You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
What I mean is this: Is there a higher purpose to morals, or are they a vain belief? Do they produce anything that is objectively good in this world, or is the harsh nihilistic truth that they are self-imposed shackles and flagellation?
Thank you for the clarification! I believe that it depends entirely on the moral in question. Not killing? More than an inconvenience, because it's probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right. That's supported by a lot (if not all) cultures having restrictions against it. Waiting until after marriage to have sex? Just an inconvenience.
Let's consider the example you gave of not killing. You say that it is, "probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right", but if that is true, should there be need of a moral to govern it? It's not in our nature (by and large) to mutilate ourselves (e.g. cut off our own hands), yet there is no need for a moral to govern this. I would argue that morals are there to enforce the behaviours that don't come naturally to us, and forbid the behaviours that do; as it is with the example of pre-marital sex you mention.
Let us say, then, that it is within our nature to kill, and that our morals are a deterrent from doing so. There are certainly those without morals, and many of them don't engage in killing. I would argue that there are other suitable deterrents for not killing, such as the fear of punishment. If you accept this, then I must ask: does the moral still serve a purpose in preventing a moral man from killing, where the disincentive of punishment would be inadequate? Or, is it once again simply a shackle which limits his options under the circumstances? That is, do you still believe that morals like "thou shalt not kill" are the glue that holds society together, or are the other disincentives adequate?
[–]Calorie-Kin0 points
1 point
1 point
(+1|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Oh yes, definitely. Societies agreed on certain morals because those were beneficial for them. If you think about like.. Murder for a second: murder doesn't benefit most societies, because the society's main goal is to stay alive. When you have people killing each other, it's bad for the tribe (because it reduces the number of people).
This can be applied to any and all morals in all civilizations. Lying is another one, a society that's built on lies is one that crumbles. No one trusts anyone, and no diplomacy can take place. So it's in the society's best interest to weed out the liars.
Many people have different views on this, but in my opinion true altruism doesn't really exist. Veganism, for example, isn't really done for some greater good. It's done because of the understanding that meat and dairy are harming the environment (your kids' kids and your society) and our bodies (yourself), as well as the animals around us (potential companions).
Donating to charity isn't a selfless act as-well, because deep down, it's rooted in human behavior. You're donating to those who need help because if you were in the same situation, you'd want people to donate to you. You could get cancer tomorrow, or get hit by a car, lose your house, whatever the cause.
Religious morals (like donating to a church/obeying the one true god/whatever) is a selfish act, it's an attempt to get a spot in heaven.
Morals are just there to keep societies intact. We made them up, and we're sticking to them because that's what we figured out works best over the span of thousands of years of developmental evolution.
[–]Reow[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
You raise a lot of interesting points, mate; I'll do my best to address them!
You suggest that morals are there to encourage desirable behaviour, and I agree with you. They are effectively the clauses of our social contract. But you also say that morals are invented, and I again agree with you. Here is the thing, we as intelligent beings are aware that morals are not absolute (they are human inventions), and we are aware of the purpose they serve - do we then truly follow the moral, or do we let our intellect and wisdom guide us? That is, do we choose not to kill because it is 'wrong', or do we choose not to do so because we know the adverse effect it will have on society, and desire to be protected by its contract?
I put it to you that the amoral man in a moral society has a significant competitive advantage if he can act without discovery. If everybody speaks the truth and he alone lies, until he is caught in a lie, he can manipulate people. The punishment for lying is distrust, as the punishment for killing is prison. For the amoral man, it is the potential for punishment that disincentivizes him from acting. I think we must accept that there are amoral men in our societies - aside from the evidence for this in crimes and experience, there is the simple Darwinian logic of advantage. So, in truth, are either the traditional morals or our intellectual understanding of them necessary, in order to hold society together, or is the threat of punishment sufficient?
It is your view that true nihilism doesn't exist, but you go on to say that Veganism is in the best interests of the environment, self, and animals. Why should the environment, self, and animals matter? If you are a true nihilist (that is, you accept there is no higher purpose), then no purpose you ascribe is more than a fanciful notion. If you believe that the environment, self, and animals are important, you must do so for a reason - you have not completely forsaken higher purpose. Personally, I think true nihilism is quite plausible; it's just that most nihilists are hedonists, ascetics, or dead.
Donating to charity in the hope that others would do the same for you is a false premise. If you are in the position to donate, you are better off saving your money and not relying on charity. At best it is a poor man's insurance - a hope that you will end up more in need than the total of which you have given. Game theory tells us that it is futile; there is no contract, and as such, there can be no assumption that people will continue to give. In my opinion, beyond the naïve notions of 'good', charity exists at an intellectual level for two reasons. Firstly, it keeps the poor from turning to crime, ergo is a voluntary protection money that we, the able, pay. Secondly, it has a nominal but sufficient impact in increasing the evolutionary fitness of the poor; that is, it enables them to have progeny and pass on their poor genetics. The purpose of this is robustness of the genome and acceleration of evolution: individual genes aren't bad, it is their combination that is bad; maximizing the number of alleles kept in the gene pool, ensures the best chance of survival of the species in the event of disaster, and increases the probability of the emergence of novel combinations.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Reow [S] 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
What I mean is this: Is there a higher purpose to morals, or are they a vain belief? Do they produce anything that is objectively good in this world, or is the harsh nihilistic truth that they are self-imposed shackles and flagellation?
