General Philosophical Discussion

Currently studying philosophy at my second year of A-Levels. I'm interested to see this communities response to some of the questions we ask in class. I'll leave a few up here for debate:

1) Is a God necessary?
2) Does morality exist?
3) What is the value of art? (Hentai included of course)

Morality is really just based off of what a person finds is right or wrong. Ignorant people cannot see that it is subjective and they can call an action immoral just because their society or teachings are against it. There are many cultures and societies on earth and their views can be drastically different from that of another, claiming one as "absolute" and the rest "incorrect" is foolish. If two people on opposing sides both believe that their truth is "correct" and the other is not, then from their perspective their truth is "absolute" regardless of what is reality. I believe individual people have their own set of moralities that they set for themselves and judge other people with. Regret and internal conflicts from an action is most likely because they have violated their own moralities and feel they have done something "wrong". Its unfortunate that people do things they believe are correct and are punished for it because society does not agree. That's why humans beliefs cannot be true to the extent that there is a universal ideal. You cannot deny this; only until you walk in someone else's shoes or look at the same picture from multiple perspectives can you realize that thought is subjective and multiple "truths" can exist side by side.

But can't you admit that there are some things all cultures find morally wrong due to an innate morality? (By the way I actually agree with you just pushing you further)

That stems from more of a sense of defense. Like "murder" is often something that is unacceptable in most cultures because people do not want their loved ones hurt or killed so they can relate to other people. However a person with weak bonds to their family and little to no people that they hold dear will most likely have little concern or sympathy for those around them, if that is the case then their morals will most likely point away from human life being important. Just like those that have been emotionally damaged by other people will view death as something people deserve. However in some cultures something like sex before marriage is an extreme taboo and I've heard stories to where fathers will kill their own daughters for that reason. Something like stealing in another culture could just be borrowing because that the community is so tightly wound that what belongs to one man also belongs to all of his neighbors. But saying killing or stealing is "bad" does not really make sense since people often do things for a purpose and not just to be "evil". A part in a persons views and the foundation of their morals comes from when they are raised and what they are taught. People grow and later establish their own personal morals but morals being innate doesn't seem entirely possible.

1) In my opinion, yes and no.

Some people do need a sort of figure to help inspire them. Others don't, it all depends on how we are raised.


2) Morality does exist, it's just that people want to bastardize it and make their own morals for themselves and ruining parts of it to fit their own needs. For example, I find the death penalty to be fair, other people don't believe in it and say I am immoral for suggestion the killing of a criminal who killed.

3) Art is to those who are believers. I find certain hentai, video games, movie and art to truly BE art. Which make more sense when you see the whole thing. However, there should also be a standard. I don't consider a blank painting with a red dot in the middle to be art. Art should give us more, an idea of what the person making it wants to tell and show you sometimes explicitly and other times implicitly.

1)Subjective. The objectification of a 'God' has been for many reasons, some negative(as an excuse to commit crimes in the name of religious crusades). There are those who are 'spiritual' in nature and feel the need to connect to a greater purpose. Admittedly, I fall in the second line. But because God's necessity, nay his very existence is subjective and up for debate is somewhat the death knell in religious dogma. Unless we receive physical testimony from God himself(and not one of the many religious books), the back and forth between believer and non believer is pointless. I'd argue going to church is pointless, as to is praying.

2) Here's an old philosophical statement: Morality is irrelevant. That is to say, I concur with those who've posted here. What one person holds as moral, another person holds as immoral. Furthermore, the line between morality and immorality is such a thin one that we can cross it at any moment:

When a loved one is killed, we will likely kill in return
When one's hungry, in poverty, etc we are likely to steal.
When one's cheated on, we're likely to cheat either in the same relationship or even in a new relationship.

The real danger is when a person overthinks things. When a person overthinks things, that's when he lets himself slip off the slippery slope.

Wow, A-Levels. It brings back bittersweet memories. Is it for General Paper?

