I don't know if you have read Richard Dawkins books about evolutionism or Richard joyless books about ethics but they show pretty well how humans do have morality. Since the only meaning of life is to reproduce it would not be productive to destroy your society and erase all life..
Surprised athiests believe in morals when the problems with god and religion (semantic in nature, tradition and authority based, illogical properties, different from anything else we've seen, untestable, no evidence, sectarianism, against our self interest, emotion base, etc) apply to morality too but many athiests cling to it.
We could have action guidance without morals that cohere more with themselves and the world IMO
I don't see how realitivism is any better its like "all gods are one" BS
Ants might be considered moral when they feed the queen and protect her to the death when he is in danger just to keep the society alive. If keeping a society alive is moral, then destroying one's society or everything living might be immoral, everything in between might as well be a gray area since it pretty hard to judge what will improve a society or help it survive. Does that make erasing inferior societies or other species moral? I don't know... I really want to read the Myth of Morality
If you define morals as right or wrong ideas or actions, then yes, it is subjective and not objective. If you see morality as actions that help as species survive, than it might become objective, even though very unclear and with lots of problems. Morality in the sense of goodness is of course not universal and absolute, but it might as well have developed as a byproduct of evolution such as religion, as Richard Dawkins was talking about in the God Delusion.
Seriously why would "what helps the group you belong to" be "what you as an individual should do" if its not got action guidance what purpose is there calling it good? Why does "the good of the species" (which isn't how evolution works, sorry) trump the good of the individual's genes even if we're just talking about spreading genes?
Liked your video... I fiound your vid looking for people that shared my opinion on morals, and must say I'm happy I found you! I think us amoralists are a pretty rare bunch of people:)
Morals can only be 'right' or 'wrong' depending on the ends they are supposed to justify (if at all). These ends however cannot be weighed morally 'right' or 'wrong' as values are radically arbitrary.
Generally, morality has arisen due to its efficacy towards the ends of surviving or prospering of the organisms that hold these moral values. To inscribe these morals on some absolute or metaphysical plane, is of course, an error.
I wouldn't even go so far as to use certain terms for types of moral because to do that would be acknowledging their existance where morals are just a conditioned psychological state imposed on us by people with "authority" and "power" through force and repetition to the other mindless masses. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFINE TO ANYONE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. But hey were brainwashed from cradle to grave by surroundings that batter our senses left right and centre, but thats a deeper issue.
Richard joyce's. Sorry, auto correct...
nucle4rfighter 11 months ago
I don't know if you have read Richard Dawkins books about evolutionism or Richard joyless books about ethics but they show pretty well how humans do have morality. Since the only meaning of life is to reproduce it would not be productive to destroy your society and erase all life..
nucle4rfighter 11 months ago
Morals are emotional manipulation, as are adverts, not plees based on feeling but means of manipulating your feelings.
unassumption 11 months ago
@ToxicOdiousOne
homosexuality = criminality...in iran :P you respect them sand nigger faggots?
no amoralism = fuck philosophical BS about good and just live your life, not "just rape a virgin like your YHWH"
unassumption 11 months ago
Surprised athiests believe in morals when the problems with god and religion (semantic in nature, tradition and authority based, illogical properties, different from anything else we've seen, untestable, no evidence, sectarianism, against our self interest, emotion base, etc) apply to morality too but many athiests cling to it.
We could have action guidance without morals that cohere more with themselves and the world IMO
I don't see how realitivism is any better its like "all gods are one" BS
unassumption 11 months ago
Ants might be considered moral when they feed the queen and protect her to the death when he is in danger just to keep the society alive. If keeping a society alive is moral, then destroying one's society or everything living might be immoral, everything in between might as well be a gray area since it pretty hard to judge what will improve a society or help it survive. Does that make erasing inferior societies or other species moral? I don't know... I really want to read the Myth of Morality
nucle4rfighter 1 year ago
If you define morals as right or wrong ideas or actions, then yes, it is subjective and not objective. If you see morality as actions that help as species survive, than it might become objective, even though very unclear and with lots of problems. Morality in the sense of goodness is of course not universal and absolute, but it might as well have developed as a byproduct of evolution such as religion, as Richard Dawkins was talking about in the God Delusion.
nucle4rfighter 1 year ago
@nucle4rfighter
Seriously why would "what helps the group you belong to" be "what you as an individual should do" if its not got action guidance what purpose is there calling it good? Why does "the good of the species" (which isn't how evolution works, sorry) trump the good of the individual's genes even if we're just talking about spreading genes?
unassumption 11 months ago
@ToxicOdiousOne your too retarded for this topic, please gtfo, tyvm
virgozero 1 year ago
Liked your video... I fiound your vid looking for people that shared my opinion on morals, and must say I'm happy I found you! I think us amoralists are a pretty rare bunch of people:)
Mvision123 1 year ago
@Mvision123 We are indeed rare. And I'm way too afraid of revealing that to my friends xD
magichristo 1 year ago
Morals can only be 'right' or 'wrong' depending on the ends they are supposed to justify (if at all). These ends however cannot be weighed morally 'right' or 'wrong' as values are radically arbitrary.
Generally, morality has arisen due to its efficacy towards the ends of surviving or prospering of the organisms that hold these moral values. To inscribe these morals on some absolute or metaphysical plane, is of course, an error.
Good video.
Grayto 2 years ago
I wouldn't even go so far as to use certain terms for types of moral because to do that would be acknowledging their existance where morals are just a conditioned psychological state imposed on us by people with "authority" and "power" through force and repetition to the other mindless masses. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFINE TO ANYONE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. But hey were brainwashed from cradle to grave by surroundings that batter our senses left right and centre, but thats a deeper issue.
ej1elliot 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
alvarodelamo 1 year ago