What is "morality"?
-
- Posts: 118
- Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 11:58 am
What is "morality"?
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: September 23rd, 2007, 5:35 pm
- pjkeeley
- Posts: 695
- Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am
Just because you're not a Christian doesn't mean you can't do something nice like helping the poor. I'm an atheist; I think it's a good idea to help people because:Don't be selfish and don't feel sorry for the "less fortunate". Don't give to charity or patronize.
A) It makes me feel good.
B) If I were in their position I would probably want help.
C) A lot of the time it's not their fault, they got screwed over by society.
It seems contradictory to me that on the one hand you can say "don't be selfish" and yet at the same time not give a damn about anyone else...?
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: September 23rd, 2007, 5:35 pm
It's not about not giving a damn, it's about teaching and leading by example instead of just helping and giving. It should make you feel better to teach someone to live a better life rather than just hand it to them.pjkeeley wrote:Just because you're not a Christian doesn't mean you can't do something nice like helping the poor. I'm an atheist; I think it's a good idea to help people because:Don't be selfish and don't feel sorry for the "less fortunate". Don't give to charity or patronize.
A) It makes me feel good.
B) If I were in their position I would probably want help.
C) A lot of the time it's not their fault, they got screwed over by society.
It seems contradictory to me that on the one hand you can say "don't be selfish" and yet at the same time not give a damn about anyone else...?
- pjkeeley
- Posts: 695
- Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Obviously the best thing to do would be to teach people to live better lives AND help them through times of need (because there are plenty of times where people are in such terrible poverty that just 'teaching them' isn't going to help). Unfortunately I don't have time to teach every homeless person on the street how to live better lives. So why should I avoid helping them at all? Isn't doing SOMETHING to help them when they're in need better than doing nothing?It should make you feel better to teach someone to live a better life rather than just hand it to them.
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: September 23rd, 2007, 5:35 pm
The difference between teaching and helping is that one provides a skill and the other provides inspiration. Seperate they are useless. Together they are legendary, and this is not what you're seeing. It's not always common, but there are a few gifted individuals who can harness both. When you help a homeless person with a little change, he just ends up buying alcohol or drugs with it. As far as impoverished countries, there aren't many options an individual can do to make a difference, but micro-loans are up and coming. By putting, say, $100 of your own money towards a business venture in an impoverished country can make a world of difference to many. And the loan isn't giving, it's allowing someone to make something out of nothing. Humans are intelligent enough to perservere. They don't Nned much if they are not corrupted by religion.pjkeeley wrote:Why does it have to be all or nothing? Obviously the best thing to do would be to teach people to live better lives AND help them through times of need (because there are plenty of times where people are in such terrible poverty that just 'teaching them' isn't going to help). Unfortunately I don't have time to teach every homeless person on the street how to live better lives. So why should I avoid helping them at all? Isn't doing SOMETHING to help them when they're in need better than doing nothing?It should make you feel better to teach someone to live a better life rather than just hand it to them.
Basically, humans will change if they choose. You can arm them with the knowledge of the universe and they will do what they want with it.
- pjkeeley
- Posts: 695
- Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am
I firmly disagree with the latter statment. Helping or teaching people on their own are NOT usless actions. Obviously, doing both is a BETTER option. But doing one or the other is still doing a good thing, it may not be as good, but it's not 'useless'. Things can still have uses even if they aren't working to their full capacity.The difference between teaching and helping is that one provides a skill and the other provides inspiration. Seperate they are useless.
This is an unfair generalization.When you help a homeless person with a little change, he just ends up buying alcohol or drugs with it.
All you are doing is lumping things into categories and refusing to acknowledge the gray areas.
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re:
Foreverrain, Morality is not limited to humanity, it had an evolutionary development, having elements common among many forms of creatures. The creature one most identifies with is likely to evoke the most compassion, thus the most care, thus the most morality relative to the life and well being of said creature. It seems identifing the self is elemental to evoking the compassion of the individual. We need I think to widen the concept of the self in order to have greater reference for the world and its varied creatures. Indeed civilization would not be possiable without this identification, this compassion. this morality.Foreverrain wrote: ↑October 20th, 2007, 11:37 pm Morality is the result of the falsification of the evidence of the senses. It's a social trait created to allow us to live together as a mass society rather than small tribes. Of course don't confuse morality with "Christian morality", the latter of which is damaging to mankind, which unfortunately in our wonderful country, Christian morality is mostly what you find. Don't be selfish and don't feel sorry for the "less fortunate". Don't give to charity or patronize. Be a teacher and lead by example. Let your morals create a legend left to inspire.
I do not understand your statement, "Morality is the result of the falsification of the senses." Yes morality is a societal creation it is just something the comes forth with the recongnition of the self in another/s. In its simplest form it is one on one, or limited to family, tribe, culture, but could be expanded, indeed our survival depends upon its expansion across the board. Christianity is just human error as to where compassion comes from. it is humanity that bestowed compassion/morality upon Christianity and not the other way around. It is a general principle that teaching thought example is the most effective method.
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am
Re: What is "morality"?
I was just reading Nietszche's genealogy of morals, and one of his main strokes in this book and in beyond good and evil is that morals are born from traits of weakness, and are the revenge of the weak upon the strong. To me, the validity (I believe) of this idea shows that at the very least morality can be a tool, or more harshly a weapon.
But this differs greatly from what I consider to be the very minimum for what morality is from an evolutionary perspective, which is the set of rules that make our society run well. Many compelling and well evidenced ideas can be drawn and defended from this point.
However, consider a possible synthesis of these ideas. What do these two have in common (in their descriptions of morality, what aesthetically is similar about these two?)? In both of these accounts, morality is a force, that while it is created by a select amount of people and its rules can be said to be only selfish, it has this quality that does not seem to entirely be explained by its creation. By this I mean, what do these rules/tools/weapons gain when they are given the title, or put in the category of morality?
One explanation here is that when rules or values are set in place and referred to as morality, it connects to something deeper than just a desire for order or revenge. Why is morality so inescapable? Why can we not live without it? Why is it something that can be used to distinguish our species from others? These and many more questions can be answered in a non-contradictory manner by proposing that there is some unique value to morality, that makes it special and makes it true in a sense.
Of course this does fall victim to Ockhams razor, but it is not always the simplest answer that is correct. I am not entirely satisfied with the way that evolutionary morality and Nietszches genealogy answer these questions. This is why I believe that morality is its own truth.
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: What is "morality"?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: What is "morality"?
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: What is "morality"?
Lucky, Well morality would certainly apply there. If there is no identification with another self, there is little or no compassion felt, even the charity drives to feed people realize that, and work their damndest to make it happen.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023