1) Define necessary. Do you mean it as crucial and vital? Or do you mean it as any means that will achieve the desired result? For the sake of simplification, let's also define God as simply an omnipotent being. From the Christian theological point of view, a God is crucial and vital for survival; for He created the world, its surroundings, and yes people too. From an atheist's point of view, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a sufficient template for human life. We need food, oxygen and water for basic survival and to make life more emotionally fulfilling we need acknowledgement and comfort from our peers. For the agnostic, the idea of a God is more of spiritual fulfillment. So the greater question is this: what is a God necessary for?

2) We do know that events like the Holocaust and Rwandan Genocide are unquestionably distasteful. We also put value on virtues like honesty, sincerity and integrity. Of course, the examples I gave are clear-cut. So really, what are morals? For me, a moral is a belief that is accepted by most of contemporary society. Sure, there are some who argue that morals are indefinite and that they are ever-changing. Consider the change in the traditional role of women in society. While time and changing societal expectations do blur the lines of morality, those clear-cut examples I stated withstood the test of time. A moral when carried out to
the extreme can prove to be immoral too. For example, we don't consider citizens who willingly divulge information to the opposing enemy "honest"; we consider them traitorous. Hence, I believe that morality is an imperfect weighing scale of sorts between what is accepted by society and what one's conscience approves. Everyone has diverse opinions on issues like abortion and gay marriage. But when it comes to issues like murder and theft, there are more similarities than differences that can be found.

3) In the context where art is a freedom of expression, it has multiple values. Cities like Vienna and Paris are deemed beautiful and attract many tourists, hence adding tourist revenues to the country's economy. Art can also be therapeutic; prisoners and convicts attend art therapy classes to reconcile their emotional conflicts. Even simpler forms of art like television shows, movies and illustrated comics bring pleasure to its viewers (no pun intended). Hence, art itself has economic, emotional and psychological values.

[size=14][color=black][font=Times New Roman]1) Having a god is clearly not a necessity due to the fact that atheists exist. Having a set of beliefs however I feel is necessary whether or not you have thought deeply about what having those beliefs entails or whether you realise you uphold those beliefs at all. God is merely a common belief shared by a multitude of people with various different interpretations, so in that sense the fact that those people believe in a god is necessary but upholding the specific belief of a God is not.

2) Morals are entirely subjective and constantly change depending on the situation said subject is in. You may argue that things such as Public and Cultural morals exist, and while you would not be wrong, they only serve to influence the morals of a majority (not everyone) within said public and culture and have subjective interpretations. However there is no doubt that they exist, they are merely different for everyone.

3) Art is one of things that raises Humans beyond any other animal therefore its value is humanity itself. I am of a mind that everything someone creates is art whatever its function and again the usefulness and worth of an individual creation is subjective. [/font][/color][/h]

Wow guys I'm really impressed these would give my teacher a run for his money. Will steal some of these answers for future tests XD.
Anyway here's a few more:

1) Is there a meaning of life?
2) If there's no God will that lead to the collapse of morality?
3) Are utopia's possible?

[size=14][color=black][font=Times New Roman]I actually find these questions immense fun.

1) Do you mean life as a whole of life as an individual? I don't think life as a whole has a meaning as such. Life is, in my opinion, an outlet for individual lives to have meaning so as such life's meaning is the meaning of your life as a living being. An individual life's meaning is entirely what you make of said life seeing as it's hard to judge a meaning until something is over or has been fully completed.

Edit: I said life much too much in this post :|

2) Whether or not you have a belief in god you will still have your individual set of morals. As I have already stated, I believe morals are subjective as are your beliefs and while one may affect the other they (generally speaking) won't conflict let alone collapse on each other.

3) No I don't think a Utopia is achievable. This is because inherently humans don't seek for such a thing. They have no real wish to share happiness with more than a few other people if any. The world runs on the principle of survival of the fittest (or so I believe) which is the polar opposite of a world where everyone is happy, the strongest are better than the weakest in any society even if the definition of strong changes therefore it is impossible to achieve a world where everyone and everything are happy [/font][/color][/h]

I'll try to answer this in the fewest possible word.

