Moral Sense
Moral Sense
0
Soo what you guys think, is it a good thing to have moral sense or not? For example angels have no moral sense that means that what ever they do can not be classified as bad or good, that goes for killing or saving lives.
Edit: It's the knowledge of right and wrong, moral sense. It's what make as say that killing and stealing is bad it's something we have that make as human. Do you think is a good thing to have and why?
ps: please don't make this religious.
Edit: It's the knowledge of right and wrong, moral sense. It's what make as say that killing and stealing is bad it's something we have that make as human. Do you think is a good thing to have and why?
ps: please don't make this religious.
0
Sorry to say this man, but if you wanna make an SD thread you could at least write a bit more than three sentences.
0
pspkiller626 wrote...
Sorry to say this man, but if you wanna make an SD thread you could at least write a bit more than three sentences. I re-edited , sorry
1
I answered for better. But IMO I think that it's both. The yin and yang, the be-all and end-all. Whatever decision made alters the eventual outcome, either for better or worse.
I hope this helps ^_^
Spoiler:
I hope this helps ^_^
-1
...I...still don't like your terminology. When you say 'moral sense' you seem to refer to some sort of innate 'recognition of right and wrong'. I don't think that exists, and to be honest, I think it would be bad to have.
I'll sum up my position about such a thing by quoting Richard Dawkins, who isn't usually good wat philosophy, but he can say some brilliant things sometimes.
"The question is why would I not desire that our morals come from one single solitary source that we can clearly understand. I don't want that. I think morals would be better if we determined them by having 20 people in a room, and all of them having different ideas on morality, and we argue. We argue until we come to an agreement. The best agreement we come to is a better way to come about morals than one fixed source."
I'll sum up my position about such a thing by quoting Richard Dawkins, who isn't usually good wat philosophy, but he can say some brilliant things sometimes.
"The question is why would I not desire that our morals come from one single solitary source that we can clearly understand. I don't want that. I think morals would be better if we determined them by having 20 people in a room, and all of them having different ideas on morality, and we argue. We argue until we come to an agreement. The best agreement we come to is a better way to come about morals than one fixed source."
0
To put it simply:
SENSE and SENSIBILITY.
Being moral and immoral.
Right and wrong.
Same shit different bucket.
But I agree that one person cannot simply decide for all in the universe what is moral and what is immoral. That is what causes conflict. But WW3 would break out if we put it to a global vote also. Laws are in place because it is simply by societal norms that we follow what makes the place a better environment for everyone. Take away those laws and we have chaos. Laws are based on common sense, and good moral is like having the courage to follow that general rule using common sense as a guide.
SENSE and SENSIBILITY.
Being moral and immoral.
Right and wrong.
Same shit different bucket.
But I agree that one person cannot simply decide for all in the universe what is moral and what is immoral. That is what causes conflict. But WW3 would break out if we put it to a global vote also. Laws are in place because it is simply by societal norms that we follow what makes the place a better environment for everyone. Take away those laws and we have chaos. Laws are based on common sense, and good moral is like having the courage to follow that general rule using common sense as a guide.
0
BigLundi wrote...
...I...still don't like your terminology. When you say 'moral sense' you seem to refer to some sort of innate 'recognition of right and wrong'. I don't think that exists, and to be honest, I think it would be bad to have.I'll sum up my position about such a thing by quoting Richard Dawkins, who isn't usually good wat philosophy, but he can say some brilliant things sometimes.
"The question is why would I not desire that our morals come from one single solitary source that we can clearly understand. I don't want that. I think morals would be better if we determined them by having 20 people in a room, and all of them having different ideas on morality, and we argue. We argue until we come to an agreement. The best agreement we come to is a better way to come about morals than one fixed source."
Don't you think we would be happier if we couldn't sin though? If we didn't have moral sense then we couldn't do bad.... but on the other hand i can't imagine a world like that ;P Thank you for your time.
0
Yes, it is appropriate to have a moral sense.
Don't need a special reason, except I just don't wanna live as a barbaric, primitive being. ( I think I am highly too advanced for such misbehavior )
Don't need a special reason, except I just don't wanna live as a barbaric, primitive being. ( I think I am highly too advanced for such misbehavior )
0
i think having a moral sense is different from acting on said moral sense. my understanding of it would be that a person with moral sense will always know if something is the good/moral thing to do or if it is the bad/immoral thing to do. However, someone with moral sense can know that they are behaving immorally, but go along with their actions anyway
but we should also remember that things aren't simply moral or immoral. a lot of things fall into the in-between, gray area. and also, people will disagree on what should be considered moral or immoral.
but we should also remember that things aren't simply moral or immoral. a lot of things fall into the in-between, gray area. and also, people will disagree on what should be considered moral or immoral.
