Why have morals if God/Nature has no morals?

reply to post by apushforenlightment


I understand the Service to Self vs. Service to Others philosophy and the argument made. It presupposes one finds the goals valued by that philosophy useful. But why? Nature gives us no objective reason to find more value in one philosophy over another.

Is Service to Self truly an incorrect choice? If it is possible to better oneself at the cost of others and suffer no apparent ill consequence, it would seem a viable option, one that many would exploit if they recognized the opportunity.

Originally posted by artistpoet
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

Naturalism considers empirical science the only reliable method to create a useful framework to make predictions or analyze reality and filters observations and ideas through this method. Basic logic is required for the scientific method to function at all. Simply because a given thing is possible does not mean it is factually so, logic and science are applied to separate the possible from the verifiably correct. If these tools are not sufficient, what would you suggest we use to augment them and why?

Originally posted by talonreaping

Originally posted by artistpoet
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

Naturalism considers empirical science the only reliable method to create a useful framework to make predictions or analyze reality and filters observations and ideas through this method. Basic logic is required for the scientific method to function at all. Simply because a given thing is possible does not mean it is factually so, logic and science are applied to separate the possible from the verifiably correct. If these tools are not sufficient, what would you suggest we use to augment them and why?

Originally posted by blazenresearcher

Originally posted by talonreaping

Originally posted by artistpoet
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

How totally Obtuse (word) and insightful..Best to be Obtuse than main stream!

Naturalism considers empirical science the only reliable method to create a useful framework to make predictions or analyze reality and filters observations and ideas through this method. Basic logic is required for the scientific method to function at all. Simply because a given thing is possible does not mean it is factually so, logic and science are applied to separate the possible from the verifiably correct. If these tools are not sufficient, what would you suggest we use to augment them and why?

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)

What is your definition of "morals" as applied to nature? With humans it seems it comes down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

reply to post by WWu777


BE GOOD!!!

Be good is the moral code. Humans have had this message driven into them forever, even ET promoted this very heavily. Religion, Mothers, Fathers, Schools, TV programs all shout 'be good'.
What does 'be good' mean?

It means be a good slave!! You are born into a prison you can not see, taste or touch, a prison for your mind!!
The system is designed to keep you in line and it makes you keep others in line, this makes it easier for the slave owners to keep control.

Watch this to see how sophisticated slavery has become:
youtu.be...

reply to post by triune


Excellent analysis..thank you.

I like your thoughts, Now what if we look at the same topic and remove all the god and nature thing. if we had no morals then we would not be, like a pack of dogs they need each other to stay alive this is what we are, we learned that if we help each other and keep one another alive then be have a better chance as well. you have a deep understanding I would like to read you next writing, what if you try to see it in another perspective-where did we get our moarls and what are the benefits from it. Or try this one this is a good one, this is any one who likes to think-when did we start to lie and what good did it do or us? i would love to hear anyone's thought on it.

Originally posted by artistpoet
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)

I do not agree. It is not the duty of the strong to protect the weak. It is the duty of the strong to help the weak become stronger so that the people who was previous weak become equal partners with the strong. When you do that the burden on the strong gets lighter and everyone wins. Namaste

Originally posted by talonreaping
reply to post by apushforenlightment

 

I understand the Service to Self vs. Service to Others philosophy and the argument made. It presupposes one finds the goals valued by that philosophy useful. But why? Nature gives us no objective reason to find more value in one philosophy over another.

Is Service to Self truly an incorrect choice? If it is possible to better oneself at the cost of others and suffer no apparent ill consequence, it would seem a viable option, one that many would exploit if they recognized the opportunity.

But the term service to self is always parasitic at the cost of others otherwise it is included in service to all. There are times when you can better yourself at no difference to the others, but that is still service to all since by helping yourself at no cost to the others you become better and can serve the all better. Namaste

Originally posted by triune
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

I agree with you and I like the way you stated it. I would also like to add that we "think" too much and depend on our 5 senses. We have to stop thinking and start knowing. If we think we have "KNOWledge" based on our 5 senses, we are mistaken. We can regurgitate feelings, we can explain how we see something from within the senses but that limits us. Could the poem really describe the poet?

