Does morality exist?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Essene, Nov 26, 2011.

  1. Essene

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    75
    Gender:
    Male
    Morality is solely a human constructed artifact.

    Take, for instance, having sex. It's cheating for some, normal for many, a sin for many, etc.

    Morality is subjective. here is no such thing as morality in terms of the universe. Science governs that. Morals are something humans made to govern ourselves. Energy is transferred into different forms of energy constantly through out the cosmos. Yet only humans find it wrong to apply force to a mass which will transform its type of energy (murder).

    This is why we have psychologists and attorneys. If everything was white and black, we wouldn't have so many differing versions of what is right and wrong.

    If I told a lady she looked fat in a dress, and she was fat, that would be the truth. But some find that distasteful and thus "morally" wrong or, at last, not practiced.
     
  2. Maverick

    Maverick Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    569
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington State
    Can of worms is opened.
     
  3. Mittimer

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,505
    Likes Received:
    4,392
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Fl
    Just to be blunt sense that's what you seem to like...

    You're a cynical douche. ;)

    You don't seem to believe or like much at all.
     
    #3 Mittimer, Nov 27, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2011
  4. Essene

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    75
    Gender:
    Male
    Oddly enough Mitt, I do believe in God. Though I'm completely governed by science.

    I'd trade cynical for stoic any day of the week. Too bad I have opinions.

    I also don't really like smileys... so--- if I come off as seeming too stern, it's just misinterpreted inflection.

    I just wanted to see people's opinions. It's fascinating how often the spectrum of morality shifts from the different facets of life (age, creed, culture, etc). That, in itself, leads me to believe that morality is a persuadable avenue.

    But is there a ecumenical moral code? What I mean is, is there something that tips the scale of morality this-way-or-that way? This is completely beyond what I wanted to discuss, but since the universe is governed by science- and the only choices that are made are quite binary in comparison to the ones made by those who are sentient... would dark or anti matter be morally wrong? Would feats of the universe that can not be explained via science be wrong? Or is our science wrong/non-apropos?
     
  5. MILF_Rider

    MILF_Rider Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan


    Are you saying that human constructed artifacts are imaginary? Of course it exists. Intellectual property exists.

    Have you heard of social darwinism? Taken to the extreme, absent a moral code the social structre would be anarchy. A society based upon anarchy would not survive. A society with a well structured moral code would and would allow that society to prevail - even over stronger competing species.
     
  6. MILF_Rider

    MILF_Rider Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    You say that as though they are in conflict. I do not believe there is any conflict between believing in God and accepting science. None.
     
  7. Essene

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    75
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm also an Objectivist and love Rand. There is the conflict.

    I'm not posing morality as a factor that should be eradicated. I'm merely presenting the question "does morality truly exist?". Stars are made and have been made over the epochs. That occurs regardless of a cognoscente being realizing it or not. Morality, however, is human-made.
     
  8. Untamed

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,168
    Likes Received:
    331
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    New Zealand
    This question is far beyond my intelligence.
     
  9. MILF_Rider

    MILF_Rider Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Essene spends a lot of time in self contemplation, but that doesn't mean it's beyond the understanding of others. I don't think he knows what he's talking about either and he hasn't reached the end of his contemplation so he'd probably admit it as well. I've been there.

    Essene is talking about morality, but he doesn't seem to have taken the time to define what he means by morality or the fact that within this discussion his lack of definition has lead to multiple people speaking based upon different definitions.

    If Essene was more clear, then it would probably be a pretty uniform discussion.

    In my opinion, the flaw in his reasoning is in his internal definition of terms.
     
  10. Essene

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    75
    Gender:
    Male
    The point where it became convoluted was when I delved into if matter acting a certain way was governed by some sort of universal morality.

    The discussion needs no uniformity from me. The question was posed "does morality exist?" Should you decide to respond to my theory on the matter is your prerogative; one that should not impeach the validity of the question itself (which is what the discussion should be based off of primarily... followed by discourse concerning the validity of our beliefs).

