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.

 

Is there a such thing as true morality? Or is it made up?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Not disagreeing with you there. I think that were you put mystical and religious I would put "belief in" or "faith". I do not believe i mystical things and my "religious" beliefs are very small and without much impact on my daily life but I have a huge respect and regard to the power of beliefs and faith on shaping one's reality.

Good and evil meanings are only useful as agglutinates of all things the majority of people aspire or avoid, be it physical or ethereal. Much like the concepts of what is positive and negative...




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by trysts
 


It depends, when you refer to others do you simply mean external reality or as I interpreted it other humans.

For instance, if I was alone in the world and came across a lake with a beautiful reflection of the environment around I would make a conscientious effort not to destroy that beauty as it was giving me pleasure. This does not require me to interact with any sentience beyond myself. (I have used abstracts like beauty and the emotional response to it on purpose as they are internal concepts)

Now I could agree that in this setup it is not really a moral decision as I was the sole observer and the only one impacted by my decision but I had a gain in being constructive and taking the time to admire the scene, since there was nothing else motivating me to act otherwise I see my action as good and so morally superior. Had I acted in reverse not noticing the beauty of the scene and thrown a rock into the lake I would have been destructive and probably prevented myself to gain something from its observation, and so bad and morally objectionable.

In this cases the morality is mostly asserted after the facts in reflection of what happened at the time I would probably not define it as a moral decision but acted instinctively toward my own gain. That is you can act morally toward yourself.

A more complex example could be made like the use you give to your imagination or for instance if you dabble in lucid dreaming, The experiences you seek and create are mostly for the pursuit of your pleasure the morality considerations can only be made after the fact if they were beneficial or detrimental to you.

An ultimate example of this type of conundrum is for instance the decision to commit suicide here there are two moral guidelines ones right to self determination and the impact of the decision on others.


Hi, again. I mean other Beings, not necessarily human, but definitely not "things". I believe animals cannot be dismissed from moral thought.

I believe your analogy of being alone, viewing a beautiful lake, is not a moral judgement(if you were on another planet, for instance, and there were no other Beings there), if you wish to destroy the view.

[I'm still thinking about the moral implications of suicide, but I have to get dressed now, so I'll get back with you]



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by trysts
 




I believe your analogy of being alone, viewing a beautiful lake, is not a moral judgement(if you were on another planet, for instance, and there were no other Beings there), if you wish to destroy the view.


This also has implications on the concept of alone, to me no one is ultimately alone. I believe in being a part, even if mostly insignificant in a more vast design or structure, that because I can critically analyze my own actions it makes them grounded on my internal morals, let alone the possibility of something higher than I may exist or that I can be part of, even an experiencing representative of that broader conscience. I like to believe in that, as I see it as being the only validity to my own existence and experience of it, there must be a point for it all, even if I can accept that it transcends my capability to understand it.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Its all about both culture and empathy.

If you have the culture where its normal to sleep with everyone (like they did in Rome for example), then its also normal for people to not get jealous or feel betrayed.

But if you have a culture where you are supposed to have one partner and only have sex with that person, then of course you have all kinds of negative feelings when one partner doesnt uphold his part of the contract.

Personally, looking at it objectively, I believe all humans would be happier if they could sleep with whomever they wanted. Its not particularly natural to stick to one partner from a biological point of view.

Science doesnt realize it yet, but we are conciousness inside these physical bodies. And we are meant to enjoy this world using the bodies. Sex seems to me to be one of the best things you can do with the body.

edit on 28-8-2012 by PrimitiveWorld because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Have you ever raised children?

It's this easy. They bite. Until the day somebody bites them back they have no idea of what they do.

Morality is a learning process.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Sulie
 


I had a class during my high-school years labeled Philosophy that was centered mostly on the early steps toward consciousness in children (from the point of awareness of the self and how it changes in early years) at the same time I had also an History class that covered the evolution of how society treated children in pre-industrial eras. This just to make clear that even if I haven't raised children (nor do I intend to do that in todays reality) I have at least a passing knowledge on the subject.