1) Is a God necessary?
...for? Whatever you may answer this question with, you can probably find other things that serve the purpose as good as, if not better than god. So unless if you can come up with a purpose that only god can serve, answer is no.

2) Does morality exist?
As an objective value, no. Morality is always defined with respect to a particular point of view and as such it cannot be objective. It may be the view that most adopt but numbers doesn't add to validity. As a subjective thing? Definitely.

3) What is the value of art? (Hentai included of course)
That which lets us feel things beyond our basic needs. As those are catered to we naturally seek a higher form of stimulation and that is art.

4) Is there a meaning of life?
No. It only has meaning in the purpose you set and/or accept from others for yourself. Life has no a priori meaning other than it being a set of physical phenomena that are able to replicate itself.

5) If there's no God will that lead to the collapse of morality?
Are good things good because gods do them or do gods do things because they are good? If it's the former, than good is just whatever that drive the whims of gods, which, when we refer to the scriptures, would be difficult to find agreeable. If it's the latter, then we obviously need no god since we can just refer directly to those good things.

Either way, the fact that we are able to agree or disagree shows that we have our definition of morality which is independent of god, therefore the lack of god won't cause it to collapse.

6) Are utopia's possible?
Depending on how you define it. If it's defined as a world where everyone is happy, then probably no. Some people do become happy on the suffering of others. Or well, maybe we can make a mind control device to forcibly turn everyone happy, but even if it agrees with the definition of utopia, it'll force the issue of free will and so on...

Probably impossible.

1) Besides the typical "life is what you make of it" line, I'll say, yes, everyone lives and dies. Just how good are you? Seeing how many religions award you for being a great person and gives you a better afterlife or a reincarnation.

2) 50/50 again, it depends on the mentality of the people.

3) Yes, but EVERYONE has to live with all beliefs. All religious people and non-religious people SHOULD live in harmony and SHOULD NOT enforce for others to believe or NOT to believe.

The purpose of every life form on the planet is to reproduce. Without reproduction, that species will face extinction. Simply put, the meaning of life is to reproduce.



No, morality is a lens that puts an action into perspective of good/bad. My entire philosophical and political morality stems from something I learned as a child. We all know it as "The Golden Rule". I don't need a god to tell me to treat others in such a way. I just recognize that it is beneficial for me to do so and expect likewise from others.



The problem with "Utopia" would be agreement upon what we mean. The term is vague.

Not to over simplify it, but one man's Utopia could be another man's Dystopia. If the population could be reduced to a single person, then I I could see that it would be possible, but then again would being completely alone be a part of the Utopia for the last man standing?

[color=#2e1a6b]No, there's no practical need that necessitates a God.



[color=#2e1a6b]Yes, but morality is just a word, and just like all words, it only holds the meaning assigned to it. In order for the word "morality" to have a meaningful affect upon the way we behave, the word must infer that an action is something we ought or ought not do. People give different meanings to the word, but many meanings fail to demonstrate that an action is something we ought not do.



[color=#2e1a6b]"value" is subjective, and "art" can (but not always) refer to a lot of different things. For me, art usually refers to old paintings and sculptures, to which I hold absolutely no value. If hentai, music, or anime is art, then my value of it is proportional to the happiness it provides me.



[color=#2e1a6b]For life to have meaning, there would have to be something apart from life. So, if "life" refers to an individual's life, it can have meaning because there's something apart from their life. If you're referring to life as a whole, then not really.



[color=#2e1a6b]It will lead to a collapse in morality that bases its meaning upon God's existence, But morality has other meanings that don't rely on God's existence.



[color=#2e1a6b]What Fiery-dono said.

I disagree with the reason why, but that's not the point. Unacceptable murder is a hypocritical standard. Justification for murder, despite being a taboo, exist in (almost) all cultures. Murder is as much a taboo as it is a given.