0
MetalAnimer wrote...
Don't you think we would be happier if we couldn't sin though?
Wouldn't that entail a lack of free will on the subject?
If we didn't have moral sense then we couldn't do bad.... but on the other hand i can't imagine a world like that ;P Thank you for your time.
I would think even without a moral sense we could do bad. We just wouldn't readily 'recognize' the bad things as bad.
0
MetalAnimer wrote...
angels MetalAnimer wrote...
please don't make this religious. Possessing moral sense is only good in the eyes of those who possess moral sense. It's a circular construct.
0
Gravity cat
the adequately amused
MetalAnimer wrote...
Don't you think we would be happier if we couldn't sin though?No. That'll be a lack of free will, and we'd all essentially be nothing but drones to a hive, all obeying what one higher power tells us to.
Had you said didn't sin, I still don't think we'd be happy. We'd be alot emptier in ourselves and claim to be happy, but really would just want to break away from the monotony of a "sinless" life, because we've not made the necessary mistakes it takes to be a healthy adult.
0
Honestly, moral sense is a complicated subject that I would like to avoid delving too deep. What's so complicated about it is that two people may not have the exact same moral sense. Here, we find it wrong to harm your spouse, but in the middle east, it's moral to beat and/or rape their wife if she doesn't obey.
Good and bad may seem like a universal thing, that it's obvious what is good and bad, but really, it's only in the eyes of he who looks onto the act. Really, we develop our morals as we're growing up, when we're children, and we mostly set up our principles off of examples of our parents, or sometimes, role models that we look up to more so than our parents. Thus, our views may never be the same, as across seas, you may see a 180 of our society somewhere.
Really, there is no right or wrong. Right is what a society agreed with, a wrong is what a majority of it didn't like. Another implication of this would be if everyone did what we consider "good", then no one would be doing good. They would just be "doing", going about their normal lives. Without "good", there is no "bad".
And son of a bitch, I just delved deep in the subject.
Good and bad may seem like a universal thing, that it's obvious what is good and bad, but really, it's only in the eyes of he who looks onto the act. Really, we develop our morals as we're growing up, when we're children, and we mostly set up our principles off of examples of our parents, or sometimes, role models that we look up to more so than our parents. Thus, our views may never be the same, as across seas, you may see a 180 of our society somewhere.
Really, there is no right or wrong. Right is what a society agreed with, a wrong is what a majority of it didn't like. Another implication of this would be if everyone did what we consider "good", then no one would be doing good. They would just be "doing", going about their normal lives. Without "good", there is no "bad".
And son of a bitch, I just delved deep in the subject.
0
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so....So there is such a thing as right and wrong, so long as...things are thinking.
I understand the basic premise, that in a universe with no minds, there is no right and wrong...but we live in a universe with minds...so clearly there's a right and wrong. Yes?
0
BigLundi wrote...
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
There is no such thing as right or wrong, only thinking makes it so....So there is such a thing as right and wrong, so long as...things are thinking.
I understand the basic premise, that in a universe with no minds, there is no right and wrong...but we live in a universe with minds...so clearly there's a right and wrong. Yes?
It's like time, or value. these concepts have no meaning out side of the mind, and they can be different from one mind to the next.
0
Mr.Shaggnificent wrote...
It's like time, or value. these concepts have no meaning out side of the mind, and they can be different from one mind to the next.
Thought experiment time.
Let's say we're all robots. We don't have minds. We just have our programming. We don't contemplate the intricacies of moral actions and duties and values and all that, we simply do as programmed(we'll say all programmers are now dead, just to simplify things.)
Are you saying no time passes? Are you saying that the objective insertion of numbers into X(which would be a value) in our programming wouldn't really be there?
Sure, morals can differ from person to person, but that doesn't undermine the objectivity involved in what is right and what is wrong.
Something we can clearly see within people is the desire to flourish. Becoming better, healthier, happier, ore satisfied, these things are a universal desire of people. Can we not OBJECTIVELY determine the best ways to go about achieving these goals? Subjective though the goals may be?
If, say, I value human life. Would it not be objectively true, given that value, that running over random people with my car would be bad?
