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.
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?
First off, I'll counter your first paragraph. You have to understand that when these morals were created and enforced, society and civilization was still an extremely new concept, and people were unaware of our behaviors were governed by evolutionary things. And even though it's not in our nature to cut ourselves, that wasn't going on a lot back then. There was however a lot of warfare and other disputes that ended in murder.
Actually, if I may, I'd like to slightly redact my statement on killing not being in our nature. Since we are and were merely intelligent animals, killing is kind of in our nature, but only if the people we kill threaten or endanger us. Or if they're just different. And I don't believe that morals are the only thing keeping people from killing one another, but I certainly think it helps. But I think most of the morals we create exist to inhibit and deter people.
Absolutely. I think in a sense they act as primitive superstitious heuristics. Somebody worked out that it wasn't a good idea for siblings to procreate, as the offspring, if viable, were significantly more impacted by any weaknesses in their genome. Obviously, they didn't need to understand the science behind this, just that it happened. Consequently incest became taboo/immoral. Understanding modern science, we would simply say, "If you choose to copulate with your sibling in such a way that might produce offspring, use protection."
The immorality of premarital sex makes sense in the context of a society where women were chattel. The morality of monogamy makes sense in the context of no paternity tests and dangerous abortions. And so on. Many of these 'morals' can be abandoned now, but because the masses never understood the logic that underpins them, they are incapable of determining when they should be let go. Add on to this the notion of absolute/objective morals (as prescribed by a higher being), and we have people fighting the technology and social changes that challenge those heuristics.
Perhaps it's time we abandon morals and start making informed decisions.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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?
[–] Sadistic_Bastard 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
First off, I'll counter your first paragraph. You have to understand that when these morals were created and enforced, society and civilization was still an extremely new concept, and people were unaware of our behaviors were governed by evolutionary things. And even though it's not in our nature to cut ourselves, that wasn't going on a lot back then. There was however a lot of warfare and other disputes that ended in murder.
Actually, if I may, I'd like to slightly redact my statement on killing not being in our nature. Since we are and were merely intelligent animals, killing is kind of in our nature, but only if the people we kill threaten or endanger us. Or if they're just different. And I don't believe that morals are the only thing keeping people from killing one another, but I certainly think it helps. But I think most of the morals we create exist to inhibit and deter people.
[–] Reow [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Absolutely. I think in a sense they act as primitive superstitious heuristics. Somebody worked out that it wasn't a good idea for siblings to procreate, as the offspring, if viable, were significantly more impacted by any weaknesses in their genome. Obviously, they didn't need to understand the science behind this, just that it happened. Consequently incest became taboo/immoral. Understanding modern science, we would simply say, "If you choose to copulate with your sibling in such a way that might produce offspring, use protection."
The immorality of premarital sex makes sense in the context of a society where women were chattel. The morality of monogamy makes sense in the context of no paternity tests and dangerous abortions. And so on. Many of these 'morals' can be abandoned now, but because the masses never understood the logic that underpins them, they are incapable of determining when they should be let go. Add on to this the notion of absolute/objective morals (as prescribed by a higher being), and we have people fighting the technology and social changes that challenge those heuristics.
Perhaps it's time we abandon morals and start making informed decisions.