Very well said my furry freind. Personally speaking my idea is pretty simple. I don't need the fear of a supernatural parent figure to be a nice and decent person. The fact that "this" person or "that" person does need a threat of some sort of punishment in order to be decent and nice.... Is kinda sad to me. I don't need God I can do it on my own ;)
As I mention in my Pascal's Wager video, fear of punishment is an effective way of keeping people in line, however it reflects very poorly on the person that only that fear prevents them from doing bad things (I personally don't think it's the -only- reason at all).
The really moral individuals are the ones who come to the conclusion that being 'good' by themselves without coercion.
Morality's a big, complicated subject, and understanding it can only help us out.
many countries are atheist based and yet, seemingly have better morals than religious countries.
even races of people such as natives and aboriginies worldwide, never became violent,hatefull,aggressive and sacrificial until the belief of a god was brought into action.
Many countries are secular in majority, and they do tend to do much better on certain points than religious-majority countries. It wouldn't be fair to say religion is a direct cause of that, but it's certainly closely related.
Of course, it's been pointed out that the UK for example has a thriving pseudoscience industry, with superstition like psychics, faith healers, homeopathy etc bringing in a fortune, but it's less harmful to others overall (while harmful to the individuals themselves)
That's essentially it, yes. Some people have argued that it's circular reasoning (I'm good because I'm good), but from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense. This concept provides a clear advantage to survival, so cultures that didn't develop this over time wouldn't be as likely to exist today. Even in divisive cultures like Islam or Christianity, the in-group is held above others, so it still works.
You have very good points. From what you said, your morality is consensus based. If a majority agrees that murder is wrong, it is Wrong (cap the 'W'). It a functional argunment, which is fine, but it has it's problems.
In the past, the majority of reasonable and intelligent people believed that blacks were less 'human' than whites. Now, almost no one believes this.
Evidently, but at the time, it was considered Right. I think it would be more accurate to say that moral values are based (and have been based) on equal rights for all, the difference being that blacks, women, and other groups weren't considered "human" and therefore weren't included in 'for all'.
My video on absolute morality might shed a bit more light on this, or at least a different perspective.
But the 'Equal rights for all' is, again, a functional argunment - it lacks eminence and transcendence - and is merely a Hobbesian(without this social 'agreement', life would be "nasty, brutish and short").
Kant answered this with the categorical imperitive. Kant thought that morality can be summed up in one, ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive.
This paved the way for Nitsche and the "God is Dead" movement.
This begs the question of whether it "needs" to 'transcend' anything, and indeed fails to explain the origin of this imperative's origin. If someone wished to say all morality comes from god, for example, it still begs the question of where god receives his.
Last night, over a discussion with someone else, I got an idea for another video subject that might clarify my point here. It won't be due for several days at the earliest, however. I call it 'setting a standard'.
I'll admit I'm not familiar with either Kant or Nietzsche (though I've heard both names before), so I may be missing your/their point entirely, and if so I apologize. I'll be reading up on both.
However, I think it's fair to say that if evolution is responsible for the development of morality, eminence is irrelevant and the functional argument is valid. In fact, you argue towards that same point with the 'nasty brutish' thing; it'd be counterproductive for the species.
Very well said my furry freind. Personally speaking my idea is pretty simple. I don't need the fear of a supernatural parent figure to be a nice and decent person. The fact that "this" person or "that" person does need a threat of some sort of punishment in order to be decent and nice.... Is kinda sad to me. I don't need God I can do it on my own ;)
Tiptoetherat 2 years ago
As I mention in my Pascal's Wager video, fear of punishment is an effective way of keeping people in line, however it reflects very poorly on the person that only that fear prevents them from doing bad things (I personally don't think it's the -only- reason at all).
The really moral individuals are the ones who come to the conclusion that being 'good' by themselves without coercion.
Morality's a big, complicated subject, and understanding it can only help us out.
Thanks for the comment!
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
You bear an uncanny resemblance to Hugo Weaving!
;)
destronia123 3 years ago
Huh, I didn't know Agent Smith was the guy behind the mask... You learn more every day. Thanks for that!
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
Nicely said! I have argued the same points with many religious folks! I am SO glad u r here!
julzabro 3 years ago
many countries are atheist based and yet, seemingly have better morals than religious countries.
even races of people such as natives and aboriginies worldwide, never became violent,hatefull,aggressive and sacrificial until the belief of a god was brought into action.
jassi4010709 3 years ago
Many countries are secular in majority, and they do tend to do much better on certain points than religious-majority countries. It wouldn't be fair to say religion is a direct cause of that, but it's certainly closely related.
Of course, it's been pointed out that the UK for example has a thriving pseudoscience industry, with superstition like psychics, faith healers, homeopathy etc bringing in a fortune, but it's less harmful to others overall (while harmful to the individuals themselves)
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
I don't do evil things because I don't WANT to do evil things and I like people treating me nicely so I am nice back.
Akulshae 3 years ago
That's essentially it, yes. Some people have argued that it's circular reasoning (I'm good because I'm good), but from an evolutionary point of view it makes sense. This concept provides a clear advantage to survival, so cultures that didn't develop this over time wouldn't be as likely to exist today. Even in divisive cultures like Islam or Christianity, the in-group is held above others, so it still works.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
You have very good points. From what you said, your morality is consensus based. If a majority agrees that murder is wrong, it is Wrong (cap the 'W'). It a functional argunment, which is fine, but it has it's problems.
In the past, the majority of reasonable and intelligent people believed that blacks were less 'human' than whites. Now, almost no one believes this.
petehuss 3 years ago
Evidently, but at the time, it was considered Right. I think it would be more accurate to say that moral values are based (and have been based) on equal rights for all, the difference being that blacks, women, and other groups weren't considered "human" and therefore weren't included in 'for all'.
My video on absolute morality might shed a bit more light on this, or at least a different perspective.
Thank you for your interest!
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
But the 'Equal rights for all' is, again, a functional argunment - it lacks eminence and transcendence - and is merely a Hobbesian(without this social 'agreement', life would be "nasty, brutish and short").
Kant answered this with the categorical imperitive. Kant thought that morality can be summed up in one, ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive.
This paved the way for Nitsche and the "God is Dead" movement.
petehuss 3 years ago
This begs the question of whether it "needs" to 'transcend' anything, and indeed fails to explain the origin of this imperative's origin. If someone wished to say all morality comes from god, for example, it still begs the question of where god receives his.
Last night, over a discussion with someone else, I got an idea for another video subject that might clarify my point here. It won't be due for several days at the earliest, however. I call it 'setting a standard'.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
I'll admit I'm not familiar with either Kant or Nietzsche (though I've heard both names before), so I may be missing your/their point entirely, and if so I apologize. I'll be reading up on both.
However, I think it's fair to say that if evolution is responsible for the development of morality, eminence is irrelevant and the functional argument is valid. In fact, you argue towards that same point with the 'nasty brutish' thing; it'd be counterproductive for the species.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
I don't know how many times i have had to explain this to my Christian friends...
pl12ij34 3 years ago
I hear you. I have the same problem.
AzmodanKijur 3 years ago
Point them to the video, see if it helps? Wouldn't mind the extra traffic... *shameless plug attempt*
EdwardHowton 3 years ago