My View on Morality and Values

@richrf,

richrf;77703 wrote:

Hi,

I don't think you need to provide evidence to anyone. No one knows where the concept of morality emanated from. Maybe from the Universal Consciousness of Jung's.

In any case, I tend to agree with you. But these are just thoughts to be discussed. I am sure there are disagreements.

Rich

I figured as much as it were =/. I think he's just looking to pick at peoples argument for 'evidence' :poke-eye:.

@richrf,

richrf;77703 wrote:

No one knows where the concept of morality emanated from.

That's a very sensible thing to say. Let me remind you of something Ares said:

Ares;77696 wrote:

People created morality for the betterment of society

Ares claims that morality was created with a guiding purpose, and you and I both think that he doesn't know what he's talking about! I'm glad we could reach some accord here.

@Theages,

Theages;77713 wrote:

That's a very sensible thing to say. Let me remind you of something Ares said:

Ares claims that morality was created with a guiding purpose, and you and I both think that he doesn't know what he's talking about! I'm glad we could reach some accord here.

It is a conclusion I drew from observing the basic ideas surrounding morality. It is an assumption I'll admit but it is one based off of reason. We can do that you know, make assumptions based off of reason its a way of seeking the truth, its more commonly called philosophy. Also, again, that was not even my main point that was just a way to get to my point. Quite bickering and trolling over one little sound bite geeze, I'm seventeen if I might say you're seeming quite childish.

What the hell is your bone to pick here man? Are you like the assumption police?

@Theages,

Theages;77713 wrote:

That's a very sensible thing to say. Let me remind you of something Ares said: Ares claims that morality was created with a guiding purpose, and you and I both think that he doesn't know what he's talking about! I'm glad we could reach some accord here.

Well, then just disagree with him and present your viewpoint as I did.

Rich

@Ares phil,

Questioning assumptions is the chief task of philosophy. Defensiveness is not conducive to that process.

@Theages,

Theages;77719 wrote:

Questioning assumptions is the chief task of philosophy. Defensiveness is not conducive to that process.

This might be true, but just asking people for evidence, is kind of lazy in my opinion. I could go on every thread in this forum, and just ask the same question over and over again. Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence? And you know what, there evidence, is always what their mind believes is true.

At the end, all evidence can be questioned as can all ideas. They are almost one and the same - just different sides of the same coin. Evidence may have some group consensus which inevitably also brings about some group disagreement.

Given this, I just present my views and let the discussion go where it might. If you have a point of view, then I would like to hear it.

Rich

@Ares phil,

Hello Ares and Theages,

Ares, you picked a couple of "Doozies"; morality and value. I think most are in a "pickle" trying to figure out exactly what those two words mean in today's world that endeavors to affix a price on what it takes to survive in this world. I find it hard to imagine a "moral code" that can be agreed by all in that world, which forces us to establish our own-relative morality and that doesn't help matters much at all. It just immensely confuses the issue.

Morality and value have been discussed in philosophy since Moby Dick was a minnow and it seems we are losing any sense of defining either in our effort to survive as we proclaim "each man for himself' in the dog eat dog reality we have created.

IMO, morality is that reality we will establish as we stop depending on "more" (morality) and focus on that which is "real" (reality) at which time both morality and immorality will cancel each other out and we truly begin to "really" live in cooperation with each other rather than competiting with each other without a measure of costs in the equations such as it is now. Cost is not a universal construt,we made that one up ourselves. Where does it come from? Good luck! It predates history as far as we can ascertain.

We, it seems, have been conditioned to think "more" is the answer that will bring some satisfaction of "job well done" and rewards us with more of which we never needed in the first place; but yet it is that carrot in from of the donkey that propels us to want and want and want. All it does is create an enormous amount of waste and deprives others of those true innate values it takes to live on this planet as we rationaize that to mean "they don't deserve it". HMMM? That's immorality, not matter how you try to slice it, IMO.

Morality will be that balanced playing field in which all can contribute that which comes "easy" to them, whatever that may be; whether it be, labor, wisdom, skills or talents in which all can benefit from at which time there will be no more discussions as to what is moral or immoral. There will just be life as it was meant to be which we have yet to experience.

As morality/immorality cancelling each other out so will eniquity/iniquity do the same for one cannot survive without the other and we have yet to know what that reality will bring. But I have a feeling it will be one we will have a wonderful time creating and it will last forever as we look into the eyes of a child as he says "please take care of me, as I promise I will take care of you and so forth and so on and so forth and so on. Visionary? You bet. The most valuable resource on this planet is the unfettered mind of humankind and when we put "our" minds to it, we will all be amazed at what we can accomplish. As they say, "You ain't seen nuttin' yet!" IMMHO. Smile

William

@William,

William;77729 wrote:

Morality will be that balanced playing field in which all can contribute that which comes "easy" to them

Yes, a sliding scale progression of highest and best, based upon The Golden Rule.

Our very bodies are constantly doing the math, so how far off should mutual value exchange be?

Indeed, the very core of physics evolves from such causal origin.

@richrf,

richrf;77721 wrote:

This might be true, but just asking people for evidence, is kind of lazy in my opinion. I could go on every thread in this forum, and just ask the same question over and over again. Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence? And you know what, there evidence, is always what their mind believes is true.

Asking for evidence of philosophical claims is largely futile. Asking for evidence of historical claims is not. Ares said that a particular event happened. I asked for evidence of it. Evidence in this case might take the form of an explanation prefaced or appended to a code of laws, like the Ten Commandments or Hammurabi's Code (this is just a hypothetical example; I don't know if any such explanation exists). This would not settle things, but it would be suggestive and useful.