I would contribute this to the global belief of male superiority complex over females. That a female is a possession that belongs to a male who she marries. All the cultures (yet to find a reverse, female>male) you find that have that as a taboo, you'll see they treat females worse than males for such an offense. I would contribute this to men being able to over power women in physical strength. We still use the system of, "the strongest rules the weakest" after all. Ultimately, it's morally wrong for a possession to be used by someone else without the owners permission.



Before hand, I do not believe anything I state in my examples to account for the events from axeltrinity examples. It is a hypothetical. I in no way condone anything that happened in either event.

What if, religious belief told them it was right, that those people they killed were demons who were going to kill them. That they were manipulated by a third party that tricked them through numerous convincing acts and staged events of the evil the other side had? (No I don't consider Nazi Germany to be manipulated by my standards, based on individual accounts.) Or that the side that fought had been black mailed into killing, such as their homelands and families were being held hostage otherwise. Ignoring individual actions (since I don't want to break down every instance). The lack of morality in their choices vanishes.

(Honesty) What if, your daughter did something horrible, like killed, the younger, son's dog. Is it morally right to honestly tell the family what she had done, creating a hate/grudge from the son for the sister?
(Sincerity) Your spouse wants to feel pretty, but you feel the look they choose is ridiculous, would sincerely expressing that you find that they look horrid/disgusting in that outfit really be the best choice?
(Integrity) What if you made a plan for your army unit to go down 1/3 paths, believing you could get them out of the battle zone. But after 1/4 of the way you realize it's the most dangerous, but your integrity convinces you to keep going, to not doubt, and more lives are lost because of it.

(2)My point is, I don't believe there is ever a clearly definable, consistent under any scenario, example of morality. That Morality has to change and adapt for each event/person one encounters. Being blatantly truthful may be morally right for one person who seeks it but incredibly hurtful for another more sensitive person.

I believe Morality exist, but their is no consistent (absolute) of it. That it is imperfect, and destined to be for humans.

I, as well, don't believe in a separation of good and evil. I think they are both the same thing. Can't quite put it into words, "but that there are numerous factors to humans and clarifying it in only 2 standards is a grossly counterproductive attempt at overly simplifying and controlling human nature/behavior within confines of human hierarchy", I think sums it up (sorta) for me.

(1)I don't think it's so much as "God" is important as it's the existence of a devil (evil). A source of pain and suffering that can unite the masses together against. By having the devil, humans can accept the flaws of themselves and their surroundings by blaming it on an existential being outside of their control, further motivating a sense of futility in change. They can justify mistakes and flaws of themselves by believing that they or others were manipulated. God himself seems to represent a "possibility" of a near future hope to prevent a decent into hopelessness from the existence of such evil. That a better is near, and that as long as they believe and chase after the belief in they will be fine. This is when manipulation comes in (off topic though).

For an example, a majority of the publicly vocal atheist seek an enemy to unite under, religion. Countries seek other countries. Most of the world to America. democracy to communism. Democrats vs Republicans. God would be nothing without the devil (imo).

(3)"... as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book; who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods Image; but hee who destroyes a good Booke, kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the Earth; but a good Booke is the pretious life-blood of a master spirit, imbalm'd and treasur'd up on purpose to a life beyond life."

I apply this to all forums of creation.

I'll answer the other 3 in another post, this one is probably too long as it is.

1. No, there are many atheists alive and well today who make excellent contributions to society that refute this.

2. Yes, have you studied either Kantianism or Utilitarianism yet?



Good information, you should research more on these topics, there have already been many people in the world who have spent most of their lives studying morality, so it would be best not to simply toss the information and studies they've provided aside in exchange for subjective assumptions.



It's true that the moral beliefs of people can change over time, but in order to affirm your statement you must provide some form of evidence that we do not all share a similar set of moral beliefs starting at birth. Aside from children with disorders like autism, they all feel guilt when they lie. That implies that we are born with a base morality.

