It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why have morals if God/Nature has no morals?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Some deep but terrible questions:

Why do humans always need to do what's right and moral, when God and Mother Nature have no morality at all? Mother Nature kills countless animals, insects and plant life every second. And God allows wars, famines, poverty, disease, hunger, greed, and evil to kill people everyday. He does nothing to stop it. He lets evil people prosper and good people die young. He allows the strong to take advantage of the weak, and the "might is right" principle to rule the world. So if God himself has no morals, why must humans? How can there be any "universal morality code" if God or Mother Nature doesn't follow it? It's a terrible question, I know. Nothing makes sense in this world or life. But for crying out loud, stop pretending that there is some absolute "divine moral code" that exists for all creation.
edit on 26-1-2012 by WWu777 because: (no reason given)



I think there are just things that smooth the way. Makes life in mixed company easier. It seems to me humanity has been around so long IT (humanity, we) learned what makes life pleasant and what makes it unbearable.

HUMANITY as a group I think somewhere along the line decided a few minimum basic rules to live by.
It is convenience and a workable plan...already figured out by our ancestors...call these from God if you want to but that's not necessary. Let's not go backward now.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Nature is very moral and another good example is animals of all descriptions protect their young.

I like your argument and think it is largely correct. Morality is derived from instinct. However, nature is not moral in the sense of having a set of moral rules that all life follows. Lady spiders eat their mates; lady salmon don't. Nature is morally neutral, as the OP points out. 'Survival of the species' is not a natural imperative; group selection is a discredited concept in evolutionary biology.

The right way to look at this (you're halfway there) is that human morals are derived from the instinctive conduct proper to the social species Homo sapiens. However, our morals are not simply instinct made conscious. For example, most cultures have a blanket prohibition against killing other people, except in war or some culturally-mandated special circumstance (human sacrifice, unwanted children, honour killing, etc). Instinctive human behaviour with respect to killing other humans is far more nuanced than that. I explained what's going on in a post on another thread, and to save time and effort I will simply reproduce here what I wrote there:


Why Murder Is (Usually) Wrong

  1. The victim is more likely than not to be a member of your own hunter-gatherer band/tribe, and therefore to share some genes with you. Like all social animals, you have a built-in instinct to preserve, not destroy, your own genes, even when they are in other people's bodies. Evolutionary biologists call this kin selection.

  2. Killing people is tiring. It uses up a lot of energy, which is more properly spent on the fundamental activities of life, like resource-gathering, child-rearing and sex. Therefore killing is to be avoided unless the potential energy gain (through resources acquired from the murder) is greater than the energy to be invested.

  3. Killing people is also dangerous. They may kill you instead, or maim you, or at least injure you so badly you take a long time recovering – during which time you will use up a lot of energy and not be able to devote yourself much to resource-gathering, child-rearing or sex. Therefore killing people is to be avoided unless the potential energy gain (through resources acquired from the murder) is not just slightly more than the investment required but big enough to cover the risk of things going wrong. Risk is normally hard to quantify, so it is best in most cases not to kill anyone at all.

  4. Killing another member of your band or tribe will cause considerable disruption to the social and functional dynamics of the group. Others may resent this and penalize you accordingly – perhaps even kill you. Yet another strong disincentive to murder. A particular threat arises from the relatives of the victim, who may take revenge not just upon you but upon others who carry your genes, such as your children or your sisters.

  5. If, however, the other threatens your genes directly or through competition for resources, and other means of deterring him (such as bribery, negotiation or threats) prove unsuccessful, then it is best to kill him.

Such is the morality bequeathed to us by our animal heritage, burnt into our brains by evolution as a set of instinctive tropisms and behaviour patterns.

Such are the roots of all morality – not just the modalities of murder but also of altruism, cooperation, parental care, sexual fidelity and all the rest. Moral codes are just post hoc rationalization. We are not moral because of the religions we adopt or the ethical philosophies we devise. All that is just what Buddhists call 'the arising and passing' – the froth of conscious thought and feeling that is, in the end, only a by-product of the stimuli we perceive and the behavioural responses they draw forth. Our thoughts are mere bubbles on the surface of the stream of time, but it is the deep, unseen currents of the stream that move us.

We delude ourselves that our actions are the children of our thoughts, but it is not so. Our actions always determine our thoughts, even if the thought precedes the action in time. This is a truth that very few human beings are willing to accept, or even contemplate seriously.

