I'm opening up another debate, this one is about morals.
Here's my statement.
Now, are people morally evil? In my oppinion, yes. I beleive that "good" is actually suppression upon the natural evils of everyone.
Good and evil are provided by your culture. Before we can start this debate we need to devine Good and Evil.
Quote:Originally posted by Mormacil
Good and evil are provided by your culture. Before we can start this debate we need to devine Good and Evil.
:yes: I'm with Morm.
Quote:Originally posted by Tlo1048
Quote:Originally posted by Mormacil
Good and evil are provided by your culture. Before we can start this debate we need to devine Good and Evil.
:yes: I'm with Morm.
*puts down the Nietszche he's reading*
I concur fully.
what people call morals is people following their basic instincts of pleasure and pain, and do what they see fit to survive. I see nothing wrong with this, besides naming it morality.
Subjectivism... Subjectivism... Subjectivism...
The study of ethics is not synonomous with the study of subjectivism, there are other VALID arguements out there. Far more valid actualy, to claim there is no truth, is contradictory.
I stand firmly that a system of ehtics that can be reached through A priori or A posteriori logic exists, and that we can define justice, morality, and any range of these topics.
Man is inherantly capable of choice.
To choose is inherantly moral (Though the choice may not be)
Man has the capacity to be moral, and is capable of striving for it.
Man is capable of Justice and injustice.
Good and Evil are not the terms you're looking for.
Anyone here understand the distinction between should and ought?
The way I see it, if you let people run around freely, they would want to do what would be considered evil by today's standards. Good to me seems like a form of suppression on everyone's natural evil. Everyone at some point in their lives want to do bad, but they know they aren't able to, because morals would label them as "evil" which comes with consequence.
When you see something really nice, just lying there in a store and it's small enough to fit in your pocket without anyone noticing, but you have no money, you would want to steal it. But you know you can't, because there are laws against stealing.
Then where did the laws and such come from?
I find a number of laws to be immoral, but ones against force (theft) can definately be argued for. The interesting thing is that law in such restraint are "Institutions among men" who gain their just powers from the "consent of the governed". If what you say is true, then we'd be in a state of nature (If you don't know what the term is, do a little reading before you assume, its a hobbsian thing). We aren't.
i'd have to agree with DA. If man in inherently immoral, yet he makes laws to prevent himself from acting on that base instinct, isn't that choice the one which matters? being moral does not mean the absence of immoral thoughts, it means the decision to act in a way which does not harm others.
Plus, cooperation is hard-coded into our evolution. Man needs to group together to survive, because we just aren't fast enough or strong enough to survive alone. For a social group to work together, there cannot be a large amount of conflict, and good morals help that. So i believe that man inherently makes moral choices, because they usually coincide with survival in the long run.
Regardless of genetic predisposition, all men share the capacity for choice, and that is all that we may rightly judge of a man.
What is moral? Something ethical. What are ethics? Ethics are literaly "How ought we act."
This is not always how SHOULD we act, but how OUGHT we act.
For instance, we OUGHT to stop all crime (You could argue), yet we SHOULDN'T attempt to stop all crime, because of the other rights violations invovled, so you see a balance develops.
Ethics and Morals came out of a want for power. People want to rule over other people, that's how it was in the beginning. Then, they created laws, so they could have control over the people they want to rule over. Over time, future rulers have been subjects to the laws of the previous rulers that it has become the standard, it's normal, it's worked, and it's right.
Basic animal groups follow suit. A pack of wolves always has the Alpha couple, with the Alpha male and his wife. They rule over the pack, and the pack does what the Alpha wants them to do. Then there's always the Omega wolf, all alone, who isn't allowed to have a mate, and is pretty much the second class citizen. Basic groups like this is where people have started out, first from groups in the prehistoric times, to tribes, kingdoms, and republics.
And some people take pride out of doing good things, like homework, because it is beneficial to you. Some don't do homework, because the benefits are not as good for the work to some people. You only do which feels best for you.
Maybe I've contradicted myself here. Maybe it's not all about morals, but rather it's about power. Morals are defined by people with power, and when you rule, you can do whatever you want. It's all about being on top.