Walter Russell:
"Man has a Mind as well as having senses, but he has given preferences to the evidence of his senses in the building of his cosmogony. Man can reason with his senses but he cannot know with them. Reasoning is sense-thinking - not
Mind-knowing. He has also produced effects without knowing their cause."
--------------------
"The senses are limited to but a small range of perception of the EFFECTS which they sense, and even that small range is saturated with the deceptions and distortions created by the illusion of motion."


So my point and opinion for the OP is that we are created from Love. I think that it runs through all of us, and if we allow it to guide us, we naturally see what we would call Morals. If we come from our heart in everything we approach how could you not want to treat something with respect or share or take care of? Animals have love but are much more driven by their primal instincts located within their physical body. We are "aware" beings and when we let that primal drive/physical body control us we are in trouble.

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

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.

The message was not for me, but was intended for others, such as talonreaping.

,

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I don't think we need to be TOLD to "be good" when being good is it's own reward. After all, it is good to be good only for goodness' sake, not not to not be bad, if you know what I mean. The problem is in the dualism, the deception and the lie which leads to separation, enmity, and strife. When they tell us to "be good" what is implied is "don't be bad" and that's the stickey wicket they want to drive us into in order to catch us in a trap like flies to #.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by apushforenlightment

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.

The message was not for me, but was intended for others, such as talonreaping.

,

Maybe it wasn't for you. In one way the message was a reminder for me and a mesage to everyone else who are ready. I got the message a while ago and is getting constant reminders as if I can ever forget it . Namaste

why have morals, because its nicer this way.

because nature doesn't kill unnecessarily the way unmoral beings do.

Because nature has balance, like morals try and achieve. They are actually alike. Nature and morals, it's about balance.

People can justify anything they like by saying "why do lions kill?", well because they are hungry and only hunt when they are. They dont go around killing zebras to just leave their flesh rotting in the sun.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Just be. Animals just are but humans have conditions. Humans are conditioned to be good because they are told that they are bad. Humans are told that they are sinners.
The only sin is believing.

reply to post by WWu777


Regardless of cultural background, when a small child is caused harm or asked to participate in something that is beyond his or her experiential comprehension, the child's visceral reaction and experience is that their exploitation is 'wrong' or 'bad'.

So, for me, questions of the existence of morality are obtuse. Morality exists to protect the innocent and no amount of clever grown up wisdom can change the fact that immoral behaviour, ie, actions and words that cause harm to others, cannot be dismissed for the lack of proof of universal morality.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Some among us have put it to the test (belief) and have come through the experience with flying colours. For everything there is a price, and a rite of passage. Just be is good advice, once we've crossed the gap between what is and what ought to be, but until then, there's much work to do, and the well deserved liesure at the end of each piece of work well done. "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world (one with everything) is he loses his own soul?" (essential character, and passion). We must be passionate for what is right, love the good and hate evil, and do whatever we can with whatever resources are available to us, to set right wrongs, while leaving all vengeance to the Lord above all. Believing in him, in the spirit of Truth and Life and Love, the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega is not a sin, you were mistaken. It is a sin not to believe in anything at all, and do nothing, and cause nothing and no progress, that's not what we were created for. That said, we were not created to fight, but to love and enjoy the fruits of our labors provided they are a labor of love.

Some more points to consider:

God and Mother Nature have no morals either - about letting animals, insects and plants die every second, or allowing innocent people to suffer, or allowing good/innocent people to die young and evil people to thrive and prosper either. So there does not seem to be any objective "divine moral code" that governs all of creation. Morality is something that humans create, not some universal divine law that governs the universe.

Sometimes you gotta do what's best for you. As already explained, survival and self-preservation often takes precedent over "morally correct choices". It's not right or wrong; it's just reality. No one likes to admit that publicly, but it's true. There is no perfect world in which the best choices are always the morally correct ones.