Morality is instinctive. It needs no religion or philosophy to justify it.

This is also my answer to the OP's question.



edit on 26/1/12 by Astyanax because: of species.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by triune
Mankind has morals because they are guided by their divine higher selves (rightness and reason) conscience.

The unbreakable number one law of the universe is; Thinking creates human physical destiny. This law cannot and will not be interfered with. So the bad things as well as the good that befalls man and mankind are of his own making. This is to teach man what to think or create and what not to think and therefore not create.

Man, who is emeshed in nature (the body) thinks mainly of things of nature, namely sex, food, a name (fame) possessions and power (control over things and others). This type of thinking creates destiny that must be worked out on the physical plane of the universe and continues to bind man to nature. Thus is the explanation of reincarnation. Man continues his rounds of physical existences to work out the destiny he has created for himself by his own thinking.

Man will continue in this way until he learns that the glam and gloss of nature is an illusion and never brings the satisfaction that somehow never seems to be sated. He will then look for a way out of the nature trap and use his thinking to find out who and what he really is.


I find what you write.... interesting.

So, what happens is that a "someone" is born, and keeps being reincarnated until one realizes the nature illusion?

So what happens after that....



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I agree with you that there are no absolute morals in the universe. Morals are very subjective and to claim that there is a set list for every human and animal to follow is incorrect.

However, humans still require laws and boundaries to ensure that the average person is kept in check and that dangerous individuals are removed from the general population. We tend to flourish and develop when we work together towards common goals as opposed to killing each other just to survive.

It can be said that laws derive from morals, but laws are needed to ensure the survival and prosperity of the population - not to ensure that what is done is right.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


And what moral code do animals and insects have? Eat, survive and reproduce?

Actually, the 'morality' of social insects is fascinating, because it involves what look to us like extreme examples of self-sacrifice and instinctive socialism. This arises from what naturalists call 'kin selection' (see the link in my post above). Because of the strange mechanics of reproduction in social insect colonies, worker insects are actually 'supersisters' who share three-quarters of their genes in common. This high degree of relatedness makes it profitable, from a genetic point of view, to sacrifice oneself for the sake of the colony – or rather, for the sake of the worker's own genes, which are also found in the bodies of other members of the colony.

If you would like to read about this in more detail (it's a real eye-opener, believe me), go here.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Because ultimately we are God, we are all one, and we create our dynamic creators of our own reality, so it is up to you to do so with love and respect. For if you do not, then ultimately you are only hurting yourself. The world is your mirror, if you don’t like what you see then it is up to you to change what is being reflected back

However, if you don’t share my world view and believe God is somehow separate to man and the rest of the universe, you might want to consider this......



Originally posted by WWu777
Some deep but terrible questions:

Why do humans always need to do what's right and moral


Imagine a world where everyone is purely taking care of number one? A world of total anarchy in the worst possible way. Do you think you would enjoy it much? How long would you survive?

Ultimately most of us want the same thing - a world of peace, respect, love and prosperity. That is why you need to what’s right and moral............... in order to create that world


when God and Mother Nature have no morality at all? Mother Nature kills countless animals, insects and plant life every second.


Animal life needs other life to sustain it. The wildebeest doesn’t lose any sleep even though it could be a lions meal tomorrow. The grass does not fret even though it may be eaten by the wildebeest. Why do you worry? And how else would God have done it anyway?


And God allows wars, famines, poverty, disease, hunger, greed, and evil to kill people everyday. He does nothing to stop it.


God allows free will. It is us humans which create war famine and greed. Would you be willing to sacrifice your free will in order to end these problems?




He lets evil people prosper and good people die young.


We are not all James Dean. There are plenty of good old people in this world.


He allows the strong to take advantage of the weak, and the "might is right" principle to rule the world.


Most of the meatheads I know aren’t doing that well in a material sense, and if God were to make the weak strong, then who’s to say they wouldn’t use their gift of free will to take advantage of others.



So if God himself has no morals, why must humans? How can there be any "universal morality code" if God or Mother Nature doesn't follow it? It's a terrible question, I know. Nothing makes sense in this world or life.


Whether he does or does not is irrelevant. What right does he have to interfere with your ability to make choices? Do you want to live in utopia if the price you payed was that all we were all reduced to exist as some biological automation which followed some pre-programmed set of rules.


But for crying out loud, stop pretending that there is some absolute "divine moral code" that exists for all creation.


