30
   

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

 
 
popeye1945
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2021 04:41 am
Where do moral values come from? Seeing as there really is only one possibility it's not rocket science. The physical world is meaningless in the absence of a biologically conscious subject/ read human being. It is this consciousness that bestows all meaning, all values upon the physical world. The religions/mythologies/superstitions have obtained what insights they do possess from this source. Think of all human creations as what they are, biological extensions, when they reflect back to you, don't believe it comes from a supernatural source, your ancestors created these things upon the knowledge of their day, which does not hold up today-- I got that directly from the talking snake's mouth.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2021 05:03 am
@popeye1945,
The problem with your statement is that you can't definitively prove it. No amount of HOPING what you say to be true necessarily means that it is true. You can put as much supposed evidence forward as you wish as well....it doesn't change a thing. You don't know enough to make such statements.

Also,man has no real understanding of consciousness....that is a FACT.

Also,how do you know there is only one source for morality ...once again you are guessing.

As you don't know where morality originates from other sources for morality hold just a much weight as your HOPEFUL views.

I think you need a reality check.
popeye1945
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2021 08:56 am
@Jasper10,
Jasper, DUH!!!
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2021 11:27 am
@popeye1945,
You are guessing...
popeye1945
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Apr, 2021 05:51 pm
@Jasper10,
Jasper,
Where do you think the world and the objects in it acquire their meaning. There is only one way of knowing and that is cognitively, thus all knowing is the property of a conscious being. Your apparent reality is a biological readout of the effects of the physical world upon it, thus meaning is relative to your biology. If you had a different biology you would have a different apparent reality. The physical world is meaningless in the absence of consciousness.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2021 03:50 am
@popeye1945,
Popeye1945...you are wrong...all knowing is the property of a being PRESENCE that is AWARE of consciousness (types)...you have been taken in by Buddhists principles...The Buddha was a "prisoner of his own consciousness" as indeed are you.

It won't be long before science confirms this.

The above principles just need translating into scientific language.

ALL SCIENCES ARE INTERCONNECTED.
popeye1945
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2021 01:43 pm
@Jasper10,
Would you try and clarify what you are talking about, as at present I have no idea what you are talking about, seriously.
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2021 02:57 pm
@popeye1945,
Ok...this is exciting stuff if you are prepared to listen...and not switch off as soon as you hear something that is contrary to your entrenched belief systems..

Be a bit more flexible and open to NEW ideas.You can call me whatever you want after that.

You have to notice how your mind works....When it comes to consciousness there ARE 2 off distinct types...MANUAL and AUTOPILOT.You must not take these consciousness types for granted.If you don’t know about them go and do your research.

It’s so important that you know about them.

If you had a better experiential AWARENESS of them then this will help you to understand a little more about my posts.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2021 03:38 pm
@popeye1945,
I think I can see what both you and Max are saying, but I would like to see how your 'biology dictates morality' principle goes far enough to be applicable in the society(s) we find ourselves in. I think Max questions that, and me too.

For example, how does it deal with jealousy?

Edit: I see I addressed a pretty old sub thread. But I’d still like to know.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 12:30 am
@Jasper10,
It is ONLY when one has a better experiential AWARENESS of the manual and autopilot consciousness states that one realises how very little time one CONSCIOUSLY spends in manual.

One exists in a SUBCONSCIOUS state all of the time even though there is still a “toggling” between states (manual/autopilot) one is not aware of it.This existence can be described as the 0,0 state....or autopilot/autopilot state.

It is only when one introduces CONTROL that things change.One must learn to take CONSCIOUS control of the mind.

Before one can take control one clearly needs to have KNOWLEDGE of and be persuaded by these 2 off different mind states.

It is ONLY when one is persuaded as a result of exercising experiential awareness (NOTICE what goes on in the mind) that one can shift consciousness states.This is a completely new process to the individual because one has never introduced this type of control before.

Introducing this CONTROL element means the individual has now transitioned to the 0,1...1,0 state.The individual is now learning to OPERATE in a more CONSCIOUS manual state rather than existing in a SUBCONSCIOUS autopilot state all of the time.

This transition takes time and practice but gets easier if one keeps trying to take control rather than relying on autopilot all of the time (effectively being controlled).

If one perseveres, one will become more and more CONSCIOUSLY familiar with AWARENESS....an awareness that is familiar with the 2 off consciousness types but is NOT those consciousness types.

One experiences the “toggling” consciousness effect as one takes control.One experiences/ notices the transitions backwards and forwards in/out of the consciousness types.

AWARENESS and CONSCIOUSNESS types are therefore DIFFERENT!!





Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Apr, 2021 01:24 am
@Jasper10,
If one becomes more an more familiar with the above then one has started practicing OUTWARD meditation NOT to be confused with INWARD meditation that we are all familiar with and which the Buddhists claim to be the masters of.

