Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by WarminIndy
So let me ask this, is it observable to see the consequences of turning away from morality?
What does morality have to do with it?? It doesn't come from religion...it's imposed by society.
Can you prove morality is found within the genetic makeup of human beings? Perhaps it appears in some races and not others, maybe it is merely a
genetic mutation like blue eyes?
Does morality come from an imposition of society? Then murder is fine without the imposition, if society dictates what a moral thought is. If murder
is acceptable in a society that does not have that moral definition, then murder is nothing more than a response toward survival, Yes, could you think
So if we do away with morality, all actions are acceptable. But then, acceptable implies a moralistic stance itself. So if we say murder is immoral,
we have made a moralistic stance. But then, if people say it is acceptable to murder only those who do not look like us, that is also a moralistic
stance, morality dictated who should not be murdered, i.e. those who look like us. Morality then cannot be a genetic trait.
So if morality is not a genetic trait, where does it come from? You say it comes from society. OK, we had made the moralistic stance that murder
should only be toward those who do not look like us. So how does that work out for those in society who look different? Is their morality acceptable
when they do not want to be murdered? If they live in the same society, then there are two moral stances, neither of which are not genetic, and then
it is not societal because both peoples live in that same society, i.e. the ones who look alike and the ones who do not. That society does not have
parallel moralities, because murder intersects the strata.
Morality then must come from somewhere else. It is not genetic, it is not societal, but it now definitely is a part of the human condition. When those
who are the ones who look alike begin to say, do not murder those who do not look alike, is that part of the imposition of society? They made that
moral stance against the imposition. Therefore, imposition is null and void. It comes from somewhere higher. Does it come from education?
Are the more highly educated incapable of murder? You and I would agree that is not so. So it must come from somewhere higher. We discover it is not
genetic, which would be at the lowest level, it is not societal, which is a mid-level, it is not from education, which is a high level, so it must
come from somewhere outside of man.
Do not murder is a religious teaching, basing that teaching against societal acceptance of murder. If there were no such thing as murder, there would
be no moralistic stance against it. When you live in a society in which all things are acceptable, then that is a moralistic view. When members of a
society say "I see nothing wrong with murder" what they mean is that their morality should prevail because they dictate what the morality is, hence
murder is acceptable to them. But the rest of society does not agree, therefore what seems to be imposition is really a response to that individual's
If you say murder is immoral, you have made a moralistic stance. Was your stance based in genetics or societal imposition?