There is, and it’s the same no matter what you believe. It’s called ‘the want of humankind to make the world a better place’, and even this want extends only as far as your own personal world, it is still in your interest to do what is ‘right’ and ‘moral’.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by blazenresearcher
 


The solution, my friend, is to stop creating destiny for yourself by not sending your thoughts out into nature.

Basically there are two types of thinking, passive thinking of the type that goes on almost unnoticed and is mostly concerned with the wants and desires of the body and ego (nature). This type of thinking creates thoughts and destiny.

Active thinking of the type where the mind is focused on a subject for the purpose of gaining knowledge about that subject. If this type of thinking is done on an intellectual subject such as 'does God have morals', this thinking does not create thoughts or destiny for the human.

Man must, by his thinking find himself in the body. He must come to know himself as a distinct and separate entity from his body and his bodily senses that all belong to nature. Man in his true form does not belong to the nature side of the universe, he belongs to the intelligent side of the universe.

It is the pull of nature that reaches man through the bodily senses that effect feeling and desire that is the true self and starts the thinking processes. The vast majority of humanity have their thinking controlled by their body mind, which is responing to the pull of nature on the senses. This is completely the wrong way around.

Feeling and desire, which is the immortal self in the body, should control the body mind, which in turn would control the senses that could and should be used by the self to control nature.

However, before this can be done feeling and desire (you) must be in perfect balanced union. The reason you are having a human experience in a man or woman body in this world of birth and death is that you are presently unbalanced. Hence, we come full circle. You must find yourself in the body and rebalance feeling and desire so that they, feeling and desire think as one, and not separately as they do at present.
edit on 27-1-2012 by triune because: no reason



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


Then you really tumble down the rabbit hole and explore things that the ones who are caught in the dream do not allow themselves to see. Many will have a hard time knowing the things they know and at the same time act like the same smallminded person they have been. Some go crazy or in my point of view become sane where the people who are dreaming are the real crazy people. It is like puting a man from the 21 century at the times of romans and try to make him fit socialy in with all the knowledge of how society can be. Namaste



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I agree with you that there are no absolute morals in the universe. Morals are very subjective and to claim that there is a set list for every human and animal to follow is incorrect.

However, humans still require laws and boundaries to ensure that the average person is kept in check and that dangerous individuals are removed from the general population. We tend to flourish and develop when we work together towards common goals as opposed to killing each other just to survive.

It can be said that laws derive from morals, but laws are needed to ensure the survival and prosperity of the population - not to ensure that what is done is right.


But if they are not right and the people see them as injust then the people in the end rise up and destroy the system and build a new one. In fact if the system not just the laws are seen as unfair then the bottom of the pyramid will no longer coperate with the top of the pyramid. Law/system should be made for a specific community/decided by that community so that if you do not agree then you can move to a place where the law/system fit you. The current system of polarization by corperations around the world so that the whole planet will do their bidding will create only violence and revolutions. I will not be a slave to the parasites in the top of the pyramid, no matter how good they are at manipulating the masses.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 

If all are free, and we all share the same source or ground of being, as an unconditioned state of infinite possiblity, why heap the blame on God or the creation as it is?

And if we share the same ground of being, what responsibilities, committments and obligations to one another would we share in common?

Reason would suggest that there may be a flaw in your argument, since it involves projecting onto God and/or the creation, something which God and the creation has made available to us, whereby the resonsibility is ours to steward that which we've been freely given, wisely.

I think you're question really involves an issue of Justice (with a capital J), and in that case, let us hope that there is a Just and Moral God, so that the type of moral dilemma you've set out, may be rectified in the final analysis at the end of the day ie: that there is a law of karma which cannot be avoided or escaped by anyone, or any system, power or principality, and those who administer such "institutions" or "organizations".

So you see, if there's no God, or if God is not all-Good, True, and Just, only then are we screwed, but if there is a Just God who is all-Good and True to what is Right (Righteous), then "they" are screwed, those who've been given more, and thus, from whom much more is expected.

I like to say that the KOH (kingdom of heaven/God) is upside down to our human understanding and conceptions of Economics and of Justice, where that which is higher, or more "powerful" (real power is always empowerING), always and forever comes to serve what is lower, to raise the lowly forever on up to increasingly higher heights, or in other words, that the power of God, as Virtue and Grace, only comes to serve, not to be served.