    Defining morality is simple. There's a dictionary based definition that is concrete. Where dissension arises is what is moral and what is not. Husband of, you seem to allot more authoritative clout than I deserve. I can not re-define words. But thank you for the vote of confidence. Any word used, outside of shibboleths, inflection, and colloquialities, has a set of definitions which are easily obtained. I gainsay defining frequented verbiage is a common practice. Ergo, I do not do it. However, since it's been mentioned, morality has been defined as such:
    conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

    My thesis was that "
    [m]orality is solely a human constructed artifact." By "artifact" I merely mean that it has been constructed by human beings. How is that not clear?

    I believe your understanding is at fault here and not my presentation prior to my second post. However, I could be wrong. I am quite doubtful of that though.

    Also, she mentioned the question itself and not my explication. You refereed to something that was superfluous.

     
    #10 Essene, Nov 28, 2011
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2011
  11. CosmicEye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    VA
    IMO, morality is that unspoken rule that we all follow to be able to judge right and wrong. Sure, morality is a real concept but not a physical thing. Its that thing that is always there even though we never recognize it to be.

    - It is immoral to try and sleep with my little sister because it is wrong.
    - Morality is unaffected by deciding whether to believe in God or not because neither is wrong or right (science will win..), but its a free choice

    And on a side note.. Religion and Science are more opposite than black and white. It is the longest living battle in humans that causes war.
     
  12. Untamed

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    2,168
    Likes Received:
    331
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    New Zealand
    When I said .. This question is far beyond my intelligence .. I merely meant that... Putting my opinion/thoughts into words would be very difficult for me and that if I had to do so it would more than likely be hard for one to comprehend.
     
  13. Kermit

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,950
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sesame Street
    It's a concept, nothing concrete and can vary from person to person
     
  14. MILF_Rider

    MILF_Rider Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Okay, so if you're thinking about morallity - i.e. conformity to ideals of conduct - as a human construct, are you saying that you believe that it does not exist because it is a human construct? If that is what you are saying, then the discussion is very short because you are wrong and the simple proof is the fact that animals adhere to ideals of conduct. Animals possess social structures, not all but within many species of pack animals there are methods of establishing social order and levels of respect and conforming conduct with consequences for non-conformance. Animals establish territory and observe and respect boundaries...

    The question is so easily disproven it leads me to believe that the only way it's a subject that results in any kind of pondering is if you neglect to spend the due diligence in considering the question.

    If your definition of morallity is the conformity to ideals of human conduct, and you define existance as naturally created as opposed to human created, then you must very simply realize that the question answers itself because it is constrained so narrowly as to 1) answer itself and 2) have little actual bearing upon reality.

    Matter has behaviors according to attractive forces (gravity) and repulsive forces (electrical charge)...

    Let me take a moment to disclaim that I'm going to make huge leaps in logic and it might sound really deep or really nonsensical, or both. It's not that the logic isn't there, it's that it's more involved to describe than is worthwhile... See, I used to spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. Now I can sound really strange when I talk to people. I'd rather be able to relate to people normally, and whatever I've concluded from my pondering has no practical use.

    There once was a saying "Why ask why? Try Bud Dry." Well, the first part applies.

    So back to matter. Let's tie in with God. God is omnipresent right? I believe God can be omnipresent because he can move through time the way we walk up and down a street, i.e. he can go forward, backwards or stand still. We only can move through time in the forward direction. What's more, I only think we see time one-dimensionally because it's the limits of our perception. Time is not one-dimensional I suspect, in fact it's probably defined in more dimensions than we can imagine - suppose it's beyond 2 dimensional, since we can only perceive time in 1 dimensional how would we know it's not 3 dimensional instead of 2 dimensional.

    Take it to the next level.. What if we say time is a 4th dimension and beyond. What if matter isn't 3 dimensional, but the dimensions of dimension are the same dimensions of time, the only difference is we perceive time one-dimensionally while we perceive the 3 dimensions of linear measurement without limit.

    So if at any instant, infinite possibilities exist, each represented by a vector in however dimensions there are defining "time-space" and out existence as we know it is defined by our perception of time in the dimension we perceive. I guess this is the experience of our spirit, and we could call this experience our soul.