I know that doesn't sound good. But you have to be realistic here. No one (at least not most people) can always make the morally correct choice in every decision and action. No one is a saint. But we are all hypocrites in that we hold others to the standards of a saint which we ourselves do not live up to. Everyone (at least most) has skeletons in the closet that would bring moral condemnation from others if exposed out in the open.

As the saying goes: "People do not like to do what's right. They like to TELL others to do what's right."

For example, let's take a hypothetical situation: Suppose Bill Gates accidentally deposited $500,000 into your bank account, and he never noticed it. Now, would you contact him and tell him about it, or would you think: "$500k to him is nothing. It's just pocket change to him. He'll never notice or care that he's missing that amount. I need it A LOT MORE than he does." Of course, publicly you might say that you'd report it because it's the "right and morally correct choice". But in REALITY and PRIVATELY, you KNOW you would probably keep it under the rationale and excuse: "I need this money more than he does. And besides, it was his mistake, not mine." Most people would probably do that, and never tell anyone about it of course. They would never post about it on a forum and try to debate the "morality" of it with others either, because they know that everyone would condemn them. Most of you KNOW that YOU WOULD just keep it, because in this scenario, your "survival instinct" would override your "moral instinct". The benefits and gains would overshadow the "moral ethics" (which bring you nothing), especially if you were badly in need of money. So stop pretending that you are all saints who hold other people to the standard of a saint. You are hypocrites and you know it!

Besides, most of you are also hypocrites for condoning the slaughter of cows, chickens and pigs, (and eating them) while condemning the slaughter of dogs and cats. And you are hypocrites for condoning hunters who shoot ducks and deer. Who are you to decide which life of which species is sacred and valuable, and which isn't? Should an advanced alien race have a right to eat you for food too? Just because you are human doesn't mean that human life is the most sacred thing in the objective universe. A higher more advanced race than you might think otherwise. There's simply no consistency in your thinking and moral standards.

If killing were morally wrong, then those who kill and eat animals would be punished by karma and universal retribution right away, wouldn't they? Yet many meat eaters live long and healthy lives. Why is that?

If killing were ethically wrong and punishable by karma, then is your immune system guilty of killing all the harmful bacteria that it kills everyday? Should karma punish you and your immune system?

If killing was a sin punishable by karma or God, then how come George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who started the Iraq War and killed over a million people, have gone unpunished by the universe, and are wealthier than ever? How come the US officials who started the Vietnam War lived long and healthy lives? How come Joseph Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler, lived to a ripe old age? Yet, Robert Kennedy, a man with great compassion for others, gets gunned down and dies young? Where is all the karmic retribution or divine justice in that?

If you are a man, every time you ejaculate, you kill thousands of sperm, even during sex. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" come upon you for that? If you are a woman, every time you go through menstruation, you kill thousands of fertilized eggs. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" befall you for that?

(continued)

Part 2:

So you see, under casual scrutiny, the "moral logic" of most humans falls apart and is shown to be inconsistent, subjective, situational and relative. Human morality is not some "divine law" handed down by God. It is a code of ethics humans created to help ensure the survival and cooperation of our species. The "moral conscience" you have in your subconscious that makes you feel guilty when you do something wrong is not something that God put into you. It's the result of the moral behaviors and beliefs of all your ancestors that have become ingrained into your DNA. It's the same reason why a kitten is born with an expert instinct to catch mice, and a knowing of what it can eat and what it can't. It's the same way animals know that they are supposed to run from predators. God didn't teach them to. It's simply ingrained into their DNA as an instinct from the past behavior of their ancestors.

This is why our survival instinct tends to override our moral instinct. Our need to survive comes first and foremost. It is the root instinct of all life and comes before all other instincts. It also precedes any "moral code" we develop to get along with others. So naturally, when survival and morals come into conflict, we will choose survival. As the saying goes, "One can only have morals if one can afford them."