Just think of what this would mean, if true, and where it places the pressure..

Edit to add: So what is the "evidence" for this? Well, let us look around, what do we see? Is the Creation good, and beautiful, or is it decrepid, corrupt, and falling apart in disorder and disunity, and if that were the case, how is it after all this time, that we're even still here to enjoy anything? Perhaps we are or were deluded maybe.. and that this delusion and ignorance, not God or the Creation, is at cause in your complaint/concern.. is that possible? Just ask'n, perhaps another perspective might be worth considering here..


edit on 27-1-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Oh and if there is a high standard or operative principal of righteousness, Justice and Virtue, transcendant over might makes right, survival of the "fittest" or strongest ie: eat or be eaten, capable of freely extending only that which is good, just and true, as a co-creative participatory framework of mutuality or what in human terms might be thought of as an "enlightened mutual best interest", if that were the case, as the truth and the reality, not only here, but as a universal principal of creation itself - then should any person, group, institution, organization, power or principality seek to somehow try to demonize God, or make of God a "house divided" in order to create a permissive framework by which to pepetuate all manner of corruption, selfishness and greed and the lust for power of the very worst kind, which seeks only to be served and not to serve, then let me be the first (or the second) to say, woe to any such person or people when the rains come and the winds blow against their house (to test it), because oh what a fall it will have (had).

I think it's high time for us all to get our individual and collectives asses in gear and start building a better world, both for ourselves and for all future generations, from age to age in eternity, and in so doing, honor God, and the apex of his creation, who's great love for all blows through the twin pillars (divided middle) of Justice, and Mercy.

"I ask for mercy, not sacrifice."
~ Jesus Christ, repeated on more than one occasion, for emphasis.


edit on 27-1-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


From a naturalistic perspective, they don't, as morality is illusory. A person may feel compelled to do so by society, but moral codes are just belief systems adopted for utilitarian or pragmatic purposes.

Moral codes are not absolute, a person may (or possess the illusion they can) choose to ignore them. Moral beliefs aren't objectively verifiable, like observations of gravity or the temperature of the sun. Good/Evil are imaginary constructs, formed by social pressure, personal experience and basic desires related to survival. If a person tells you X behavior is evil, they are not relating FACT but an opinion or belief colored by non-empirically derived input. If one is inclined to dismiss beliefs, no matter how meaningful or useful they may be to those who hold them, then morality is another class of superstition, subject to fashion and personal whim, and can be disregarded easily enough, particularly when one possesses no rational reason to fear punishment, whether from society or a deity. In circumstances where an individual can acquire the power and influence to insulate themselves from the repercussions, even the Golden Rule can be subverted.
edit on 27-1-2012 by talonreaping because: grammar, additional idea

edit on 27-1-2012 by talonreaping because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by talonreaping
reply to post by WWu777
 


From a naturalistic perspective, they don't, as morality is illusory. A person may feel compelled to do so by society, but moral codes are just belief systems adopted for utilitarian or pragmatic purposes.

Moral codes are not absolute, a person may (or possess the illusion they can) choose to ignore them. Moral beliefs aren't objectively verifiable, like observations of gravity or the temperature of the sun. Good/Evil are imaginary constructs, formed by social pressure, personal experience and basic desires related to survival. If a person tells you X behavior is evil, they are not relating FACT but an opinion or belief colored by non-empirically derived input. If one is inclined to dismiss beliefs, no matter how meaningful or useful they may be to those who hold them, then morality is another class of superstition, subject to fashion and personal whim, and can be disregarded easily enough, particularly when one possesses no rational reason to fear punishment, whether from society or a deity. In circumstances where an individual can acquire the power and influence to insulate themselves from the repercussions, even the Golden Rule can be subverted.
edit on 27-1-2012 by talonreaping because: grammar, additional idea

Are you familiar with sacred geometry? It may very well be that certain principals are operative in form and function with certain moral imperatives like the Golden Rule being an outcropping of such laws, principals or designs ie: is it not possible that goodness and love might be formative or creative, and wickedness and hatred, destructive? Are there not certain causes and effects which flow from different types of moral conduct? Could you possibly be mistaken?


edit on 27-1-2012 by NewAgeMan because: typo
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by talonreaping
reply to post by WWu777
 


From a naturalistic perspective, they don't, as morality is illusory. A person may feel compelled to do so by society, but moral codes are just belief systems adopted for utilitarian or pragmatic purposes.

