Morals, as most people know them, are a MYTH.

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
Interesting nobody has mentioned empathy, the ability to imagine how someone else feels, which to me seems to be a good basis for "morals". If you can feel how your actions affect others and can relate to them it's unlikely you would do things to harm them.

Then there's also the concept of having a conscience ! If we didn't have that then it really would be Law of the jungle time.

Emotions are internal. No one makes you feel but yourself.

I was a natural caring child - - so much so - - I had no self worth. It took me many years to develop my own self worth.

I consider understanding your own uniqueness and self worth far more valuable then worrying about someone else's feelings.

People need to be responsible for their own feelings. "You made me feel" is incorrect. Its "I feel this way . . . ".

Originally posted by Balkan
reply to post by Hopeforeveryone

 

There are people born everyday who have no sense of empathy and no conscience. It is not inherent in all humans, or all creatures for that matter.

True. My husband's cousin is a kid born without a conscience.

Who knows what a conscience really is. If its part of the physical makeup of the brain - - it can be damaged or never developed.

Scientists who study this say - - there is no cure or treatment.

reply to post by Annee


Emotions may be internal but the can be externaly influenced - say for example someone insults you or even physically attacks you then i'm pretty sure they're going to be influencing your emotions. I think you may be getting "sensitve" mixed up with empathy - i could be wrong but it seems like it.

Without empathy would we even care about others at all ?, everybody would just be a tool to our own satisfaction.

I tihnk it's part of our evolution to look out and care for others, theres a term "mirror neurons" which explains the physical basis for empathy.

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by Annee

 

Emotions may be internal but the can be externaly influenced - say for example someone insults you or even physically attacks you then i'm pretty sure they're going to be influencing your emotions.

We are talking morals - - not boxing matches.

No - - I do not have sensitivity and empathy mixed up.

Of course someone can trigger your emotions - - they are still internal - - not external. The response/reaction still comes from you.

reply to post by Annee


I don't wish to seem pedantic but we were talking about empathy and it's role in morality, or at least i was. Seems no-one agrees that empathy is a relevant human ability these days - no wonder we're in the state we're in.

It depends on what view you are talking from. Before I begin I am religious. So from a religious aspect morals are derived from the religion etc. Now if one did not have religion how would know what is good and what is bad? Because from a logical point as the OP implies that there is no good or evil logically. That is why I believe religion is also a necessity as it tells what is right and wrong instead of us just deciding.

reply to post by Adurna


Surely you do what is right in the moment, the enviroment and your natural intelligence will be the guiding hand.
I don't think we are born bad and need to be told how to be good.
Are animals born evil?

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't wish to seem pedantic but we were talking about empathy and it's role in morality, or at least i was. Seems no-one agrees that empathy is a relevant human ability these days - no wonder we're in the state we're in.

Of course its relevant. Its the degree of importance. I say people need to be personally responsible for their own feelings and emotions.

There's way too much "YOU made me feel". Its taken me a lifetime to learn this.

reply to post by Annee


I totally agree. What people don't realize is that we need to love ourselves first. Everyone needs to be seen and appreiciated and we try so hard to be seen by others as good so they will love us. So what happens? Everyone is looking for approval (love, acceptance) because we know that in this world it comes from others.
Everyone is using everyone for their fix.
When you don't need to go to anyone for a fix you love them instead of needing them.

I think for most people, morals are eaten away when they are children at school. Around middle school is when this sense of goodness gets blown out the door in exchange for social contact and acceptance.

I remember when I was in junior high, my morals were pretty much depleted. When kids see a bully picking on someone, they usually A) Do nothing B) Join in on the bullying. Nobody does the right thing, and if they do, they also become a victim.
As they grow older and start to fly on their own, their necessity for MONEY comes along and eliminates whatever morals they retain.

I feel that morals do exist, there's just no incentive to have them anymore.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Annee

 

I totally agree. What people don't realize is that we need to love ourselves first. Everyone needs to be seen and appreiciated and we try so hard to be seen by others as good so they will love us. So what happens? Everyone is looking for approval (love, acceptance) because we know that in this world it comes from others.
Everyone is using everyone for their fix.
When you don't need to go to anyone for a fix you love them instead of needing them.

Thank you. Excellently put.

Like I said - - it took me a long time to learn this. About 50 years worth.

I'm much happier now - - - and I no longer get drawn into drama.

reply to post by Annee


I agree - putting the responsibility for happiness on others can be a road to hell. It's actually a very complicated issue you raise there, i'll be thinking about that all week

Edit to add: Yeah and we do live in a culture that's all about "me" and instant self gratification ! it isn't the road to happiness

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
Yeah and we do live in a culture that's all about "me" and instant self gratification ! it isn't the road to happiness

My husband says its because of the elimination of the front porch.

People want to blame the "ME" generation on all kinds of things. Basically - - IMO - - its the fault of the single family. Everyone has their own space - their own TV - their own computer.