It is important that one knows the distinction between the two.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2021 12:54 pm
Forget morality

Moral philosophy is bogus, a mere substitute for God that licenses ugly emotions. Here are five reasons to reject it

Quote:
(...)

[Morality] is a shadow of religion, serving to comfort those who no longer accept divine guidance but still hope for an ‘objective’ source of certainty about right and wrong. Moralists claim to discern the existence of commands as inescapable as those of an omniscient and omnipotent God. Those commands, moral philosophers teach, deserve to prevail over all other reasons to act – always, everywhere, and for all time. But that claim is bogus.

(...)

A crucial feature of moral reasons is that they are always based (or ‘supervenient’) on other, ordinary facts that can be specified without reference to morality. Suppose for example that you are considering doing X. You notice that doing X will cause someone pain. That might strike you as a reason not to do X. Call that reason A. Another fact might also strike you as a reason against X: that it will be boring, perhaps, or too expensive. Call that reason B. Moralists will tell you that your reason A, but not your reason B, also ‘grounds’ another reason not to do X, namely that it would be immoral. And on that basis, reason A but not reason B now gets to be ‘inescapable’, ‘overriding’ any reason you had in favour of X: that it would be exciting, say, or memorable. So now it seems that reason A, unlike reason B, gives you two reasons not to do X: reason A (that it will cause pain), plus the fact that X is immoral. But since this second reason was just grounded on reason A, what can it possibly add to it? How can it suddenly make reason A override all other reasons? It seems to be just a way of counting it twice.

(...)

For an amoralist, moral discourse is nothing more than misleading rhetoric. Given the psychological power of the emotions that sustain moral fervour, we amoralists have little hope of weaning many others from their addiction to guilt and blame. Neither do I expect professional ethicists to resign their jobs. Exploring the consequences of an act or policy envisaged is always to be encouraged. I hope only to have cast some doubt on the wisdom of dressing up some of our good reasons in the mantle of morality’s spurious authority.

Some speculative debates are undoubtedly fascinating in their subtle complexity, even when, like those of theology, they lack an existing subject. But even those who do not simply reject their theist presuppositions might concede those debates to be stubbornly undecidable, as well as of doubtful practical relevance. Similarly, the history of moral theory is full of baroque edifices of thought that might be intriguing to the historian of ideas. But they are no less irrelevant, at best – or toxic at worst – to the conduct of life. Better to just assess and compare your reasons, and ignore moral theory’s labyrinths of futile debate and the high-minded contempt encouraged by the moralistic stance.

aeon
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 07:12 am
@hightor,
Aeon:
Quote:
[Morality] is a shadow of religion, serving to comfort those who no longer accept divine guidance but still hope for an ‘objective’ source of certainty about right and wrong.

This is a little ambiguous. Is he stating his own position or pointing out the hypocrisy of religion?

It could be both but Having read the rest, it still isn't clear.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 09:00 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Is he stating his own position or pointing out the hypocrisy of religion?

Neither. He's pointing out that secular "moral philosophy" is an offshoot of religion, as it seeks the certainty of a universal framework of ultimate values to guide and justify our choices.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 09:24 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


Quote:
Is he stating his own position or pointing out the hypocrisy of religion?

Neither. He's pointing out that secular "moral philosophy" is an offshoot of religion, as it seeks the certainty of a universal framework of ultimate values to guide and justify our choices.


And the thing we ought to keep in mind is that if there are no gods (a possibility)...or if there are no gods that want to set moral standards (also a possibility)...

...then "religion" gets its moral values from what we humans consider good and bad.

A human does not need a god to understand either version of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated...or...don't treat others as you would resent others treating you.

That just makes sense...and allows life to function more easily.

A human does not need a god to declare, "Don't murder, don't steal, or don't abuse."

That just makes society able to function.

The bullshit about what you should or should not do with your dick is mostly just that...bullshit. But, it served a purpose with earlier humans...and if there are no gods, it became part of religious teachings.

And so forth.

Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 10:30 am
@hightor,
The issue you have though is that you can’t definitively prove that absolute morality is bogus.

You can HOPE it isn’t….that’s all.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 11:11 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:
The issue you have though is that you can’t definitively prove that absolute morality is bogus.

It simply doesn't matter.
Jasper10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 11:35 am
@hightor,
You hope…
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 12:00 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

A human does not need a god to understand either version of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated...or...don't treat others as you would resent others treating you.

That just makes sense...and allows life to function more easily.



No... You are making a religious statement. There is natural or scientific reason that you should treat other people. It certainly isnt a constant in human nature.

This is something that is true because you believe it os true. It is a matter of faith.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Jul, 2021 12:46 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
There is natural or scientific reason that you should treat other people. It certainly isnt a constant in human nature.

It seems like most of the arguments here take this as assumed fact.

How do you know 'morality' is not a constant of human nature? Just because all humans do not behave in the same way does not prove it isn't there. That would be an over simplification of 'human nature'.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Relativity of morality - Discussion by InkRune
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 12:06:12