Originally posted by NemesioSome of your hate has made others revengefull and they decide to shoot you or lock you up. Are you still happy?
What if I KNOW (as you say) the following:
This man cut me off while driving.
It made me mad.
I don't like being mad.
I shoot him in the face.
Now I am happy.
I like being happy.
And he will never cut people off again.
Your model is a recipe for disaster.
Nemesio
It is only a recipe for disaster because you have been brainwashed to belief in axioms to tell you what you should do, instead of your knowledge and reason.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, I suppose. I believe that morality is entirely a human invention and a social convention, broadly agreed upon. Where there is universal (or nearly universal) agreement, certain acts can be declared morally wrong and will be punished. Where there is no broad agreement on certain acts, or a significant disagreement, they will gain more acceptance, grudgingly or openly.
In your reasoning perferming abortion can be morally wrong tomorrow. Performing homosexual acts can be morally wrong tomorrow and even infanticide can be morally wrong tomorrow.
I believe that our morality has evolved over mankind's history and that it will continue to do so. I also believe that our moral evolution is co-dependant upon both our physical evolution and on our cultural evolution. For example: If man had evolved as a strictly carnivorous creature (as opposed to an omnivorous one) I'm sure our morality would be very different from what it is. Consider how different the respective moral codes of lions and gazelles would be if they were capable of developing them. Likewise, if mankind had culturally evolved into a primarily pastoral and nomadic population, then I'm sure our morality would have also taken a very different course.
Originally posted by fooeyReligion and race aren't the only culprits here. In fact, they're not even the biggest one, namely, debt. With property almost non-existent, taxation rampant and interest/bank charges omnipresent, about the only free people on the planet are either in Third World countries, or making Amish quilts.
It is possible, but less likely if we evolve past differentiating from people we feel we can make our slaves using tools such as religion and race.
With respect to good and evil, the second post spoke to morality, not good and evil. Curiously, the structure he described looks eerily like the 10 Commandments!
Originally posted by fooeyROFL
Certianly not most of us. I believe we could, but fanatics and the media are doing everything in their power to prevent it.
“…but fanatics and the media are doing..."
You believe there are different types or kinds of people on the planet
than I take it, those that evolved, and the fanatics and those that
work in the media?
Personally I disagree with that assessment, there is only one kind
of people on the planet, and we daily here and in the paper what
read what is in the heart of people by their actions.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettSo morality to you is like shifting sand, it is always on the move, and
Yes, I suppose. I believe that morality is entirely a human invention and a social convention, broadly agreed upon. Where there is universal (or nearly universal) agreement, certain acts can be declared morally wrong and will be punished. Where there is no broad agreement on certain acts, or a significant disagreement, they will gain more acceptance, grudgi ...[text shortened]... d nomadic population, then I'm sure our morality would have also taken a very different course.
you could at some time find yourself doing what was once good and
be accused of evil, or the other way around. It is what it is, and what
it is, is always changing? On top of that since it is a human invention
and even more elusive it must be a broadly agreed upon social
convention as well, therefore who can really claim to know it? If
you wanted to think everything you do is right, you simply hang out
with people that agree with you. That number could be 7 or 9 people,
and live in a city of millions that disagree with you, or you could
simply create a label for your little group and those within your group
that you call the ‘moral’ ones.
So then when clashes occur between groups of people, because of
morals how then it is resolved, by force? If a defeated group loses it
ability to call what it does right, because of the force of another more
powerful group of people, does it than mean that what was really at
stake was not right and wrong, but power, so right and wrong are
again not real at all, there is only power that matters?
Kelly
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThis sentence demonstrates that you do not know what an axiom
It is only a recipe for disaster because you have been brainwashed to belief in axioms to tell you what you should do, instead of your knowledge and reason.
is, because it is upon axioms reasons rely (as opposed to magic
intuitive 'knowledge' which exists in your mind).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhat's the difference between 'axiom' and 'intuitive knowledge'? Can an axiom also be intuitive in nature?
This sentence demonstrates that you do not know what an axiom
is, because it is upon axioms reasons rely (as opposed to magic
intuitive 'knowledge' which exists in your mind).
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAn axiom is an artificial standard of truth.
What's the difference between 'axiom' and 'intuitive knowledge'? Can an axiom also be intuitive in nature?
Knowledge is subject to an existing standard - namely, reality.
I can construct and use any axiom I wish.
I cannot know, intuitively or otherwise, anything I wish.
Many axioms are intuitive. They need not be. One counterexample is the truth table for logical implication.
Originally posted by KellyJaySubstantive changes in moral conventions are slow processes that tend to happen incrementally over generations. As moral codes are socially reinforcing they tend to resist change, with it requiring a great deal of input to overcome such inertia. So the scenario you are trying to paint - of morality being higgeldy piggeldy, with attitudes changing back and forth with the wind, is not a realistic one, despite what moral absolutists may claim.
So morality to you is like shifting sand, it is always on the move, and
you could at some time find yourself doing what was once good and
be accused of evil, or the other way around. It is what it is, and what
it is, is always changing? On top of that since it is a human invention
and even more elusive it must be a broadly agreed upon social
convention ...[text shortened]... t power, so right and wrong are
again not real at all, there is only power that matters?
Kelly
There is certainly much more than power at stake. The people in power may be able to write the laws to suit themselves, but they are powerless to control whether people believe those laws to be just. They can try to influence the evolution of those beliefs, but they can never dictate them.
Originally posted by rwingettI admire your creativity ..... The Al Capones of the world will certainly embrace your theory.
Yes, I suppose. I believe that morality is entirely a human invention and a social convention, broadly agreed upon. Where there is universal (or nearly universal) agreement, certain acts can be declared morally wrong and will be punished. Where there is no broad agreement on certain acts, or a significant disagreement, they will gain more acceptance, grudgi ...[text shortened]... d nomadic population, then I'm sure our morality would have also taken a very different course.