I'm not being a skeptic here. I'm not saying that all evidence is necessarily inconclusive and that we can never have any clear idea of where morality comes from -- that's your position, and it isn't very helpful. I simply asked for some evidence, any evidence. Ares could have produced a passage from, say, Homer, and then explained how it illustrated his or her claim. He or she did not. Instead, the initial claim was repeated and, when pressed further, admitted to be wild conjecture. You say that asking for evidence is lazy: I say that not providing it is lazy at best.

I have not, do not, and would not ask people in this forum for evidence of conceptual claims, because they do not admit of evidence (at least not in the way that historical ones do). So yes, you could go around doing what you are proposing, but it would have nothing to do with what I do. For the most part I only ask for evidence when people make claims about the origins of things like language and ethics, topics which receive comment with such dazzling temerity from so many.

@Theages,

Theages;77719 wrote:

Questioning assumptions is the chief task of philosophy. Defensiveness is not conducive to that process.

I believe you have overlooked the post where I posted all the stuff that you have overlooked in my argument (ironic) So I'll post it again:

My points were:

1] People created morality for the betterment of society
2] Morality and Values are essential to a society's success
3] Only ESSENTIAL morals and essential values are required for any one society to succeed
a) Murder
b) Theivery
c) ETC.
4] Essential morals and values prohibit things that disrupt the natural function of a society

My main point was never even about people creating morality! My main point which you overlooked, amazingly, was that the essential morals and values such as murder and thievery are required for a societies peace, the people creating morality was a means of getting to the grander point. It was a scenario per se.

@William,

William;77729 wrote:

Hello Ares and Theages,

Ares, you picked a couple of "Doozies"; morality and value. I think most are in a "pickle" trying to figure out exactly what those two words mean in today's world that endeavors to affix a price on what it takes to survive in this world. I find it hard to imagine a "moral code" that can be agreed by all in that world, which forces us to establish our own-relative morality and that doesn't help matters much at all. It just immensely confuses the issue.

Morality and value have been discussed in philosophy since Moby Dick was a minnow and it seems we are losing any sense of defining either in our effort to survive as we proclaim "each man for himself' in the dog eat dog reality we have created.

IMO, morality is that reality we will establish as we stop depending on "more" (morality) and focus on that which is "real" (reality) at which time both morality and immorality will cancel each other out and we truly begin to "really" live in cooperation with each other rather than competiting with each other without a measure of costs in the equations such as it is now. Cost is not a universal construt,we made that one up ourselves. Where does it come from? Good luck! It predates history as far as we can ascertain.

We, it seems, have been conditioned to think "more" is the answer that will bring some satisfaction of "job well done" and rewards us with more of which we never needed in the first place; but yet it is that carrot in from of the donkey that propels us to want and want and want. All it does is create an enormous amount of waste and deprives others of those true innate values it takes to live on this planet as we rationaize that to mean "they don't deserve it". HMMM? That's immorality, not matter how you try to slice it, IMO.

Morality will be that balanced playing field in which all can contribute that which comes "easy" to them, whatever that may be; whether it be, labor, wisdom, skills or talents in which all can benefit from at which time there will be no more discussions as to what is moral or immoral. There will just be life as it was meant to be which we have yet to experience.

As morality/immorality cancelling each other out so will eniquity/iniquity do the same for one cannot survive without the other and we have yet to know what that reality will bring. But I have a feeling it will be one we will have a wonderful time creating and it will last forever as we look into the eyes of a child as he says "please take care of me, as I promise I will take care of you and so forth and so on and so forth and so on. Visionary? You bet. The most valuable resource on this planet is the unfettered mind of humankind and when we put "our" minds to it, we will all be amazed at what we can accomplish. As they say, "You ain't seen nuttin' yet!" IMMHO.

William

Quite the dreamer I take it. It would be rather nice if people could thrive together.

@Ares phil,

Ares;78408 wrote:

Quite the dreamer I take it. It would be rather nice if people could thrive together.

Dreamer? Hmmm? I don't think we can "thrive" together, but we can learn to "live" together. Is that a dream? Let's hope not! "Rather nice"? How modest. If you could only see through my "lenses"? Smile

William

@William,

William;78411 wrote:

Dreamer? Hmmm? I don't think we can "thrive" together, but we can learn to "live" together. Is that a dream? Let's hope not! "Rather nice"? How modest. If you could only see through my "lenses"?

William

Lol perhaps if we could all see it through your lenses then we could learn to live together. However, as much as I wish we could, I beleive that it is highly unlikely... It seems, through history, we do the same thing over and over again. HOWEVER, we have not had that long so far to prove ourselves.

@Ares phil,

Ares;78412 wrote:

Lol perhaps if we could all see it through your lenses then we could learn to live together. However, as much as I wish we could, I beleive that it is highly unlikely... It seems, through history, we do the same thing over and over again. HOWEVER, we have not had that long so far to prove ourselves.

Yes, history is a confusing and perplex sounding board to draw from and only in viewing it for the "right reasons" will it unveil the answers we are looking for; for if they are wrong, it will continue to throw us "curve balls" the will continue the "cyclical" and timeless saying that notes "...if we don't learn from it, we are destined to repeat it." How so tragically sad. I can't help but believe we will "come around". In all it's complexities, it was unavoidable for this to happen. We are a "stubborn lot" as it would be for any perfect creation. Individually, we are nothing; United, we are everything. We will arrive at that awareness. I have confidence in that. Now what happens in the "mean" time, we are experiencing will lead to the "good" time for all. We'll get there. We truly have no choice in the matter. :a-ok:

William

@Ares phil,

Ares;78412 wrote:

through history, we do

Ahhh to be at the nexus of past and future tensors...

Quite a moment, this presence!

Philosophy Forum

My View on Morality and Values

Quick Links

My Account

able2know