[Mr. Vega]

You know we do have our own built in morals, at least according to Freud(the superego).

[CP5670]

I'm just trying to figure out how this is suposed to work

Well, I'm just stating what the likely outcome is in the end; not what I like or do not like. (I happen to like a system without any ethics at all, but my personal preferences are of little importance)

You know we do have our own built in morals, at least according to Freud(the superego).

Nah, it is much more likely that they developed over time with civilizations, since the present day animals certainly do not exhibit them in the same way we do, and more importantly, there are people out there today with completely different systems of morals than we have. (note the moral divisions I was talking about earlier) It all depends on the person's surrounding in his first few years of life; once this idea foundation has been formed, everything else builds on top of it, and it is very difficult to remove the foundation completely.

[Megadude]

There is one thing that is ingrained into animals or any lifeforms for that matter: that is the want to survive.  The more intelligent an animal is, the more he needs to save. For example a plant or bacteria is not intelligent and therefore saves itself.  An animal is a lot smarter so it developes a sense of caring.  Now not only does he seek to protect himself, he also wants to protect what he cares about.  This undoubtedly through evolution of animals and reached its paramount in humans.  Now we seek to protect our interest, our children, our money, our property, our wives, our character, etc.  Since most people have an interest in protecting themselves, they gather and made laws regarding such issues.

that, my friends is how morals developed.

[aldo_14]

I believe.... if God exists, he's not neurotic, so he won't be bothered whether he's worshipped by me or not.  And also that there's no reason not to be nice to people, so I don't feel i need to go by the morality code defined by any particular religion.

And if there's no heaven.... frankly, i doubt i'll be all that bothered when I find out if there is or is not.  (because i'll be dead)

[Fineus]

Megadude has hit one point that I like in particular and that is that most religions are (for the most part) a collection of morals placed in a package and shipped out as a religion, sure there may be more to them than that (especially from the POV of those who believe in them) but at their base value that is what they are. They are also a crutch to help people through hard times (usually) but this isn't always the case.

However most people should be able to work the morals in religions out for themselves as part of common sense, putting them in a religion just makes them that little bit more "carved in stone" than they would normally be.

[CP5670]

I think this is more due to a mutual interest that developed from the intelligence. Here's a quick example: two prehistoric cavemen went out to hunt and gather food, and when their hands were full, they returned to their caves, stored it there and went back out to get some more. However, each one noticed that his food stockpile kept being stolen every now and then by the other guy. After several days of this, they got fed up and after talking it over, reached the following agreement: each guy will not steal from the other, and thus neither guy will have to worry about his food being stolen while he is not around. This was the benefit of the new law, and one of the incentives to stick to it. The punishment for breaking the law here, and the other incentive to abide by it, was that if one guy broke the agreement and stole the other guy's food, his own food would be stolen out of retaliation. Anyway, all the morals developed in a similar manner.

Now the problem is that, over the course of many thousands of years, these moral ideas have become probably the main central part of the cultural systems; people no longer follow them because they realize that it is in their direct interests to do so, but they simply do it because the culture has so finely ingrained it into their heads that they cannot imagine acting otherwise. However, we are approaching an interesting point in history where the morality is heading towards it's climactic point; the more heavily these ethical rules are obeyed and followed, the more rigid and specialized they become and the more incompatible with other changing systems of history. This is what is causing the divisions to form, and as the system continues to "break apart under its own weight," the divisions will continue to collapse into further divisions until what is left is the lone individuals, each with their own ideas of morals. At this point, the only system to hold everyone together will be the laws of the state.

Most of the common moral rules can be derived directly from the logic assumptions and the survival assumption, but there are quite a few out there that are largely useless. In any major choice situation, it helps to map out a logical path between the objectives and the morals, since the conditions are different for every situation; for example, this is exactly what the pacifistic guys of today are failing to do, and they casually assume that the morals must hold just as well in this situation as they did ten thousand years ago in completely different situations, when this is many times not the case.