[–] Sadistic_Bastard 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Thank you for the clarification! I believe that it depends entirely on the moral in question. Not killing? More than an inconvenience, because it's probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right. That's supported by a lot (if not all) cultures having restrictions against it. Waiting until after marriage to have sex? Just an inconvenience.
[–] Reow [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Let's consider the example you gave of not killing. You say that it is, "probably in our nature to protect our species and not just killing people left and right", but if that is true, should there be need of a moral to govern it? It's not in our nature (by and large) to mutilate ourselves (e.g. cut off our own hands), yet there is no need for a moral to govern this. I would argue that morals are there to enforce the behaviours that don't come naturally to us, and forbid the behaviours that do; as it is with the example of pre-marital sex you mention.
Let us say, then, that it is within our nature to kill, and that our morals are a deterrent from doing so. There are certainly those without morals, and many of them don't engage in killing. I would argue that there are other suitable deterrents for not killing, such as the fear of punishment. If you accept this, then I must ask: does the moral still serve a purpose in preventing a moral man from killing, where the disincentive of punishment would be inadequate? Or, is it once again simply a shackle which limits his options under the circumstances? That is, do you still believe that morals like "thou shalt not kill" are the glue that holds society together, or are the other disincentives adequate?
[–] Calorie-Kin 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Oh yes, definitely. Societies agreed on certain morals because those were beneficial for them. If you think about like.. Murder for a second: murder doesn't benefit most societies, because the society's main goal is to stay alive. When you have people killing each other, it's bad for the tribe (because it reduces the number of people).
This can be applied to any and all morals in all civilizations. Lying is another one, a society that's built on lies is one that crumbles. No one trusts anyone, and no diplomacy can take place. So it's in the society's best interest to weed out the liars.
Many people have different views on this, but in my opinion true altruism doesn't really exist. Veganism, for example, isn't really done for some greater good. It's done because of the understanding that meat and dairy are harming the environment (your kids' kids and your society) and our bodies (yourself), as well as the animals around us (potential companions).
Donating to charity isn't a selfless act as-well, because deep down, it's rooted in human behavior. You're donating to those who need help because if you were in the same situation, you'd want people to donate to you. You could get cancer tomorrow, or get hit by a car, lose your house, whatever the cause.
Religious morals (like donating to a church/obeying the one true god/whatever) is a selfish act, it's an attempt to get a spot in heaven.
Morals are just there to keep societies intact. We made them up, and we're sticking to them because that's what we figured out works best over the span of thousands of years of developmental evolution.
[–] jeegte12 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I think you might not know what nihilism is. You tried to give an example, but then supported nihilism.
[–] Reow [S] ago (edited ago)
You raise a lot of interesting points, mate; I'll do my best to address them!
You suggest that morals are there to encourage desirable behaviour, and I agree with you. They are effectively the clauses of our social contract. But you also say that morals are invented, and I again agree with you. Here is the thing, we as intelligent beings are aware that morals are not absolute (they are human inventions), and we are aware of the purpose they serve - do we then truly follow the moral, or do we let our intellect and wisdom guide us? That is, do we choose not to kill because it is 'wrong', or do we choose not to do so because we know the adverse effect it will have on society, and desire to be protected by its contract?
I put it to you that the amoral man in a moral society has a significant competitive advantage if he can act without discovery. If everybody speaks the truth and he alone lies, until he is caught in a lie, he can manipulate people. The punishment for lying is distrust, as the punishment for killing is prison. For the amoral man, it is the potential for punishment that disincentivizes him from acting. I think we must accept that there are amoral men in our societies - aside from the evidence for this in crimes and experience, there is the simple Darwinian logic of advantage. So, in truth, are either the traditional morals or our intellectual understanding of them necessary, in order to hold society together, or is the threat of punishment sufficient?
It is your view that true nihilism doesn't exist, but you go on to say that Veganism is in the best interests of the environment, self, and animals. Why should the environment, self, and animals matter? If you are a true nihilist (that is, you accept there is no higher purpose), then no purpose you ascribe is more than a fanciful notion. If you believe that the environment, self, and animals are important, you must do so for a reason - you have not completely forsaken higher purpose. Personally, I think true nihilism is quite plausible; it's just that most nihilists are hedonists, ascetics, or dead.
Donating to charity in the hope that others would do the same for you is a false premise. If you are in the position to donate, you are better off saving your money and not relying on charity. At best it is a poor man's insurance - a hope that you will end up more in need than the total of which you have given. Game theory tells us that it is futile; there is no contract, and as such, there can be no assumption that people will continue to give. In my opinion, beyond the naïve notions of 'good', charity exists at an intellectual level for two reasons. Firstly, it keeps the poor from turning to crime, ergo is a voluntary protection money that we, the able, pay. Secondly, it has a nominal but sufficient impact in increasing the evolutionary fitness of the poor; that is, it enables them to have progeny and pass on their poor genetics. The purpose of this is robustness of the genome and acceleration of evolution: individual genes aren't bad, it is their combination that is bad; maximizing the number of alleles kept in the gene pool, ensures the best chance of survival of the species in the event of disaster, and increases the probability of the emergence of novel combinations.