The Mind is Not Concerned with Morality(Right and Wrong)

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I have noticed from my perspective in life that the mind does not think in terms of right and wrong.

A person will make decisions in life that will bring them what they think they want without regard of morality. For example, a murder does not think in his head if his actions are right or wrong, he will think about the pros and cons of his actions. Depending on the murder's perspective, his pros may outweigh his cons for murdering so he murders. This is due to the pros being what he thinks he wants(control, satisfaction, revenge, etc.) and his cons have been minimized maybe because he thinks he can get away with it.

Many religious people often find themselves doing things that they condemn and wonder why they did the actions to begin with because the actions are wrong in their belief system. This is because the mind does not consciously think of every decision and action as right or wrong. Whatever your mind can get with the least resistance is what the mind will go after. The least resistance will vary from person to person because we all have different perspectives. Some the least resistance is to conform to certain ideas to gain social acceptance in the community, a desire that many have.

I know some people think we are born with a conscience and will disagree with this but I wanted to share this none-the-less.

edit on 27-11-2012 by Ralphy because: spelling




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 



I have noticed from my perspective in life that the mind does not think in terms of right and wrong.


You notice the face you make when you hear about a car accident, or the sick feeling in your stomach when you see someone get shot? The twisting wrench of your heart when you glimpse a picture of an emaciated child, or the chill repulsion of your mind reeling back from seeing a tragedy on the tube?

Or maybe when you get that warm fuzzy feeling after hugging a child, the buzzing joy or relief that just inflates your insides when you volunteer at a homeless shelter or a nursing home? Perhaps, once or twice, you've smiled as you watch your kid play with their newly-unwrapped Christmas presents, knowing what it was like for you as a child and knowing you've just given them the same happiness.

That's morality. That's logic of the heart. A little bit of an oxymoron, but that's your heart screaming in horror or giving you a pat on the back for a job well done. You say the mind isn't concerned with morality? My heart tells me you missed something. And I kinda feel sorry for you - after all, if you don't think in terms of morality, then you'll never know what it feels like when you make someone's life easier. When you can feel proud of yourself for having done the right thing, when doing the wrong thing would have been so much simpler.

You'll never experience the joy in knowing your sense of compassion has made someone happy. It's glorious.
edit on 27-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   


The researchers found that these two measures of egalitarian preferences were significantly associated with activations in the insular cortex, but not with the vmPFC.

This particular result is a potentially profound one as the insular cortex is also the part of the brain that processes the relationship of the individual with respect to her or his environment. In other words, egalitarian behavior may not exist in isolation, neurologically speaking, but, rather, be part of a larger process that stems from altruism and a sense of the larger social good.

Adam Smith, in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", expressed this perspective in his 18th-century essay.

"Adam Smith contended that moral sentiments like egalitarianism derived from a 'fellow-feeling' that would increase with our level of sympathy for others, predicting not merely aversion to inequity, but also our propensity to engage in egalitarian behaviors," the researchers wrote. "The evidence here supports such an interpretation -- our results suggest that it is the brain mechanisms involved in experiencing the emotional and social states of self and others that appear to be driving egalitarian behaviors. This conclusion is consistent with a broader view of the insular cortex as a neural substrate that processes the relationship of the individual with respect to his or her environment."


www.sciencedaily.com...

You get different reactions during different moments, emotion being key... when the stars align and there is a greater propensity towards egalitarian behaviors or when 'we feel like it' the mind can be very concerned with "right or wrong" or even not find it necessary to contemplate this "right or wrong" for it has already been attributed to a doctrine(religion). Either way, it depends on the mood and the individual.

Pretty much agrees with the OP, but what's driving these behaviors is concerned with right or wrong. Are you not considering morality when judging and rationalizing what your future actions are conducive towards?
edit on 27-11-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional comment



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 


A murder is quite simple. It is one who allows their thoughts to cloud and block their true feelings. Negativity, aggression, hate... are all doors... stepping through one of these doors and you begin a descent deeper and deeper into negativity until you can no longer see your internal compass... your heart.

Those that can justify killing are merely folks that have not quite learned the meaning of life itself.
edit on 27-11-2012 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
When people choose not to do something because they think it is wrong, they are not realizing they are choosing not to do something because of guilt. The mind sees the actions bringing guilt and chooses not to do the action. What if something was considered wrong and you didn't feel it guilt about it? wouldn't you be more inclined to do the action regardless of whether it is considered right or wrong?
edit on 27-11-2012 by Ralphy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ralphy
When people choose not to do something because they think it is wrong, they are not realizing they are choosing not to do something because of guilt. The mind sees the actions bringing guilt and chooses not to do the action. What if something was considered wrong and you didn't feel it guilt about it? wouldn't you be more inclined to do the action regardless of whether it is considered right or wrong?
edit on 27-11-2012 by Ralphy because: (no reason given)


Isn't that the definition of a sociopath?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
My point is that the mind will use the concepts of guilt and other consequences to help discourage it from making a certain decision if a choice is perceived as "wrong." It does not make a decision because something is bad. The terms good and bad need to be defined for the mind to understand the concepts. Usually bad involves guilt, so the mind really considered guilt but we may label it as "bad."