These rules will remain for our lifetimes and quite a bit longer, but they will fade away eventually. (Neitzche got this part right )

[Stealth]

Originally posted by aldo_14

And if there's no heaven.... frankly, i doubt i'll be all that bothered when I find out if there is or is not.  (because i'll be dead)

TRUE DAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i don't believe in heaven and hell either

Originally posted by CP5670
I think this is more due to a mutual interest that developed from the intelligence. Here's a quick example: two prehistoric cavemen went out to hunt and gather food, and when their hands were full, they returned to their caves, stored it there and went back out to get some more. However, each one noticed that his food stockpile kept being stolen every now and then by the other guy. After several days of this, they got fed up and after talking it over, reached the following agreement: each guy will not steal from the other, and thus neither guy will have to worry about his food being stolen while he is not around. This was the benefit of the new law, and one of the incentives to stick to it. The punishment for breaking the law here, and the other incentive to abide by it, was that if one guy is broke the agreement and stole the other guy's food, his own food would be stolen out of retaliation. Anyway, all the morals developed in a similar manner.

I don't believe in evolution either... i don't believe man was once a fish that developed legs that then became a vegetarian gorilla or something like that, that then became a caveman that went around knocking women on the head with clubs and dragging each other around by the hair

These rules will remain for our lifetimes and quite a bit longer, but they will fade away eventually. (Neitzche got this part right )

you forgot the part at the end that says "in my opinion"

[CP5670]

We are trying to reduce our opinions into objective constructs, so that opinions make no difference anymore; that's the whole point of an argument. Heck, I could say that, in my opinion, the purple dragon will come and destroy the world exactly one year from now, but unless I give some reasoning behind it, it is a useless statement.

[Stealth]

ok ok, don't say "in my opinion"... i wouldn't take offense, cause i don't take offense THAT easy lol  but just mentioning it.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Stealth
you forgot the part at the end that says "in my opinion"

Oh, please - don't get him started.... drat, too late.

[CP5670]

sorry, already got the comment in...

[Mr. Vega]

I agree with CP, everything is always in motion, and for our morals and laws to survive as the way they are, they must also be in motion. But the ploblem is, as you have said CP, religions and morals were created under specific circumstances. People forget that the Christian teaching of turning the other cheek was for people who were very poor and in completely different circumstances than anyone is now.

Still, morals are important when the logic behind it is sometimes not easily understandable. Ex. At the moment, in my opinion at least, cloning should not be performed because it may damage a newborn compared to a natural birth(that will probably change as our understanding of cloning grows). But not everyone may see that, so morals can provide a substitute saying it is unethical to clone.

[CP5670]

But you see, what's wrong with damaging a newborn in that way? (this is what I mean when I talk about this stuff finely embedded into us)

[Bobboau]

hmm I guess I can see the logic in you're theory
but you are neglecting (at least in this example) that this requires rational thought, something our ancestors didn't always have, and there ar many many examples of other primates with very similar ethical systems,
it also some what ignors the fact that humans have been socal sence before they were humans, our race didn't start out as a bunch of solitary humans that came together, socal life has been a facit of I think all primates (those relitivly colsely related to us anyway) so it wouldn't be such as two cave men comeing together to make hunting easier, as a bunch of people in some sort of tribe (sort of famely groupe type thing probly between 6 and 30) and those that stole or broke what we would consider basic morals were killed or exiled, this would all be on instinct, eventualy a "you shouldn't steal from your tribe" instinct would develop, in fact I would think it would be there by the time our ansestors reached a chimp level,
there is also compasion wich insures that you're frends and\or mate and\or childeren survive, this is the "I like you" emotion and also has a "I want you to be happy" and "I want to do nice things for you" instinct, stealing would counter this by causeing harm to people in you're tribe people covered in your compasion emotion\instinct
nothing of our basic ethical system is any diferent than most other primates

now as for moral diferences, I don't see it, the two sides say the same thing about each other, things like they don't care about other people, they don't love there childeren
things like religous wars are brought about by useing the instinctive basic moral system and artfully manipulateing it along with the "us and them" instinct and sheer fear (of god, and more over death) to controle people.

basicly religon uses emotions to controle people,
including the people running the religon

[CP5670]

but you are neglecting (at least in this example) that this requires rational thought, something our ancestors didn't always have

This type of thought only needs enough rationality to prolong survival (which you have said that all animals instictually have), and that is what our ancestors did have and other animals did not, which is why we are still around and at this stage today.

nothing of our basic ethical system is any diferent than most other primates

Still, humans definitely have these "morals" in them far, far more prominent than do any other species on the planet. (e.g. animals have some empathy feelings towards their closest family members, although way less than humans do, but they will not care much if another similar looking animal gets shot or something next to them, which does not hold for the human) The point I am trying to make here is that the moral system will continue to rise until it becomes so rigid, specialized and inflexible to change that it breaks into pieces, namely various institutions having their own slightly different version of the morality. The cultural inertia will keep the system going down, so these factions will go down pretty quickly, but in the end all you will have left is the governmental law.

now as for moral diferences, I don't see it, the two sides say the same thing about each other, things like they don't care about other people, they don't love there childeren
things like religous wars are brought about by useing the instinctive basic moral system and artfully manipulateing it along with the "us and them" instinct and sheer fear (of god, and more over death) to controle people.