When generations lived in group families - - everyone had to learn "give and take". You had to share - you had to learn different personalities - etc etc.

It certainly isn't about morals or lack of.

reply to post by Annee


Yeah i can relate to that - i come from a family of ten !! and we all had to get on in a relatively small house. It was a totally anachronistic way to live by todays standards. Funny thing is we all sort of share a similar moral outlook though a few members of the family do have different views.

I think the OP is way off base. Morality has nothing to do with selfishness and not everyone is consumed by self-preservation. My Uncle threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies. But when I think about it. None of those 19 year old kids should of been there fighting for a bunch of fatass power mongers.(a whole other moral dilemma) Morality takes courage because we are surrounded by amoral buffoons in every facet of society: business, government, education etc.

So I ask myself why he did it (throw himself on a grenade). He did not do it for God and country I assure you that. He did it for his buddies, which was the moral thing to do. I think morality is innate in all of us. We just get corrupted by societal pressures and desensitized by the mass marketing of avarice.

reply to post by boncho



Hi, Boncho......I think you bring up a very good point. Interesting conversation that you had with that woman. I think that conversation ,in and of itself, is an indication that there is validity to what you are saying.

I think most of us can relate to the conversation boncho had with the woman in the OP.

Our egos seem to prefer to imagine ourselves as "noble" somehow, which includes the concept of morality. If we can look at ourselves objectively however, we might see that we're all a bit shifty on this score.

Not that this is a "bad" thing necessarily, it's just the way it is.

Of course, philosophers tackled the basic question a long time ago, and came up with two camps. In fact, the various responses in this thread can be put in either of the two basic camps, one being the idea that morality has aspects of "objectivity" to it (murder, rape, etc...certain things are ALWAYS wrong), and the other camp looking more to consequences, at least as perceived.

Then medicine discovered parts of the brain that seemed to impact "morality". It was found, for example, that people who suffered damage to the ventromedial cortex adopted what would normally be seen as a "utilitarian" approach to determining what is "moral". Not particularly satisfying for those in favor of absolutes, as an example will show. These patients, when faced with a "choice" to kill an innocent person, in order to "save" more than one person, invariably chose to kill the innocent person, presumably because of the utility, or "logic" we might say, in preserving "more" life. (These were hypothetical questions posed BTW, no one was actually killed!)

Obviously, there is more to moral decision making than mere "quantity", but it's interesting that a physical structure in the brain impacts this issue.

Undoubtedly, there are going to be people out there who have no brain damage, and have no trouble agreeing with the patient. Sometimes, it only takes an "extreme" expression of the dilema, to bring out the utilitarians from the closet. SO, we could up the ante, and ask, "What if we could save 10 people, by killing one person?" Or go further, adding nuances, "What if we could save 10 productive, healthy people, by killing one sickly old peson?"

These questions really do stump some people, and if we took a survey, we might be surprised at the results.

SO boncho, I guess looking at the facts, your OP is probably right. Once we start looking into it, morals as people generally think about them, start to crumble.

JR

This is one of those "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" threads.

I think everyone plays pick and choose as suits the situation.

We are fallible.

It's nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm sure a lot of people share your attitude.

And then a lot of these same people sit around and ask what in the world happened to society over the last 50 years.

The truth is that most of humanity is just a pack of toddlers who have been given the run of the house for a while. Most of us are incapable of showing even a modicum of self-control without being threatened with extinction or Hell or something else akin to it.

reply to post by boncho


interesting topic. I have morals and sometimes they feel like a burden or a roadblock i have placed in front of my self. I do not expect other people to follow my morals and no matter what someone does to me i dont change my morals to fit the situation. This girl you speak of doesn't have morals she just likes the sound of it. I have been cheated on knew it and had the chance to cheat back but didn't. I know it sounds dumb right but if i do the same thing back I'm only creating more of the same distrust and sadness the other person creates.

If you have morals you find out real quick we live in a unmoral world. Having morals isn't about being better then someone else its about having principles. The unmoral people call it stupidity or pride which in some cases it is but morals can change people and can end a cycle of hurt. Think an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. If your girlfriend cheats then you decide to cheat because you believe everyone cheats so you cheat on your new girlfriend and then she believes everyone cheats so with her next boyfriend she cheats and this just repeats itself until someone says i will not cheat. After time passes you find a lot of people who once had morals feel like a victim and they ditch the morals.

Young women tend to be the worst morally because they believe they can justify their bad behavior while hiding behind morals. Aka the guy was a jerk so i cheated but I'm not a cheater lol. They fail to realize that you have to take the good with the bad. She just as easily could have said this relationship is over and walked then found a new boyfriend but that's not a easy as being a a-hole and cheating and having the guy go away hurt by himself.

She probably deserved the treatment she received didn't like it and cheated. Ps guys thats why women love a-hole type Alpa dog cheaters its because they deserve the treatment the women give them and the women don't feel guilt for cheating on that type of guy.