Moral codes are not absolute, a person may (or possess the illusion they can) choose to ignore them. Moral beliefs aren't objectively verifiable, like observations of gravity or the temperature of the sun. Good/Evil are imaginary constructs, formed by social pressure, personal experience and basic desires related to survival. If a person tells you X behavior is evil, they are not relating FACT but an opinion or belief colored by non-empirically derived input. If one is inclined to dismiss beliefs, no matter how meaningful or useful they may be to those who hold them, then morality is another class of superstition, subject to fashion and personal whim, and can be disregarded easily enough, particularly when one possesses no rational reason to fear punishment, whether from society or a deity. In circumstances where an individual can acquire the power and influence to insulate themselves from the repercussions, even the Golden Rule can be subverted.
edit on 27-1-2012 by talonreaping because: grammar, additional idea

edit on 27-1-2012 by talonreaping because: (no reason given)


The only duality that I have keept is Service to (or for the benifit of) all versus Service to self(Ego). I also say that all souls are created equal (but have different experiances). From this it is kinda easy to logicly see if a behaviour is moraly ok or not. From my point of view everything bad that happens is because of ego and service to all is a loving act devoid of ego. Service to all where you get your equally deserved share according to effort is a symbiotic action while service to self is a parasitic action where you want more for yourself at the cost of others.

You can think of this place as training ground for souls to see where they fit in. You cannot have a service to all society if not all people that is involved agree to it, since a person with ego will corrupt the whole system. You choose what philosophy you will follow and probably to what deegree. Progress in technology can be made in both but without ego service to all will be more effective. Example say we have 4 companies with 10 scientists each that are exactly as good as the other. They will research independetly and make around the same progress in each company. In a service to all society we have 40 scientist that research together and of course that will get faster progress than 10 scientist if done effeciantly. Namste
edit on 27-1-2012 by apushforenlightment because: spellchecking



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Hmm, that (sig movement) "outcropping" in my last post, was a rather intriguing ah glich in the matrix.. love it, cool.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Hmm, that (sig movement) "outcropping" in my last post, was a rather intriguing ah glich in the matrix.. love it, cool.


Haha. The thing I am most intrigued about it is the amount of things he/she needed to make sure was in a certain way to send you that message. You gotta love the precission he/she is showing.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
The simplest answer is to create a better society for our children.

With no morals, then it's just survival of the fittest. We wouldn't have much of a society if we didn't have morals.

It works at the family level to increase the chance of you passing on your genes.

It works at the village level so that your village prospers.

It works at the state level to increase the groups chance of survival.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
There are natural laws
So many look at the workings of the Cosmos and use such words Violence and destruction yet if applied to the Cosmos would end the Cosmos.
Human power for true destruction ie anhialation is limited by natural law
We dont get to play with the real powers till we learn to use the lesser powers in a wiser and more caring way
As for the old worn out doctrine of survival of the fittest - what sort of world is that - Surely it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak.

edit on 27-1-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I have only a basic understanding of Sacred Geometry. According to Wikipedia, Sacred Geometry includes the idea that certain mathematical formula (attributed a supernatural quality) were used in designing religious buildings, sacred spaces and are also found in nature.

Where a spiritually minded person sees a divine hand, an empiricist sees a natural principle at work; devoid of any additional subjective meaning. A nautilus shell spirals as it does because that's how it evolved, either out of structural necessity or simply because such a shell design was most beneficial and selected naturally. Nothing sacred or spiritual is required, just the natural order of the universe.

Yes, there is cause and effect, but with an evaluation stripped of anything not based in empirical science, the usefulness of a given means is relative to the intended end. Following this, difficult questions involve what goals are worthy of human effort and why, who decides this, what criteria should be used and if it's worth sacrificing individual choice to achieve. Ask 10 people and you may get 10 different answers, nature itself appears to have no preference.

It's quite possible the current naturalist view is incorrect, but unless empirical proof arises, those who hold it are unlikely to be dissuaded from it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by talonreaping
 


I use sacred geometry but I like to think of it as natural geometry. It is a good tool but only a tool.
All this alchemy and science of measurement and observation is but a framework to attempt to understand reality.
Logic is used but logic is a poor tool as it can not consider all possibilities.
We discover something and the picture changes and even that which we discover is subject to change.


edit on 27-1-2012 by artistpoet because: typo



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join