Are we fooling ourselves with morals?

[Kurioxan]

Morality and culture are what keep humans "civilized", its a cyclic thing, we get morality which allows for growth, but its restrained so we break some of the morality that we previously had.
With that break we reach a point of progress, a golden age, but as a culture and society we remain convinced that a lot of the progress was done by the changes in morality (and it was) so we keep breaking more and more, without realizing that it leads to decadence and the fall of said civilization, plenty of examples on this in history.
The ones that come after are weary and understand that the decadence brought by lack of any morality is what caused the downfall of their culture, and thus are overzealous in enforcing new morality, convinced that it will rebuild (it will, a bit but too restrained) and thus its cyclical.

We as a western society are around the golden age period, but probably starting to fall into decadence in some areas.
which, however, i honestly have no idea.

[Stonecloak]

Morality and culture are what keep humans "civilized", its a cyclic thing, we get morality which allows for growth, but its restrained so we break some of the morality that we previously had.
With that break we reach a point of progress, a golden age, but as a culture and society we remain convinced that a lot of the progress was done by the changes in morality (and it was) so we keep breaking more and more, without realizing that it leads to decadence and the fall of said civilization, plenty of examples on this in history.
The ones that come after are weary and understand that the decadence brought by lack of any morality is what caused the downfall of their culture, and thus are overzealous in enforcing new morality, convinced that it will rebuild (it will, a bit but too restrained) and thus its cyclical.

We as a western society are around the golden age period, but probably starting to fall into decadence in some areas.
which, however, i honestly have no idea.

Sounds like a wave function. Albeit, I think there's more too it then that. What you posted does explain certain things, but what about the corruption of society. Acting on those morals is an agreement, and when that agreement gets betrayed. Those morals get thrown out the window. I can myself say now that when somebody believes in what they are doing. They can give 110%. America believed in what it was doing for many years. The degeneration of orderly, moralistic society seems like a product of that betrayal.

[Jibjub]

I find that if you aren't religious then morals are rather silly and illogical. I respect an atheist who doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself far more than an atheist who thinks humans should adhere to some bizarre code of ethics, for some reason ... at least the former ideology makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -

The only problem with "morals" is that most people cannot see beyond their own and believe their own to be the only absolutely correct set of beliefs.

Morals depend on this fact, though. You are talking about relativism and that just doesn't work in any philosophical/ethical debate. If there is no universal truth then there cannot be any real set of morals, as they are meant to be understood. There can only be cultural norms and these can and will shift.

[Stonecloak]

I find that if you aren't religious then morals are rather silly and illogical. I respect an atheist who doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself far more than an atheist who thinks humans should adhere to some bizarre code of ethics, for some reason ... at least the former ideology makes sense.

Let's not make this religious or it'll get closed.

For the record I've met some very empathetic atheist. So hypothetically somebody raised in a very moralistic home should in theory be moralistic right? I don't think so. He will be prejudice in his idea of what is right, but he won't be actually better, or moralistic at all. So is this just a function of nature? Or do humans have the capability to see this, and instill it into our consciousness.

[wowaccounttom]

yes.......

^ 10chars

[Dellis0991]

I would like to think that everyone is endowed with some sense of of morality through family or environment. I also think morals is what keeps us from hurting others and ourselves. Of course pain and hatred will make us throw those morals way sometimes.

[Maltah]

If there is no universal truth then there cannot be any real set of morals, as they are meant to be understood. There can only be cultural norms and these can and will shift.

Which is why they have shifted over the centuries.

It's almost like we can grow and evolve as a society or sumtin'.

[Jibjub]

There is just no logical explanation for morality outside of religion (any sort of religion or belief with a "higher power"). I don't see how anyone could separate them let alone opine that they have nothing to do with each other. Unless we watch too many Disney movies and believe dogs and cats and other beasts also have "morals" ... there cannot be a right and a wrong without a fixed point, otherwise today's right is tomorrow's wrong -- and that is philosophically impossible. You might as well say murder is immoral on Wednesdays but it is actually just fine on Fridays.

I definitely don't want to get this thread closed so I will bow out now. But common sense dictates that any morals of a non-religious civilization were most definitely just the remnants of a long-gone religious civilization. They are living off the capital of a different belief system ... illogically picking at the carcass of an ideology where morals made sense.

[Stonecloak]

Which is why they have shifted over the centuries.