A child's mentality is not static it changes very significantly in early years until the age of 3-5 and then it slows down to get again very plastic from the ages of ~10-~15. I have agreed in past posts that most moral guidelines are established from the contextual cultural indoctrination but there are basic rules that I define as static positives and negatives that do not require learning, one does not require much external input to declare that something is constructive or destructive, so I believe that true morality if it exists falls on this very basic principles that most of us share and utilize for a communal buildup of more complex moral rules, rationals, it is the foundations necessary for a common ground.

As an example we can take for instance the notion that most religions to a large degree are built upon the same core principles of morality. This communality indicates that there are basic moral rules that are universally shared across time and cultures. This of course does not signify that moral guidelines can not be subverted, like your own internal moral principles you can rationalize them to a point that you will not feel obligated (negatively impacted at a conscious level) to act in accordance to them, morals like any rule are like lines in the sand ultimately bound to be shifted, broken and ignored, the true value of a persons is how one manages to uphold a consistency in his moral beliefs when they collide with true life experiences.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Okay, after thinking about it, I don't agree that "you can act morally, towards yourself", since moral conduct has to do with Others, not with your own imagination. And I don't think that suicide can be judged an immoral act. I don't think morals have anything to do with solitary, personal choices. I don't think the free act of suicide carries with it any moral concerns, since it does not infringe upon other people's freedom. Murder does, not suicide.


edit on 29-8-2012 by trysts because: I forgot to put a smile on my post




posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
bad and good are just descriptions of events categorized in according to our particular view. My view is dont do things that harm your purity. We were born pure. Thats our perfect state. If we can ever return to it then we reclaim our freedom!
edit on 29-8-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Take away all labels and beliefs and there is purity.
It is only words that distract us from our true nature.
Words make us believe things that are not true.
edit on 29-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I agree with the member arpgme, it is not an absolute.

Morality is something that religion tends to think is something that they are responsible for, and if religion was to never have happened (as many people debate) then morality would never have existed (this is the religious folks' argument). In reality, morality is only useful to yourself and those close to you, that's the case for the majority of people anyway, otherwise people wouldn't be sitting being entertained by these charity marathons every year, sending billions of (insert currency) and then not giving a # about the fact that their possibly trillions of currency over decades of time seems to have done nothing to even dent poverty's very easily destroyed walls.

If you feel guilt for cheating on your wife or husband, it would probably be because you have built a close bond with them. Of course you would feel guilty beforehand as well, if it was a pre-planned affair, but in the heat of the moment, your brain's biochemistry disallows any conscience, horniness takes over, quite literally.

If someone tries to do something you think is wrong, and it escalates to the point where, in blind rage, you murder them, you may or may not feel guilty afterwards, it is nothing to do with your "taught morals" and all to do with the situation, who the person you killed was, the intent or motives of the person you killed, basically many factors. Yes, you may feel guilty I'm the sense that you'd be frightened of what people would think of you, your ego would be worried in case people don't believe what actually happened, but if the person you killed had intent that involved harming or causing the loss of you or someone that is "yours" then you wouldn't have the natural guilt, you would probably think they deserve it. After all, just like prison and the death penalty, humans are naturally inclined towards revenge rather than justice.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
There is such a thing as true morality and an absolute basis and it is found by going within, finding the source of intuition within you, and finding spiritual enlightenment.

When enlightenment is found, universally across the board is included in that finding; compassion, love, selflessness, and many other factors.

There is a surface level programmed culture influenced relative level of learned morality which fluctuates based on geographical cultural differences. However a true set of absolutes is waiting to be found in enlightenment.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by JELLYWAX
 


It only exists as an idea, not as an absolute. If it was, it would always been wrong to kill but armies, and victims who call for the death penalty do not feel that way... It is all relative.


I love your threads,

This is beautiful and so close to my truth. It all exists as an idea Morality, right , wrong , the truth.

None are absolute and all is relative to the observer, their perception based on life experience and environmental/social influences can change just as quick as the weather changes.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
My personal take on it is:

Do whatever the hell you want as long as you are not hurting anyone in the process.
Because ultimately you are that anyone to every other person on the planet (If that make sense).

