Inquiry

Well, I've been lurking on the forums for a while looking at various topics within various sections and thought of this.

If there were no type of moral institutions within the basics of human society, would we as a species every come to the point of, I guess Tranquil(To the current extend)existence?

I personally think that given time we'd have come somewhat close to such an existence, given that it promotes welfare for the mass, in a sense.

Off Topic: Pretty half-assed, I know. But, I'm interested seeing what others think. I also have other theories about this, but one is the most prominent thought at this time.

So long as two people disagree there will never be tranquility. I'm not sure if its possible for the imperfect human to achieve a perfect existence, we're just too flawed. if a community of like-minded people were able to isolate themselves and become completely independent from resources and commodities constantly fought over, that would be the ideal existence for us.

I can agree with that, would indifference beat common need? Sure you can say there would be disputes, but survival is basic instinct.

I will answer your question with a speech.

As long as we lust for one that belongs to another...
And we have excess and are not willing to share with those who have to do without on a daily basis...
As long as we desire to reach the top and forget the ones that helped us to get there...
And we see people in need and not lift one finger to help them...
As long as we shut our eyes to the world, not seeing the joys it has to offer...
And we draw weapons at each other instead of try to understand each other's differences...
As long as we try to obsessively try to gain attention, rather than let it come to us...
Tranquility will be the lone flower...
Rotting in the battlefield that is the Human Emotion.

What would the lack of moral institutions have to do with reaching tranquility? Are you implying that morality somehow holds people back?

@ Tyranosaurus, interesting way to put it.
@K-1 I wouldn't say they're only variable that promote civility, but I do think they're a big factor. Guess I should have put more time into wording the question. I only used tranquil as state of coexisting with one another without a major lack of civility, for lack of a better word at the time.

Morals exist because man is a social animal. That is, morals let men function together without backstabbing each other on the slightest opportunity.

Would mankind still exist without morals? Probably not. At least, not as we know mankind. A certain amount of cooperation is needed when you're facing a goddamn sabre tooth tiger. We're simply not equipped to survive on our own.

If we had no morals there would be no reason to disagree with what someone else does, there would be less reasons to start hating people and loathing other country's because they differ to our cultural morals/values.

Without morals, we would have no reason to agree at all. We would have no problem with killing one another to get what we want; greed is more of a natural state than morality.

Look at reality TV - they basically take a group of people, throw them together, and say that they shouldn't worry about morality. What happens? They fight all the time, have sex with each other (in turn causing more fights), and don't accomplish anything.

From a purely evolutionary stand point, i can see morals as a drawback. we have nearly eliminated the process of natural selection(survival of the fittest). it allows unfit geneticly inferior specimens that would otherwise have been eleminated, to procreate, thus contaminating the gene pool.

But isn't morality something gained through evolution? Like emotions, humanity gained morality to help sustain a community, similar to what fatman said.

following fatmans exaple about the tiger, there are many animals that work together for a common cause, but would just as soon turn on each other. while morals do have a basis in evolution, they aren't a direct product of it in my opinion. if it were, i think we would see some of the higher animals less likely to abandon or kill sick or defective members of their own species.

If somehow every tradition on earth held by the human race were to disappear, maybe.

I don't think that could happen, cause moral to me is the evolved form of social behaviour in animals.

Tranquiltiy is impossible without removing the "human" component from the question. We as a species are genetically inclined to fight. The closest we could come would be many years down the line, when the differences of race become blurred/erased by continuing rates of intermarriage, and people come to a peaceful state of coexistance.

Of course, well still have the end all, be all motivator of wealth and power to bring us to each others throats again.

On a side note, people seem so keen to ignore the fact that we as humans are just as much animals as the rest of the species on Earth. For all our sentience, intelligence and civilization, were still exhibit the exact same tedencies as every other species, if anything, more extremely.

morals suck big time dudes. they are a main reason for conflict i agree with this one statement. and actually no. we wouldnt just start hurting eachother. that is unnatural no animal does harm to another without a reason. and since we will be able to reason even easier if we didnt have morals to disagree upon then wouldnt we just work something out? i think so.

"Only the desires to achieve happiness and to avoid misery are both genuinely universal among human agents and practically effective in guiding their conduct, Locke argued, so it is only the natural tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain that might reasonably be held to be innate."
-John Locke in his essay on Morality

reality tv isnt real btw its only broadcasted because its our favorite kind of entertainment- a human zoo. no one gives a shit about real life. we all live it we all know it.

I'd have to agree, Reality TV isn't really a good example of real world mechanics. Just entertainment I think personal.
And never thought to think about it from an evolutionary stand point. Would you say that we artificially selected characteristics that would promote morality? Or is that pushing it?