It's almost like we can grow and evolve as a society or sumtin'.

If history has showed us anything. It's showed us how humans are absolutely terrible at changing certain ideologies. There'd likely be fallout, and war before any big transition.

[Daws]

To play devils advocate having morals actually hinders the individual and society. If you are willing to do anything your are more likely to achieve your goal. History is full of leaders who brought others to there knees and forced them to obey and science is full of rather dubious ethics which have led to advances in many fields. Downside of course is the kind of world where anything goes in order to achieve a set goal isn't one that majority of people would like living in (great if you on the top tier of that society though).

[Aori]

I live by my own set of morals. I think society as a whole is becoming a far more immoral bunch by my standards. To many people are tossing morality aside for their personal interests. We've become a very greed based society.

[Dellis0991]

If history has showed us anything. It's showed us how humans are absolutely terrible at changing certain ideologies. There'd likely be fallout, and war before any big transition.

True sometimes our morals ends with multiple ideas clashing violently, both sides believing that they are right and the other is wrong. So many people have died because some fools decided that war was the only way to decide whose morals was better. Then you realize that these fools haven't thrown away their morals but they forced others who have endured the pains of war to throw away theirs.

[Vacuous0]

Problems with morality stem from humans over thinking things as usual. For example, the bible: an overly complex mess that often manages to contradict itself depending on the version.

Morals are important and do exist. IMO the golden rule is the best example and all you really need. Live how you want and respect others' right to do so as well. Your rights end where the other man's nose begins.

[Templar 331]

If history has showed us anything. It's showed us how humans are absolutely terrible at changing certain ideologies. There'd likely be fallout, and war before any big transition.

Who says it has to be big? The tiniest change can alter the course of a ship down the line.

But anyway. Morals are good and don't have to be absolute. It would be nice if they were, but there's always that one time when you have to break them for whatever reason. And there's nothing wrong with changing them for a good reason. It's the people who have no morals at all or choose when to follow them that's the problem. It's exactly the same with following the law. What's the point in having laws if people break them? Because it makes society better as a whole when the majority follows them.

I'll give an example.

At my work place, we each have our own tool "buggy." If someone needs a tool, they ask for it. It's the moral thing to do. If someone takes it without asking, that's pretty immoral and can inconvenience the guy. It's not illegal since none of us own the tools, but it's good manners to ask. It's even worst when they take the tool without asking and keep it in their buggy. Now in the event that the person isn't around to ask for his tool, it would be understandable to borrow it for the time and return it. So you can bend the "ask first" rule with good reason.

[Stonecloak]

Problems with morality stem from humans over thinking things as usual. For example, the bible: an overly complex mess that often manages to contradict itself depending on the version.

Morals are important and do exist. IMO the golden rule is the best example and all you really need. Live how you want and respect others' right to do so as well. Your rights end where the other man's nose begins.

It goes back to my original contemplation. Is a person not a murderer because of morals, or just because they're not a murderer? If laws vanished tomorrow. Would you wack your mother over the head?

[THE Bigzoman]

It's immoral because you should remain unhappy and deal with it.

Did I do it right?

You probably shouldn't make promises you won't or can't keep.

[Templar 331]

It goes back to my original contemplation. Is a person not a murderer because of morals, or just because they're not a murderer? If laws vanished tomorrow. Would you wack your mother over the head?

There have been days...... >.>

I think the majority of people wouldn't go on a psychotic murder rampage if that's what you're asking. And the ones that would would do it even with the laws in place.

[Aurabolt]

As I've said for years: The concept of good and evil is a matter of opinion.

Also, recent research on twins in the womb seems to support the centuries-old belief in one of them being a/the dominant twin. Not just boy/boy and boy/girl but girl/girl and girl/boy as well. From disappearing twin syndrome to one dying in utero to actual fistfights in the womb, the research has been done =O

[Stonecloak]

As I've said for years: The concept of good and evil is a matter of opinion.

Also, recent research on twins in the womb seems to support the centuries-old belief in one of them being a/the dominant twin. Not just boy/boy and boy/girl but girl/girl and girl/boy as well. From disappearing twin syndrome to one dying in utero to actual fistfights in the womb, the research has been done =O

Interesting. My sister had twins. Gave birth to the female very prematurely, and the male died. The girl is now very healthy.

[Independent voter]

to actual fistfights in the womb, the research has been done =O

Hey, settle down in there!