So by that logic, it is wrong to cheat on your wife. Good luck with that btw


Golden Rule is golden.
edit on 29-8-2012 by PassiveObserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Panic2k11

There are some aspects of morality that are absolute true whatever the context


Such as? I know later on you said that "Pleasure" is good and "Pain" is bad, well what happens when someone takes pleasure in giving another pain? Is that now "bad"? Why?

If you say it is bad because it is going against another's will, then it is not absolute, you added an exception...



Originally posted by Panic2k11
In biological terms and that is what I would define as the base line of morality if defaults to pain and pleasure, you do not like pain and you seek pleasure all subsequent decisions are done only as optimizations on those motivators.


But why should we call "pleasure" - "good" and "pain" - "bad"? Why not just call it what it is - pain and pleasure?

What is the justification of calling something "good" or "bad"?




There is no justification as its all relative to the experiencer.

One person might feel pain from putting their fist through a wall others might feel pleasure.

The meaning of pain and pleasure are just words created to describe. They can be flipped if all english speaking people agree pleasure can mean pain and pain can mean pleasure.
Any words can be changed as the sky can be red without it physically being red.
I mean we give meaning to descriptive words so in reality we could change the meaning of these words.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


But why call it "good" or "bad" at all when there are other words that we already have for it?


We can call it "healthy" or "unhealthy" or "compassionate" or "in-compassionate" or "wanted" or "unwanted", why use the term "morality" and "good" and "evil" when we already have words for this sort of this?

It is like those people that call "The Universe" God... Why not just call it what it is "The Universe"?



This is where its relative to the observer/experiencer and also the meaning we give to the word. The universe is all there is in existence, Same goes for the idea of an all knowing/being creator that religions call God, they describe the same thing, everything. I think the idea of a living universe is equal to a living God.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Polygamy is not cheating, given that all encompassed, are party to the plan. What creates 'guilt' is deceit. So, if you are telling one person that they are the 'one and only', and then sneaking around behind their back, and telling another the same, or simply just not living up to your word, then that will 'feel' wrong to some people. Some people of course live on such 'thrills'. To each their own. Of course.

But, personally, yes I do believe that we have a built in sense of 'right and wrong' and I believe that that transcends the morality imposed by our societal norms and values, simply because it represents something older in our evolution and is not overly disconnected to the 'fight and flight' reflex.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 



There is no justification as its all relative to the experiencer.

One person might feel pain from putting their fist through a wall others might feel pleasure.

Everyone has conscience and intuition and these two are linked to the soul, which comes from the Source. There are inherent morals and its not all relative as you think it is.

You saying that there is no justification as its all relative, applied to your own quote above means that you yourself can't justify what your saying as what your saying is relative. Your own point eats itself.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


Even though many Human actions and this includes LOVE are driven by a Biochemical Release of Hormones and various chemical actions the body takes to ensure propagation...we are sentient and can compare how we would prefer to be treated and feel as to another's situation.

Some people are born without empathy...some with too much. We are Animals after all and are all partially governed by Animal Instincts. But we need these instincts to function so they are part of us.

Some people feel the need to believe in a GOD some do not. The reasons are variable from some needing to believe as they cannot accept Death as the end...or others who believe in Religious Doctrine even though it would seem silly that if we had a Soul that this Soul no longer constrained by the needs of the body would go to a Heaven and take a Physical Form with a Paradise Location that itself is designed for the needs and desires of the body. Personally...I think that there is something going on but it is NOTHING like anything anyone EVER has described because it is not something the Human Mind can understand or relate to in a Physical form.
Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I was thinking about this long before I saw your post and in the end, found the answer to be a simple one.
All I can say is that yes, true morality does exist, and it's not difficult to find. Next time you make a choice, any choice, just think about the question.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
It's in your heart, you know what makes you happy and can tell what makes others happy around you, and if you are intelligent and have insight, you can instantly apply everything to others, ie. "do unto others as you would have done unto you", the golden rule.

The virtues are something that relates to soul level.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join