    What is life?

    To a molecular particle, we could call it the path it travels as a result of the attractive and repulsive forces acting on it.

    To our soul, could you not boil it down similarly?

    Could you use an analogy in either case that life is like a marble rolling down a groove carved into the side of a slanted piece of plywood?


    So here's my question: So what? What do you do with these questions, or even if you find answers instead of more questions, what do you do with those answers.

    As I said, I have pondered philosophical crap, but it only kept me from getting out and living because it had no particular purpose. I started living when I started saying "fuck it, I could be wrong, let's just go out and let things happen or not happen."

    And on that basis, quite frankly I give credit to people that don't think such deep and IMO useless thoughts.
     
  15. pbs

    pbs
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Northeast
    A momentary hijack here...

    I think this depends on which God and which teachings you chose to accept. Don't forget, if true believers had their way, and science didn't conflict, the earth would still be flat.
     
  16. CosmicEye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    VA
    Hey Redhead, got any cliffnotes on that last post?
     
  17. MILF_Rider

    MILF_Rider Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Okay granted that Greek and Roman mythology as religions where literal beliefs as to the physical appearance of gods and personifications as playing the role of what are now understood scientifically, that's the case. And granted I couldn't speak well enough to whether this applies to hinduism, but my general understanding of major Asian religions is that there isn't probably significant conflict to a varying degree depending on whether you're talking about Bhudism or Taoism or whatnot.

    Of course I'm speaking broadly of Judeo-Christian religion where-in my opinion is basicly that there is one God over all people and the name we choose to assign to him is irrelevant because it refers to the same entity.

    I can't claim to be a biblical scholar, but I believe there isn't a passage in the bible that says "The earth is flat, if you think we're kidding you will go to hell, na-na-na-na-boo-boo."

    The way I see it, there is a Santa Claus. Santa Clause represents the act of giving. We use a big fat bearded guy in a red suit as a representation of him for the sake of explaining the kindness of giving acts to children who aren't prepared to understand more abstract concepts. Similarly, religion talks about abstract concepts using literal representations to convey a point, and the fact that the representations conflict with science doesn't diminsh the abstract concept.

    Ultimately I was raised going to a Lutheran church and it was emphasized to me that Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, etc. all are sects of the Christian church and swinging vessels of incense and holy water aside, basicly the central abstract concepts of Christianity are the same and that's the part that matters.
     
  18. MILF_Rider

    MILF_Rider Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    That was the cliffnotes!

    The central concept is the idea that time is a dimension which we experience in an limitted manner.
     
  19. pbs

    pbs
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    881
    Likes Received:
    439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Northeast
    Too bad the rest of the world doesn't feel this way about one God!

    I think it was Aristotle teaching the works of Copernicus that offended the Catholic power structure back in the 16th century. At that time, suggesting that the world was not flat was considered blasphemy.
     
  20. MILF_Rider

    MILF_Rider Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    396
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't think Aristotle lived that long, what you're suggesting is that a Greek philosopher outlived the Roman empire, the dark ages and survived into the Renaissance?? :lol

    I know what you're saying, though, and that's an example of the rule of man and not the rule of God. As far as I can tell, that's something which can be said of similar religious criticisms in general.

    Here's a point which goes to the heart of understanding this concept: We know as early in the bible as Genesis the underlying principle: God made man in His image. Now when you think about this as a human from a human perspective, we think of the picture which is used to depict Jesus and the thought occurs to us that the Bible is saying God looks like a white dude with long brown hair.

    That's not what is meant if we consider the passage as the word of God. From his perspective, creating man in His image is a statement about spiritual image, and for all we know his physical image could be 5 eyes, 3 noses and 8 mouths, it wouldn't manner because it's not relevant to the image of the spirit which would be an image of goodness.

    With that perspective, you consider the meaning of Biblical rules differently. Where bible passages speak out about Sodom and Gamorrah, it's not about the literal man on man sexuality, it's more about sexuality for sexualities sake - particularly at the expense of goodness.