It's easier to understand this when you try look at morality through some scientific basis rather than through subjective assumption. Most organisms on our world innately show displeasure at killing members of their own species unless it is otherwise required by the organism to do so or because they need to affirm that they are able to reproduce or to assert dominance. Theoretically this points towards base or "innate" morality being governed by DNA rather than subjective thought. As humans we are all connected as one species, we all share some very similar sets of DNA, of programs if you will, maybe some of these some programs tell us that causing other members of our species harm is wrong, or rather, detrimental to the continued growth of the species in general and that committing certain acts breeds what can only be seen as imperfection.



Just because a culture follows a certain belief or enforces certain acts does not mean the individual thinks it's morally right to go along with them, they may only be doing so for their own survival. Information like this doesn't refute innate morality, only that it is subject to change through experience.

3. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, to one individual a piece of art may be worthless, to another it may be the catalyst that inspires them to become something more. Art is both priceless and worthless at the same time.

1) Necessary is a funny way of putting it. There are both benifits and downfalls of religion. They have been huge cultural and historical forces and our society as is would likely not exist if there was never any belief in gods. So, in that sense, gods have been nessasary in making society what it is today. I think what you mean though, is whether belief in god is nessasary for people to live happily? If so my answer is again yes but it is conditional because of the relative nature of human experience. Religious thought can be very uplifting for many people. It can bring a sense of community and belonging as well as give people comfort and purpose in their lives. For many of these people, life without religion was lacking so, therefore, belief in a god has been benificial for them. For some it even helped them recover from life on the streets or say suicide. As such, it can be necessary. At the same time, many people can live their lives contently without believing in a god. So far I am one of these people although I must admit I am not the happiest of humans but I doubt belief in a god could help me become happier. So there is no objective yes or no answer to this question because it truly is something that is relative to the individual. If we try to apply a yes or no answer to all of humanity we just become intolerant of difference.

2) Given my answer to one you can probably guess my answer to this one.. Yes. Morality is a concept we use to understand the basic principles people use to guide their “right thing to do wrong thing to do” decision making. The way in which the individual’s moral framework is created is again related to her or his experiences throughout life. However, a large part of this framework is a product of the society surrounding the individual because it is through life in this society that he or she conceives of morality. Media, institutions such as school, law, parents, literature, religion: all of these things are superimposed on individuals, influencing and even creating their moralities as well as many other things within their personalities. As such, this framework is not something static from birth but, rather, something that is perpetually developing and revising itself as we go through life. How then to view amorality given this? As a moral system in itself of course. A personal realization that morality is a creation of human existence and that it is totally arbitrary. The individual thus seek to do whatever they want with their lives without considering what is right according to morals or societal expectations. I’ve had this realization but I still find it impossible to abandon my own moral establishment of good and bad because they are a part of my personality. I was doing this morality quiz and apparently my morals are inconsistent and unstable. It was the fatman one. But the test kind of offended me because it didn’t take into account the complex nature of my morals and the situations it presented to them. Anywho.

3) Art has economic, spiritual, intellectual, social, and entertainment value. It can be a form of expression, interaction and simply reception. It depends on the context. For me it is pretty much how I pass the days. A world without art is unimaginable for me. Even if there was no manifested art a day dream or something is kind of like proto-art so imagine even an absence of that. Of all creativity of the mind. I cant. Art is life for me as cheezy as that sounds. If I didn’t have it I would spend my days staring at blank walls because Id have no reason to do anything else. Sure, there is the social and economic aspects of life I suppose but they have never been for me really. Beyond my close family and the internet I could care less to socialize. Especially since, without creativity, Id have nothing to socialize about. And Im contented economically so long as I can be self sufficient which is easy enough when youre alone most of your life.

As someone else said, morality is just a word, and there are no rules set in stone declaring what is and isn't moral.

To imply it's being "bastardized" is silly and immoral.(see what I did there?)

So it is implied that saying "my morality is right and not yours" is forcing YOUR morality on others?