Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Objective morality: True or Not?(Thanks to mOjOm)

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: subtopia

There is way more than one primal instinct going on in that scenario, however survival is the strongest instinct there is. All animals would abandon their young if a wildfire had trapped them rather than attempt to save them. A doe doesn't wait for her fawn to run if their is gun fire if her fawn wants to stay she will leave it. An animal may have the fight instinct rather than flight, but in reality an animal that attacks rather runs would do so whether it had young around or not. It is based on survival instinct not Love. I say my Dogs love me, but the truth is my dogs only know that I rub the stomach and feed them food both of which are things they desire. The dog wants to protect me because it believes I am its source of food and water not because it loves me. However I do all of those things for that animal solely because I love it. None of it benefits me. It does nothing but make my life harder minus companionship. Love isn't present in instinct. A solider jumping on a grenade to protect his entire platoon isn't instinctive in my opinion. They love their platoon therefore there protective instinct kicks in. Love triggers the instinct not the other way around.
edit on 9-8-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: Typo




posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
It took me three years to convince myself that there is a singular primal instinct which does answer the questions you ponder.

Your term for love is a description of an action, I'll keep on asking, what is it.

Ask, why do I love my dog but not my dogs farts. While this is a funny question, it is trying to help you see contradiction where others claim there is none.
edit on th1407595990661CDT-0500-05:001AM by subtopia because: .
edit on th1407596021662CDT-0500-05:001AM by subtopia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: subtopia

I don't know why I love my dog. I simply do. Love is not a description of an action IMO.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yeah I used to feel 'love just is', but that doesn't cut it when we begin to question subjective or objective morality and state that the law of love is the governing principle to human motivation in regards to one of these.

My guide to my exploration of human behavior is the same question most are born to ask, why.

Being born only to die is I feel a contradiction, why?

I can state that loving your dog triggers a primal subconscious impulse within you, what is it and why does it matter.

Why do we do what we do?

Which is the biggest of all and the first question that the path you are walking demands of you so it doesn't take you in circles.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: subtopia

Do you mean our Purpose for living?



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Yes, what is the primal motivation of human action.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: subtopia

Experience???



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
My theory(which I an trying to write a book around) is that it is to 'Reject Loss'

When I continually asked why we do what we do I have found that it continually comes back to that primal impulsion.

If you can think of another that can be applied to any behavior I'd appreciate your input.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: subtopia

Well motivations is defined as the reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way. The reasons someone chooses to act a certain way could be for moral or immoral reasons. I don't think Love is the governing principle for the reasons we act or behave in a specific manor as I don't believe humans always act based on our morals all the time. Love is only the objective standard of morals not behavior as they are two totally separate things.




I can state that loving your dog triggers a primal subconscious impulse within you, what is it and why does it matter


Yes you can, but still Love is the primary motivation for whatever I do in that situation as my love for the dog is the cause of whatever it is you believe makes me behave the way I do as you are keeping a lot of what you believe a secret there is no way for me to really have a good conversation about this with you...



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
a reply to: mOjOm
My theory(which I an trying to write a book around) is that it is to 'Reject Loss'

When I continually asked why we do what we do I have found that it continually comes back to that primal impulsion.

If you can think of another that can be applied to any behavior I'd appreciate your input.



That's kind of interesting actually. I'll give that some thought. They say that Loss is the root or primary cause of suffering. Loss of Life, Love, Family, etc. It imagine it's that reason for "Detachment" in eastern philosophy. Since the idea is to remove suffering and if suffering is born from loss of one kind or another that would seem to be in line with each other.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Not a secret I was inspiring a direction of the path without directly pointing at, which I have now done on my previous post.

Reject loss that is my theory to what is the primary cause to All human behavior, even love.

The addition to this to make sense of it in regards to our present culture is the reality that in the short term the most effective way to reject loss is to cause it.

This is why human love is so different. true love from my perspective reasonably accepts loss, rather than trying to reject it or cause it.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Accepting loss is at the primal core of morality.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
Accepting loss is at the primal core of morality.


That is a very Zen way of looking at it. Or perhaps very Tao.

It certainly does seem to invalidate the idea that, "It's better to have love and lost than never loved at all." Although maybe only from a "Glass half empty" kind of way. Since Loss implies first that there is something to lose of course. But that is sort of a negative perspective I guess.

Other phrases come to mind as well regarding this. Such as, "Only when you've lost everything are you free to do anything". Accepting Loss is certainly the core of eastern thought on the matter in that the more attachments you are unable to give up the more suffering you will eventually have.

Many people often misunderstand that to mean that you should live life without meaning but that's just because most people don't look any deeper than the surface meaning. IMO it's not saying "nothing matters" but instead that all things are temporary so you should get the most from every moment because it may be gone soon, so enjoy it to the fullest while it's there. At the same time however, do not get attached to it or when it goes your attachment to it, if you're unable to let it go, will then cause you pain.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Great perspective.

Many historical philosophies I found were more about submitting to loss, which is a form of control and thus unsustainable, rather than accepting it which requires the capacity to reason which provides the capacity for it to be sustainable.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
Accepting loss is at the primal core of morality.


How exactly is Accepting Loss the core of morality when morality is about deciding or judging the difference between what is right and wrong?

Morality to me is almost like a tier 2 or second level process which ultimately will be discarded as it's only important when viewed from a limited perspective. Like all duality it's a kind of illusion laid on top of a higher truth. That truth being that the two are actually one, but when viewed as opposites gives it distinct properties. However, without one you wouldn't be able to have the other since they define each other. But when viewed as a whole without the illusion it has no movement or action.

In that same way morality is trying to make a distinction between what is by overlaying another level of meaning to it. Instead of just being viewed as what is it tries to categorize it into either what is Good or what is Bad. Or Right or Wrong, which ever you choose.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: subtopia
Reject loss that is my theory to what is the primary cause to All human behavior, even love.

The addition to this to make sense of it in regards to our present culture is the reality that in the short term the most effective way to reject loss is to cause it.

This is why human love is so different. true love from my perspective reasonably accepts loss, rather than trying to reject it or cause it.


That makes sense to me. Love when in terms of unconditional love is about acceptance. Which is also why I find it strange that so many Religiously minded folks out there so quickly talk of God being Love and then try and justify to actions and stories that have allegedly taken place or will take place in His name. To me a God of Love wouldn't be calling for the destruction of his own creation or casting judgment upon those he supposedly Loves, but instead would have infinite patience and acceptance. I even got into a discussion one time with a Christian about how even with Satan, God should be patient enough to wait until even Satan himself came to learn a better way regardless of how long that may take. It just ended up pissing him off and he wouldn't talk to me any more.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Because it is in how we reject loss that determines our morality.

Our subconscious mind is not bound by reason, this is why humans evolved a self conscious mind capable of considering consequences which I perceive is the cause of what we define as morality.

Is it moral to kill someone, no, or is in in certain circumstance.

What if that person is attempting to kill an innocent person and wont stop through reasoned persuasion.

Which loss do we reject.

A) Do we not stop the aggressor from killing the innocent, it will require killing them to stop them. Ensuring we reject the loss of our morality by not killing anyone.

B)Do we reject loss on behalf of the innocent, yet cause loss to our morality.

C) Consideration that we are we still killing someone though inaction, causing loss to our sense of morality.

It's a double bind, which we find ourselves in all too often.

If we don't kill the person attempting to kill the innocent then we may consider that we have in fact allowed the innocent to be killed through our inaction.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join