The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Boots wrote:I see your point about exaltation. What I mean is that humans seem to believe that being moral is preferable to being amoral. That humans are somehow better than the rest of the animals on the planet because they are moral, among other things. Although, the story does not convey this at all. Even so humans seem to have come to the conclusion that morality is admirable.
Don't you think that being moral is preferable to being amoral?
I'm not sure. On the one hand I have been raised in a society that has taught me that amorality is much more dangerous. However, on the other hand I have examined other animal species and their lack of morality does not seem to adversely affect their day to day lives or their species' success.
But, maybe those others species have a form of morality that does not appear to include shame and guilt?
-- Updated March 6th, 2016, 9:36 am to add the following --
LuckyR wrote:
3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
Don't you think that being moral is preferable to being amoral?
No doubt that a society of the amoral would be a hellish place to live in, though there are plenty of examples of animal behavior that are inseparable from "morality", so the parable is just that.
Do you think most wild animals have lived hellish lives?
No doubt that a society of the amoral would be a hellish place to live in, though there are plenty of examples of animal behavior that are inseparable from "morality", so the parable is just that.
Do you think most wild animals have lived hellish lives?
From their wild perspective, clearly not. From our pampered domesticated eyes: perhaps.
Maybe a few more words in the sentence will clarify my original post: "As to human (ie civilized) societies, no doubt that a society of the amoral would be a hellish place to live in". Not referring to wild animals.
Do you think most wild animals have lived hellish lives?
From their wild perspective, clearly not. From our pampered domesticated eyes: perhaps.
Maybe a few more words in the sentence will clarify my original post: "As to human (ie civilized) societies, no doubt that a society of the amoral would be a hellish place to live in". Not referring to wild animals.
What I mean is that humans without morals are like wild animals. Indeed, we probably lived in such a state in our prehistory before morality evolved.
Imagine that everyone is amoral. No one has any concept of morality, like wild animals. If this were the case, then we would not experience our lives as 'hellish' because we would not be aware of such a concept.
Do you think most wild animals have lived hellish lives?
From their wild perspective, clearly not. From our pampered domesticated eyes: perhaps.
Maybe a few more words in the sentence will clarify my original post: "As to human (ie civilized) societies, no doubt that a society of the amoral would be a hellish place to live in". Not referring to wild animals.
Animals living in their natural habitat and within what their species dictates are considered wild by humans. That does not make them amoral. Animal morality
is innately dictated by the specie. A lion who kills, or over powers another lion, stealing his females and domain, kills his offspring, is acting within that species morality.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
Don't you think that being moral is preferable to being amoral?
Wayne wrote;
“No” would that I could, I would destroy the Law, Moral Law; Morality is an abomination, has failed miserably at bringing the Chaos to Order.
Misty wrote;
Animal morality is innately dictated by the specie. A lion who kills, or over powers another lion, stealing his females and domain, kills his offspring, is acting within that species morality.
Wayne wrote;
Good Lord Misty, animals are amoral, just as is your God !
For the animal, all is fair, "good" in Love and War.
-- Updated March 7th, 2016, 9:59 am to add the following --
add;
"misty wrote: a lion that kills his offspring, is acting within that species morality."
Wayne wrote; Misty, please.
Animal have no semblance of Morality; being amoral as they are.
Please meaning that I find it difficult to believe that you, as smart as you are, could say something like that.
Animal morality is innately dictated by the specie. A lion who kills, or over powers another lion, stealing his females and domain, kills his offspring, is acting within that species morality.
(Nested quote removed.)
Wayne wrote;
Good Lord Misty, animals are amoral, just as is your God !
For the animal, all is fair, "good" in Love and War.
-- Updated March 7th, 2016, 9:59 am to add the following --
add;
"misty wrote: a lion that kills his offspring, is acting within that species morality."
Wayne wrote; Misty, please.
Animal have no semblance of Morality; being amoral as they are.
Please meaning that I find it difficult to believe that you, as smart as you are, could say something like that.
"as smart as you are" Thanks.
The minds/brain of animal species is amoral, (no need to think about it) but the species is endowed with its moral code and is followed because it is innate. Example: Some animals mate for life, that is their innate moral code.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
From their wild perspective, clearly not. From our pampered domesticated eyes: perhaps.
Maybe a few more words in the sentence will clarify my original post: "As to human (ie civilized) societies, no doubt that a society of the amoral would be a hellish place to live in". Not referring to wild animals.
What I mean is that humans without morals are like wild animals. Indeed, we probably lived in such a state in our prehistory before morality evolved.
Imagine that everyone is amoral. No one has any concept of morality, like wild animals. If this were the case, then we would not experience our lives as 'hellish' because we would not be aware of such a concept.
Yes, and no. As Misty points out, amoral humans could act like wild animals in an flawed analogy, BUT wild animals who are acting normally have Wild Animal morals and are thus NOT amoral (within their own environment). Though I agree that if a particular thing is the norm, say amorality, then using relative descriptors will be inaccurate since that will be the new norm (for those under that system).
From their wild perspective, clearly not. From our pampered domesticated eyes: perhaps.
Maybe a few more words in the sentence will clarify my original post: "As to human (ie civilized) societies, no doubt that a society of the amoral would be a hellish place to live in". Not referring to wild animals.
Animals living in their natural habitat and within what their species dictates are considered wild by humans. That does not make them amoral. Animal morality
is innately dictated by the specie. A lion who kills, or over powers another lion, stealing his females and domain, kills his offspring, is acting within that species morality.
Definitions. A human construct.
Morality - "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
Morality - "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."