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 


Have you asked yourself why guilt exists? It is a tool that exists so humankind may LEARN. Guilt exists because human beings are AWARE and possess hindsight and foresight. To accept anything that comes our way in life is to submit to our creator, to our higher power. To try and take matters into our own hands and exercise "free will" is nothing more than going against the grain, in which one will either feel guilt and learn a lesson or cease to be. This is the reason civilization crumbles when it reaches a certain point, because the majority of it is not accepting fate, but trying to create their own destiny. This is the reason government does not work. This is the reason for many of the global problems today.
edit on 27-11-2012 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Ralphy
 


Have you asked yourself why guilt exists? It is a tool that exists so humankind may LEARN. Guilt exists because human beings are AWARE and possess hindsight and foresight. To accept anything that comes our way in life is to submit to our creator, to our higher power. To try and take matters into our own hands and exercise "free will" is nothing more than going against the grain, in which one will either feel guilt and learn a lesson or cease to be. This is the reason civilization crumbles when it reaches a certain point, because the majority of it is not accepting fate, but trying to create their own destiny. This is the reason government does not work. This is the reason for many of the global problems today.
edit on 27-11-2012 by chadderson because: (no reason given)


I agree, guilt can be used constructively if it leads us to understanding. On the other hand, I don't think we should live out our lives filled with guilt.
edit on 27-11-2012 by Ralphy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 


You think we shouldnt live our lives with guilt? GOOD! You have oriented your internal self in the correct direction. Witness guilt and what it tells you, for there is a lesson within. We do not have to live UNDER guilt but we do have to live WITH it. Living with it is making peace with it, it changes form. To live under it, is where the pain and heartache swallows man whole.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 

That is the human condition.

How we should act toward others is not inate so must be regulated by external law.

edit on 27/11/12 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Amen. The experience brings us truth, we have the ability to face and absorb it or to deny it. Denying the truth brings guilt.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Ralphy
 

That is the human condition.

How we should act toward others is not inate so must be regulated by external law.



The problem with having an external law is that everyone has the ability to perceive it differently. What is right and wrong varies between cultures, religions, etc. Who has the authority to make a claim of absolute morality? Some may say God but who gave a person the authority to make that claim? With that mentality, morality still differs due to perception of different gods and rules.

Morality is relative, even a claim to absolute morality is still relative to ones perception of it.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 


Louie LaMore a western writer once made a statement that goes something like this back in the 50's I think, "3 out of 5 people are not civilized." His definition of being civilized was if you found a bag of money and there was absolutely no way possible you could be caught if you took it, a civilized man would leave it or look for the owner. I think today it is more like 8 out of 10 are uncivilized.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ralphy

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Ralphy
 

That is the human condition.

How we should act toward others is not inate so must be regulated by external law.



The problem with having an external law is that everyone has the ability to perceive it differently. What is right and wrong varies between cultures, religions, etc. Who has the authority to make a claim of absolute morality? Some may say God but who gave a person the authority to make that claim? With that mentality, morality still differs due to perception of different gods and rules.

Morality is relative, even a claim to absolute morality is still relative to ones perception of it.

If there is no internal law then a group is forced to regulate behaviour externally.

The odd thing about humans is that we usually do know how to behave...
...but we often go against what we know to be right.

That is the human condition.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by chadderson
 

That's one thing that I'm still slightly skeptical of. I've heard some people say that guilt is just the fear of getting caught after doing something. In my own experience this is partially true. I have done some rotten things in the past and felt guilty about them, but the guilt usually subsided once I knew for sure that nobody was going to figure out I was responsible for the particular deed.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
There is no right or wrong, there is only experience and how the experience is chosen to be interpreted. Everything is subjective.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
The mind is what created morality. It also tries to categorize, splitting up reality into bits and pieces, looking at it as a duality (two pieces - one "good" and one "bad") instead of one whole (called REALITY without breaking it apart).

The heart is no different. Whatever feels "good" is what morality will be. Not being aware of another's suffering and enjoying life - there is no "guilt" - there is no sense of "wrongness". The feeling arises when you are AWARE of another's suffering and feel like it is your duty to do something about it - then when you don't - "failure" - "evil" - "regret" is created.

In reality - everything is just happening. Everything just exists, it is the mind (perspective/ideas) and the heart (emotions) that creates morality.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Congratulations. You've figured out that morality, beyond cultural and genetic influences, is subjective. There are no universal principles of good/evil, positive/negative.. there is only what we perceive as right and what we perceive as wrong, and those may differ widely person to person, culture to culture. Once you understand this, it's very hard to take religious/spiritual people seriously.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Relativism reigns...

"The doctrine/philosophy that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."

If this is true then not only is your sense of what is right and wrong relative...
...but also my sense of right and wrong.

So then on this basis you can not believe you are ever wronged by another person/group...
...because their actions toward you are also relative so you have no basis on which to object.
edit on 28/11/12 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join