#1 = Morality

[UnschoolingEagle]

Morality, to me, seems to be from nature and nurture. I feel humans are not inherently evil, but actually good. True, toddlers may be selfish, but this is a defense mechanism. Also, most people would agree they feel better when they make people happy rather than when they make people sad. If they happen to enjoy others pain, I feel it is from their environment, how they were raised. I should make a video on this lol

[rottencom]

Bad prioritizing? What about the TWO golden rules, for 'when in doubt' situations (like this one, obviously)? Love God above all else, and Love your neighbor as yourself. How is THAT what's out of order? That sounds like the right order to me!

[kailabreece]

Golden rules??? I believe its called the golden rule (singular) and it refers to treating others how you want them to treat you. Love thy god should not be the first one... but then again I am an atheist and it is obvious you are very religious. Let's just agree to disagree. LOL This would go nowhere... Hopefully you can accept the fact that I will never accept your god and in the face of that still love me as a neighbor... I think we can coesxist... Do you?

[rottencom]

Well I did add you as a friend, didn't I? And I'm not religious. About the golden rule--there are two, aren't they? They are condensed from the ten, no? Out of the 'ten commandments', you could boil it down to two, no? If your God is True and Just, why wouldn't that be the first 'rule'? I could see why it was put in that order. That's all I'm sayin'. I just disagree with the 'prioritizing' bit, and the spin on that part. And yes, I'm not an atheist.

[kailabreece]

I don't think it makes sense. I find it divisive. Does it imply that if your neighbor does not love your god, they do not deserve the same "golden" treatment? I can see your point as a relative perspective for a religious person, but at the humanitarian level... what could possibly be more important and more inclusive than the basic "golden rule"?

[rottencom]

Nah, I don't think it means that. I look at it like He's supposed to be The God of loving your neighbor as yourself, among all other 'good' things, like Truth and Righteousness and Justice. So putting 'God' above all things is inclusive of; and in a way, transcendent of 'love thy neighbor as yourself'. It brings it to a level even beyond this physical world. It's not for your body to hear, it's for your soul (the existence of which, can be argued later). Stop looking at it like "your" god!

[kailabreece]

It means "your" god. The actually 1st commandment to the anglican church is "You shall have no OTHER gods before me." This means, at least how I interpret it, if your neighbor has another god before them, there's a problem...

[rottencom]

Exactly. That's how you interpret it.

[rottencom]

I would think a more appropriate way to look at "you shall have no OTHER gods before me" would be to look at it in context. Like, do not worship money, power, fame, or pride or shit like that. Those are other 'gods'. The names of them are almost irrelevant. A variation on your last bit: "it doesn't matter what people believe, it matters what they do!" Here's mine:

It doesn't matter what they call it, it matters what it does ! Haha, and you said no good would come of this...

[rottencom]

Also, to clarify on 'worship' or 'to have' no other gods...In my opinion, it just means to let your soul not yearn for these things. In other words, if you get mad that someone else worships another god, are you to go to war with them and their family? Is this not worship of the god of war, instead of the one who issued the commandment in the first place? It's what you do in your life that shows which god you worshiped. We're slaves either way, it's just a matter of, 'to who'? or 'to what?'

[kailabreece]

Good thoughts friend. Very interesting. Although I think religion is a farce, I will always support freedom to worship... so long as freedoms do not infringe on others. Thanks so much for sharing.

[rottencom]

Thank you too, new friend!  I appreciate your courtesy.

[xenotoxette]

Morals are a product of the culture, the time and circumstances.

There is no "definition," so to speak, but just a relative position that different groups have.

[fede2]

not true. morality is a concept and as such a product of the human mind based on the obvervance of reality. particularly, human behaviour. which means that morality has objective properties.

it's true, however, that the time and the place demands subjective norms but i don't know if you can call that morality (technically speaking).

[Diiiiino]

Keep em coming man, you're brilliant.

[Amadeojd]

I agree with Chucky: morality, from an historical point of view, is the combination of natural and cultural selections, which act together in a far from simple way, leading us to feel stuff as good or wrong.

This is what morality is. More or less a feeling, modulated by the learning of socially or religiously correct behavior. This is "morality", the anthropologic reality.

[Amadeojd]

This is not enough to motivate our actions.

When we get to the philosophically reasonned, multiculturally acceptable rules of human action, we must meet more than morality: we meet ethics.

Ethics are to morals what aeronautics is to birds, or what medical sciences are to healing. The first often explains the other, but it alse leads way further. It opens a load of new reasonning opportunity.

[Amadeojd]

Ethics are the strategies we can use to live together, motivated by so much more than the automatic selection of fittest attitutes - and it is as such necessary in modern multicultural societies.

It is a philosophical discipline only because it is not yet scientific - for it could be. It is managing the happiness of people.

I though necessary to widen a little the question, differentiating 2 terms not yet systematically seperated (in english). This is a broad overview.

[Amadeojd]

But Kailad Reece is right: it's not what you believe in, says the ethician, but what you do that makes you a good or a bad neighbor.

[kailabreece]

Yes, this is a broad question... I hope to dig deeper later in my videos. On another note.... I must say, I truly enjoy your added insight.

[kailabreece]

"anthropologic reality" :)

Well said friend.

[ChuckyJesus666]

Very thoughtful. I think that morality is a matter of both instinct (genes) and culture (memes). I think it boils down to survival. I think that selfless behavior is for the purpose of survival of the group, which is important for survival of any individual in that group.

[fifa6969]

Selfish is a catalyst for selfless.

[kailabreece]

I agree morality is part of our natural instinct and thus survival.

[rottencom]

I've heard that moral challenges are the most difficult to achieve. From experience, I can admit that this is true. A cat doesn't have a hard time landing on it's feet (unless an outside party is involved). And dogs don't have dilemmas over where to take a piss. Why would it be difficult for humans to do what they are instinctually compelled to do?