You could say that animals have a sense of morality since they would have some feeling of whether they were behaving correctly or incorrectly. But, as humans use the word to convey a sense of right and wrong as it pertains to good and bad and the feelings of shame and guilt, and since we believe that animals do not experience these particular feelings, then it would be fair to say that animals do not have morality.
-- Updated March 8th, 2016, 9:48 am to add the following --
LuckyR wrote:
Boots wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)
What I mean is that humans without morals are like wild animals. Indeed, we probably lived in such a state in our prehistory before morality evolved.
Imagine that everyone is amoral. No one has any concept of morality, like wild animals. If this were the case, then we would not experience our lives as 'hellish' because we would not be aware of such a concept.
Yes, and no. As Misty points out, amoral humans could act like wild animals in an flawed analogy, BUT wild animals who are acting normally have Wild Animal morals and are thus NOT amoral (within their own environment). Though I agree that if a particular thing is the norm, say amorality, then using relative descriptors will be inaccurate since that will be the new norm (for those under that system).
However you choose to look at it (amoral or less moral), people were once like wild animals in their relative amorality.
Again, we would not have experienced our lives as 'hellish'.
Misty I have no doubt that you are smarter than I am and more educated.
My post did not mean that I thought you were not smart, just the opposite.
If you choose to believe that animals have their own special moral code, I can not prove that you are wrong.
I will just have to apply the Uncertainty Principle in my thinking about that.
Nothing more to say.
-- Updated March 8th, 2016, 8:52 am to add the following --
The problem with morality is that it produces Immorality.
Believing something to be right, good, when it is actually wrong, bad.
Immorality is Evil, not amorality; a hellish World is born of Absolutely Bad Knowledge.
Mortal Man is an animal; it is when man become Immoral that he becomes a Truly Humane Being.
Mortal man is animal, Immortal man is animal with the head of a God.
The Tao of Man, the way of Man, is not one it is two, man being both an animal and a God.
Man is bound to the way of Nature, cause and effect, and at the same Time is boundless, has the potentiality of Freedom of mind, causing man to be a bit confused as to his roll in Life.
Yes, and no. As Misty points out, amoral humans could act like wild animals in an flawed analogy, BUT wild animals who are acting normally have Wild Animal morals and are thus NOT amoral (within their own environment). Though I agree that if a particular thing is the norm, say amorality, then using relative descriptors will be inaccurate since that will be the new norm (for those under that system).
However you choose to look at it (amoral or less moral), people were once like wild animals in their relative amorality.
Again, we would not have experienced our lives as 'hellish'.
True and true. Though my guess is most here are not discussing pre-stone age human situations.
Animal Man was Amoral as are all animals still today.
Man became a Moral Being after eating the fruit born of a Single source of Knowledge.
The Knowledge of Reality that is not born of the many sources, the Knowledge of Reality born of a Singularity having a dual quality, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, is an abomination; the knowledge of Realities that are not experienced as a Universal Reality that are readily apparent, that are measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, having a dual quality, is none other than the knowledge of Good and Evil, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge.
The ability to experience a Reality that exists as a Universal Reality being required for said Reality to exist in the physical, material sense of the word, Reality.
When asked, what have you done, Eve's answer to God was, "I was beguiled", the fruit, knowledge of Reality born of a single source looked delicious and I so did eat there of; the Knowledge of Good and Evil resulting in Adam and Eve becoming Moral Beings
When God breathed his breath, Spirit, into the nostrils of Mortal, Animal Man, it was God that became a Living Soul, the Immortal Spirit of God, alive in the Flesh Body of Man, resulting in Man being able to develop, become the Ultimate Survivor, to have the ability to become Immortal; not the Individual Man but man as a Species; man becoming "Wise", capable of Knowing, understanding, the nature of the duality of the Knowledge, the knowledge of Good and Evil.
In the length of Time that Animal, Mortal, Man has existed on the Planet Earth, he and she still do not understand difference between the Knowledge of Reality born of “many’ sources, Absolutely Good Knowledge and the Knowledge of Reality born of a Single, the Knowledge a Reality having a dual quality, the knowledge of Good and Evil, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge.
For the life of me, I can not understand why no one seems to understand, to know, the different between Amorality and a Morality which has a dual quality, Morality and Immorality.
The amorality of an animal simply means that the animal has not knowledge of Good and Evil.
Immorality is based upon the fact that man, knowing the difference between Good and Evil, simply chooses Evil over Good, even that knowing the Difference.
A creature can be neither moral nor immoral without having attained his, her or its, Knowledge of Reality from a Single Source, said single source being the Consciousness of the Rational Mind.
Strange that it be, that the most Moral are the most Immoral; take the fundamentalist male for instance, especially the Fundamentalist Muslim Male; Evil through and though,
Psychopaths!
The Psychosis, of the Male Chauvinistic Pig, the Fundamentalist Muslim Male being such that he believes the only way to salvation is to be immoral, to ride a white horse and wearing a crown as he goes about to Killing, Conquering.
The prophecy of the coming apocalypse; The Beast, the Man Beast, is simply not about Man reverting to his Animal Nature.
The Beast is a Man having such high moral standards that he will use Immorality to Fight what he sees as being Immoral.
In order to fight and to win the Battle for the Survival of the most fit, man must wear a crown while ridding a White Horse, must go about in his competitive nature to kill, to conquer.
Amorality does not produce Immorality; Immorality is a product of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The Fundamentalist Muslim Male being so Highly Moral that he is willing, as they say to fight fire with fire, is willing be Immoral, according to his own definition, when it comes to fighting the Enemies of Islam.
The morality of the fundamentalist Muslim Male is not to be applied to women nor to the enemies of Islam, the Western World for example.
