Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Aetherius · 11-10-2006, 05:38 PM,

Morality is pretty much knowing the difference between right and wrong, and abiding by the rules of proper conduct.

DarkAsmodeous · 11-10-2006, 05:39 PM,

Aether, one must supply reasoning for any claim.

Aetherius · 11-10-2006, 05:44 PM,

I dont see a reason for having to support reasoning for the definition of morality. If you are talking about my claim that morality is relative, then: Imagine if there was no laws and nobody ever taught us anything, then we would be a lot different then we are now, we would not be waht we define as moral.

Psychotic · 11-10-2006, 06:14 PM,

My definition of morality is explained by my argument itself I believe.

Here's how I see it:

Morality is relative and is dependant on personal goals, who widely those personal goals are accepted as positive by others and by the level of self-delusion.

If your goal in life is to help ease the suffering of human kind or protect the natural environment most people will accept that goal as positive to their well being and will see any actions leading to that goal as morally just.

If your goal in life is to advance your position in society with no regard to the well being of others and their personally defined morality that goal will be seen as unmoral by all (because your goal has the potential to harm them) except maybe for the people who have the same goal in life.

I don't think Hitler's personal goal in life can be easily defined by anyone, but I'll try to do so for the sake argument.
Let's say that Hitler's goal was to create a world where order would rule and everyone would achieve a high level of existence (perfection if you will)... but the problem occurs when Hitler decided that only he can decide what's good and what's not good for humanity as a whole. So Hitler decided that some races are genetically inferior to others and in order to keep the superior races pure he decided to exterminate them... in Hitler's eyes that was necessary if the future of human kind was match his vision of perfection.
So according to Hitler his actions were morally justified because they were for his own good AND the good of human kind... but because he believed that only his own people were perfect examples of human beings and that only they had the right to inherit the world his morality was excepted only by those that found it beneficial to them... AKA the Germans. The Germans who by following Hitler's politics and reasoning got out of an economic crisis gained a high regard for their F?hrer and therefore inherited his sense of morality.
But not all Germans held Hitler in high regards, in some the morality that they had followed 'till then prevailed. Some Germans saw Hitler as a murderer and a dictator because they did not believe that his actions lead to a better future for them and the fulfillment of their goals. Most of the Germans who did keep their own sense of morality had a wider care for the well being of others and the willpower to keep that care alive and not center their interests only on themselves in the hard times trough which Germany was going trough at that time.

The part about self-delusion is when you believe that your actions are morally just even though they are not supported by others. Hitler was slightly deluded because the majority of people in the world were not willing to accept his sense of morality.
A psychopath who commits a massacre and finds nothing wrong in his action is deluded as hell because his actions are compatible and accepted by only about 0.0000001% of society.

So morality can be influenced by those with power, but only to a point. Morality originates from common reasoning and therefore if you try to twist what is viewed as moral and contradict common reasoning too much it won't work.

There you go, that's what I think.

DarkAsmodeous · 11-10-2006, 06:39 PM,

I would reccomend Mien Kamf if you want to analyze hitler.

Ill respond in full later (am in class)

Arbiter · 11-10-2006, 06:40 PM,

Oh great, here we go again.... Rolleyes

Psychotic · 11-10-2006, 07:39 PM,

Quote:Originally posted by DarkAsmodeous
I would reccomend Mien Kamf if you want to analyze hitler.

I have the book, though not enough time to read it currently. I made a start though. Smile

TheImperialDragon · 11-10-2006, 09:22 PM,

I think I see another discussion coming along... Big Grin

:dunce:

Maleficus8953 · 11-11-2006, 05:49 AM,

alright guys, the debate has officially begun.
To those who "dont like where this is going", i respectfully ask you asses the topic, and ask yourselves if morality is truly an "appealing topic" to begin with.
My view is what is already posted in the beginning, and ill restate it here.
There is a physical destructiveness whether we realize it or not to doing the wrong thing. Sorry but im gonna use the Hitler example again. He was so full of illusions as to how "right" he was, and yet, the destructiveness of his actions remained, to himself and to others.

This leads to my next point, and that is alot more goes on than what is seen. This is also why evolutionists cannot know the true roots of our world, because sure the universe might have started out as a cell, but where did the cell come from? Its the, "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?" type deal.

TheImperialDragon · 11-11-2006, 06:10 AM,

Sort of makes me think; What were the first forms of life that evolved, which was first, what evolved from it, etc... (I'm not talking about the origins of life, I'm talking about the products of life)

Some scientists believe that birds and amphibians evolved from reptiles, while others believe that they were all original, unique. The fact that birds and mammals are the only warm-blooded species of the phylum chordata is interesting though, not to say that some species may have de-evolved or something. Fish, reptiles, and amphibians are all cold-blooded. If birds evolved from reptiles, and birds are the only other warm blooded creatures other than mammals (in phylum chordata), and both have four-chambered hearts, it is interesting to imagine the possibilities of what came from what in the evolution theory. Did birds evolve into mammals, who then later became more complex?

Fish would seem to be the simplest form of chordata animals, so is it possible that they evolved into the more complex chordata organisms that could live on land (Reptiles? Amphibians? Both?), which then evolved to birds and humans?

What about the invertebrate species of animals? Where do they fit in?

Not that I'm an expert or anything...