simply another form of structure.  why would you want to get rid of a piece of structure.

posted on July 12th, 2009, 3:59 am

This is not about being emotionless, its about not letting emotions be the motivation of justification for you in your life if you so choose. In fact the 3ed corse in the 4 cores curriculum for living the self expression and leadership cores relay helps you be so self expressed you can move people with your words.

This is not about taking the joy from life its about taking the idea that joy and pain are ways our mind deals with our interpretations of life not life.

Life has more levels to it then the ones that people know to be.

posted on July 12th, 2009, 8:43 am

In my opinion, morality has nothing to do with emotions. Whatever emotional state I'm in, I hope I will always make the same moral decisions.

posted on July 12th, 2009, 12:15 pm

I agree emotions play a bigger role in way people do what they do they most people know.

Whatever emotional state I'm in, I hope I will always make the same moral decisions.

I hope not. Life is so much harder with "moral decisions" taking things they way they are and they way there no works so much beater less stress no suffering no anger or hate.

posted on July 12th, 2009, 6:54 pm

I hope not. Life is so much harder with "moral decisions" taking things they way they are and they way there no works so much beater less stress no suffering no anger or hate.

Fair enough, that is your view, but do you see how that is your opinion rather than cold hard fact? I happen to think that our morality is something we should cherish, but I would mind debating with you. In fact I would quite enjoy it