Since the troll Desi is obsessed with this topic I thought I would write about it.
Morality is based on the consensus populations belief of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. The most fundamental moral is that it is ‘wrong’ to harm, especially kill, another human being. Essentially morals are ‘natural’ laws in which benefit us in our feeling of well-being and safety.
The reasons morals exist is so that we can trust each other on some level. Since we have societies (cities) now that number far beyond the hundreds – far beyond the thousands, and can range in the millions there is no way we can possibly know, trust, and understand everyone we come in contact with.
For us to be able to function on a societal level (which is something that is considered ‘right’) we need order and trust in one another. If the world was run on the idea that the sole-individual is the most important, and that others are simply stepping stones to be walked on, this place would be a very hostile place, full of anger and genuine disregard for others.
There is no morality except in which people make. There is no divine rules given to us. The bible exists, and take it as you may, but the universe seems indifferent to you and I. The universe is not to be anthropomorphisized, or one falls into the trap of seeing things where there is only chance. There is no divine law or rule in the context of morality.
However, life is an experience, and perhaps the only one our consciousness is given. We do not know if there is a right or wrong after death – we know nothing of it. There may be unicorns and lollipops after death, we cannot know.
But during our life, we know what pain feels like and we know what happiness feels like. Morals raise the total sum of happiness in our world, for we don’t have to look behind our backs and deception is not common place on a person-to-person basis.
Without morals, again, the world would be flung into chaos, and the ‘freedom’ one enjoys now would be greatly diminished, as one person’s freedom could inevitably end another’s freedom. But here, with morals, we do not have that.
The final argument is that with morals, happiness and well-being increase. Since happiness and well-being feel ‘good’ to us, increasing them is then ‘good’.
I think the law of attraction supports the principle of not harming and killing based on not wanting to receive the treatment you’re putting out into the world. If you kill someone you’ll have to deal with the violence of those that were attached to them. Also you’re fucked psychologically if you kill someone you’ve identified with like your lover or child or parent.
I’m not sure if happiness goes up when we have less danger….. Survival instincts seem to deal with a land beyond emotions and happiness is so much based on our conditioned ideas of what is valuable.
If you go back in time to the roman empire, it is kind of funny. I went to an ancient place in Bathe, UK. They had wells where they would throw in pieces of metal in which they would make wishes. I suppose you can guess what they wished for; ‘money, wealth, good health’ etc?
No. Around 80% of the wishes were curses towards other people. Wishing them dead, falling ill, terrible things to their family. A huge portion.
I think feeling ‘safe’ removes stress, which in turn makes you feel better.
I also don’t really believe in the law of attraction, since its definitely not a law.
It’s scientifically proven that people feel joy when the person they envy is in pain. It’s just bad when the person they envy knows they’re going to enjoy it and mocks them. But don’t pay attention to those that wish someone dead, these people have a weak mentality not up to go above their hatred. To top themselves. Wishing for the easy is a moral weakness. Nothing is going to raise your happiness if you’re unable to help the angry and hostile.
I think feeling safe is a rationalization. “You are the driver!”
Haha was murder by magical well-wishing still considered moral and safe from consequence?
I should say the concept of consequence instead of “law of attraction”. If you murder someone with loved ones they will want justice and avenging then you will have more stress and danger of being hunted in return. So murdering people gets you murdered. I think what you said about trusting each other is right but I’m seeing it more about the consequence of being a murderer rather than collective safety and happiness.
‘The reasons morals exist is so that we can trust each other on some level.’
You know I’d never really thought about it like that before. It’s like we need our own morals to just go and face the outside world. It makes me think morals are there to protect ourselves more than anyone else. Or at least we need them to prosper (happily) in this society. Morality could be a smart protective evolution of consciousness, or a complete fabrication of society, but either way it for sure has it’s uses.
‘There may be unicorns and lollipops after death, we cannot know.’
Don’t get me excited brah.
Yes, I do post, since this is a part philosophical forum, and I am interested in ethics/moral philsophy.
However, I don’t believe morals exist. they are a fiction and only fools endorse them.
if i go stabbing you you would feel bad. you would understand that pain. now if people agree to create a new society in which they wont do such things to each other and call that moral it fuckin exists. it isnt an attribute of the universe, it isnt some divine rule. its simply – dont hurt me and i wont hurt you kind of thing.
I would consider this immoral.
Moral’s exist like the value of money. We create them. They exist when we believe in them. You can’t go and find a moral, hiding under a rock. I think that’s fairly obvious. However, I do believe you can find a troll if you look hard enough.
this whole concept of morality only exists among the regular folk on this planet. after all there are no moral truths, and those that are aware of this go against what is largely considered as immoral by ordinary people to better themselves. we weren’t assigned a moral code to live by when we entered this planet, that which most regard as immoral are merely things we have become accustomed to.
Do you have some examples of these people who have bettered themselves by going against “what is largely considered as immoral by ordinary people”?
Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying there are irregular and extraordinary people out there who have bettered themselves by doing what regular/ordinary folk deem immoral?
Or when you say “go against” do you mean really going up against these “immoral” things in life? I can get behind that idea. It often feels like the things deemed immoral are all cast aside, they are the shaddow of society. In truth, we all hold pieces of these immoral ways in our own shaddow, but by projecting them ‘out there’ into the world at large they become even bigger and more unwieldy. Then we need morals to keep us feeling safe enough to sleep at night. Facing the shaddow aspect within is a lovely way to better oneself.
i’m referring to lawyers, bankers, politicians and those who work in the upper echelons of major corporations mostly. and those who command these positions aren’t exactly the most morally upright.
i was suggesting that in order to get ahead, or gain status and wealth you may just have to do the same. do you agree?
You’re right. In my mind, the concept of “bettering oneself” doesn’t really revolve around status and wealth, so it didn’t go there upon reading your first comment.
I do agree that those who “get ahead” in life usually do so in some immoral capacity. But I wouldn’t say it’s better! Better will always be subjective, depending on what you value in life.
The current set up of society does encourage us to take the short view and only concern ourselves with material possesions and power, which are directly at odds with the moral code they preach.
Although law is based on morality, ideally anyway, there is a clear difference between the two; like someone cutting your throat when they are mad, they may choose not to because it is an immoral thing or they may chose not to because of the repercussions law enforcement will bring on them, same result, different motives.
I was thinking about sexual relations with an under aged person; the law has drawn a line, it says that adults cannot have sex with someone under 18, this is because in general people under 18 are not as psychologically mature as those over 18.
But then this does not mean that someone under 18 isn’t mature enough, it also doesn’t mean that someone over 18 IS mature enough, it is just a line society agreed on and you simply cannot cross it by threat of punishment. Morality would be in both obeying this law but also in judging when not to sexually exploit someone who is over 18 but not mature, it is a case of just because the law will not punish me for it does not mean it is right.
The troll is not only obsessed, he’s bloody balmy. Here’s a quote from another of his postings regarding the uselessness of psychiatry. (pay close attention to the second sentence)
“So we need some idiot doctors telling the masses to “meditate”, hate technology (do they hate being human then? since technology predates homo sapiens by MANY millions of years, even before the first upright apes…), be “humble” and other such nonsense?
I detest psychiatry since it’s a science with no moral centre. Unlike in other branches, they arbitrarily condemn people, which cannot occur in other medical branches.
Sorry if the opinions of others offend you. Perhaps you need a “psychiatrist” to make you develop tolerance, eh?”