Are we fooling ourselves with morals?

[Stonecloak]

My "morals" really just revolve around me being the kind of person I aspire to be. I don't want to be the kind of guy who kills someone else. Not because of law, not because of religion, but because I don't want to be that kind of person.

Likewise, I wouldn't bring a crying baby into a movie theater. Not because of the rules, and not because I really care about the other moviegoers, but because I don't want to be that kind of asshole.

Of course, I'm no more perfect than the next guy, and I have my failings, but I try.

Which seems like a more ideal citizen. Rather then a fanatical view on wrong and right that just doesn't apply to everything. It seems you have a feel for favorable actions. Which can evolve.

[Doctor Amadeus]

One thing has nothing to do with the other, just a lot of people warped and sucked into illusion, they don't know the difference between right and wrong, and what is worse they don't care.

[Dejablue]

Broooo, duuuude!

It's like, we are totally like not in control. There is like totally no free will, man.

Like all of our thoughts are emergent. DUUUDE! Like it appears from nowhere, it is a response to external like stuff.

Whooaaa. I think my brain just farted.

HAHA, free willy, that's funny bro. OMG is that your cat, he's got cat nip, lolol!

[Korlok]

Well, morals are specifically supposed to be the definition of right and wrong.
Both right and wrong have been proven to be rather subjective, at least for me.
I see morals as being personal.

[Stonecloak]

Well, morals are specifically supposed to be the definition of right and wrong.
Both right and wrong have been proven to be rather subjective, at least for me.
I see morals as being personal.

The more I think about it. The more I think it's beyond human thought.

[Korlok]

The more I think about it. The more I think it's beyond human thought.

But that would be thinking.
And we all know how that turns out in the long run....

[Stonecloak]

But that would be thinking.
And we all know how that turns out in the long run....

The closer I get. It's like reality just laughs and says "nice try but nope", and I'm back to square one. I don't overthink, but I am a thinker. It's who I am. Been like that since my brain was developed enough. It never gets uninteresting to me.

[Vacuous0]

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.

^ Exactly that

I have very little regard for law or organized religion. I don't need those things to tell me it's wrong to take someone's right to life. Or more specifically, a conscious being's right to self-determinate. Someone else could just do the same to me, and then I wouldn't even have the chance to whack my beloved family members. Hence, it's immoral. I *think* most people deep down would agree, regardless of the law. That said, these concepts were raised long ago, but we still have trouble with them.

[Independent voter]

You are walking down the sidewalk in a big city, there are few other people walking. You notice this man who's been badly beaten laying in the gutter. You notice that he is wearing the latest Air Jordans, $234 sneakers that you've been dying to get but can't afford. Do you take his shoes? The man is defenseless and unconscious and won't know it's you who took his shoes.

[zingar]

when 30k kids die in africa every day due to starvation and we dont give a shit about it, id say morality is pretty worthless :/
being indifferent is what we do best

[Stonecloak]

when 30k kids die in africa every day due to starvation and we dont give a shit about it, id say morality is pretty worthless :/
being indifferent is what we do best

I think that's a point to altruism, and how selfish and unselfish people are needed in a society.

[spinner981]

Well, morals are specifically supposed to be the definition of right and wrong.
Both right and wrong have been proven to be rather subjective, at least for me.
I see morals as being personal.

Right and wrong have been proven to be subjective? What does that even mean? If right and wrong exist, then they are not subjective. According to logic, something that exists is either black or white, correct or incorrect. If morals exist, then they must be objective. But if they don't exist, then they can't be proven as anything in any way.

[Wildtree]

It's like 50 percent. That's insane.

That depends entirely what statistics one looks at.
There are no conclusive ones..... Worst case is marriage to divorce rate sits at around 50%, and that rate is rather stable for decades.
Other stats show how divorce is declining on overall.

[Stonecloak]

That depends entirely what statistics one looks at.
There are no conclusive ones..... Worst case is marriage to divorce rate sits at around 50%, and that rate is rather stable for decades.
Other stats show how divorce is declining on overall.

I already noted how it was a bad example. So, apologies.

[zingar]

Right and wrong have been proven to be subjective? What does that even mean? If right and wrong exist, then they are not subjective. According to logic, something that exists is either black or white, correct or incorrect. If morals exist, then they must be objective. But if they don't exist, then they can't be proven as anything in any way.

well of course theyre subjective. you cant prove when something is wrong or right. its like saying this coffee is "too hot". it may be hot to you but maybe not to somebody else.

[Shibito]

Without a law morals would be doomed.

[spinner981]

well of course theyre subjective. you cant prove when something is wrong or right. its like saying this coffee is "too hot". it may be hot to you but maybe not to somebody else.

Hot is a subjective term though. 120 degrees Fahrenheit though, is not. Saying something is hot is like saying something is 'preferable' or 'better', while saying something is right is a definitive statement, not a vague one like saying something is 'hot'.

[Stonecloak]

Without a law morals would be doomed.

Well if it can be imagined. Imagine a much more civil society. Where movies, and pop culture didn't consist of war, hate, law breaking rules ect. Perhaps law wouldn't be as necessary. Or imagined as necessary.

[breadisfunny]

morals usually form the basis for what is legal and not legal in a civilized society. without morals to form the basis of law society would have trouble staying civilized and rapid advancements in technology and such would take a long time to accomplish if at all.

[zingar]

Hot is a subjective term though. 120 degrees Fahrenheit though, is not. Saying something is hot is like saying something is 'preferable' or 'better', while saying something is right is a definitive statement, not a vague one like saying something is 'hot'.

that was my point... that it may be "hot" to you but not to others