What I mean here is their core objectives; according to, say, some Al Qaeda officer, the US is the greatest evil (and I mean this in a literal sense) that has ever existed on the planet, and it is the highest ethic to rid the world of this evil and save the human race.

[Mr. Vega]

Originally posted by CP5670

Still, humans definitely have these "morals" in them far, far more prominent than do any other species on the planet. (e.g. animals have some empathy feelings towards their closest family members, although way less than humans do, but they will not care much if another similar looking animal gets shot or something next to them, which does not hold for the human) The point I am trying to make here is that the moral system will continue to rise until it becomes so rigid, specialized and inflexible to change that it breaks into pieces, namely various institutions having their own slightly different version of the morality. The cultural inertia will keep the system going down, so these factions will go down pretty quickly, but in the end all you will have left is the governmental law.

Until some new religion reinstates morals. If morals sprung from rational laws, whats to stop them from forming again?

[Megadude]

I think this is more due to a mutual interest that developed from the intelligence. Here's a quick example: two prehistoric cavemen went out to hunt and gather food, and when their hands were full, they returned to their caves, stored it there and went back out to get some more. However, each one noticed that his food stockpile kept being stolen every now and then by the other guy. After several days of this, they got fed up and after talking it over, reached the following agreement: each guy will not steal from the other, and thus neither guy will have to worry about his food being stolen while he is not around. This was the benefit of the new law, and one of the incentives to stick to it. The punishment for breaking the law here, and the other incentive to abide by it, was that if one guy is broke the agreement and stole the other guy's food, his own food would be stolen out of retaliation. Anyway, all the morals developed in a similar manner.

Isn't that what i post?


Besides, who knows what to believe.  Ever watch a movie called "The Matrix?"  I mean we could be like that.  For all we know we could be some superbeing's science project.  We could be a disease on this world.  We can be like viruses feeding off of this planet, reproducing at an amazing rate, and exploding out into space searching for new hosts.  If u start to think about all the explanations honestly, u would relize that none of them is truly false.  If u do see them as false, most likely, ur view is tainted.

L'Etoile Noir

[Megadude]

What I mean here is their core objectives; according to, say, some Al Qaeda officer, the US is the greatest evil (and I mean this in a literal sense) that has ever existed on the planet, and it is the highest ethic to rid the world of this evil and save the human race.

That is a matter of opinions not ethics.  Their opinion is that the US is evil, ours is not.  Simple as that.

[Bobboau]

chimpanses will show greafe and sorrow for dead members of there groupe, they defend injured and weak members, they share, they form frendships and rivals based on past behavior, and they return favors.

the Alquada thing
they see america as a threat to them and fear that we will corupt them and end up causeing them and there famelies into hell
there is a religus overhead but it is all controled and moved by low level emotional instincts
they think that we will result in (eternal) pain to them and there famelies

they buy into Islam, wich has many rules, some of them are based on natural ethics (be nice to you're fellow muslums (you're tribe)), others are based on God (he's realy big and powerful and you should hold him as the boss, so anything he says you do) Muhamed's personal biases, prexsisting cultural practises, there are also rules saying that "we are right, and everyone else is wrong" and many rules on very specific requirements for behavour (much of wich was inherited by the pre-islamic cultures), and rules for dealing people who don't follow the rules (kill the infedel!!!)
they have identified us as people who don't follow there rules (given to them by God, and are the right ones remember) and we are thus bad. so we must be dealt with in the manner that they are to deal with rule breakers
this is all heald together largly by fear and fear for there loved ones
this system will shater

I make a distinction between ethics and religon
morality is part of religon, but it is not made by religon, religon is sort of a ethical expantion pack that also gives you a beter feeling of importance, controle, and above all means you won't realy die.

ethics are seperate from religon and are instinctive, people will still love and hate and fear and care after the fall of religon

[Megadude]

religon is sort of a ethical expantion pack that also gives you a beter feeling of importance, controle, and above all means you won't realy die.

There u go, Bob has just struck the spot.