The Moral, the Immoral, and the Amoral
0
Today I want to discuss the topic of morality. I really started to think about morality after reading some of the quotes and literature of H. L. Mencken, perhaps best know for his famous quote, "The common man is a fool". In today's world, it is pretty safe to presume, the common man have some form of morals. However, to ever rule there are exceptions, in which case they would be the immoral and the amoral.
Before I continue, I would like to clear up some of you all's idea of being immoral and being amoral. A man that is amoral has no morals whatsoever, in other words he is neutral of the whole moral system so to speak. Being immoral, on the other hand, means you took a step further and directly oppose and, in extreme cases, eliminate morals completely. As you probably could have guessed, of the two, immoral and amoral, a lot more people are amoral than immoral.
So why did I brother to mention these type of people? The answer is rather simple, it is because I want to help you all better understand immorality and amorality, and also show why the morality system is just ludicrous.
Let's look at the definition of moral. Based on my understanding of moral, and definitions of moral from multiple dictionaries, moral is s code of proper behavior that is accepted and/or define by a group. In other words, moral is designed by a group of people based on what they find to be acceptable behavior. If you haven't figured out what that really means let me spell it out for, moral is a tool to manipulate behavior.
Some you might say that my idea of moral isn't correct because you follow your "own" moral but ask yourself this, did you really came up with your moral without thinking of other already establish moral codes? With that in mind, I say that less than 1% of the human population actually follow their own morals, if there is any which I doubt.
Now lets go a bit deeper in morality. Here in the United States, it is consider immoral, in most states, for an adult to have any sexual relationships with a child. However,in other parts of the world pedophilia is consider a good thing. During the Early Modern Period, being involve in magic, witches, and sorcery in anyway was consider to be a crime against God, but now of days it is being glorify in movies like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Well what I basically trying to say is morality is a ho ( whore ). One minute it is moral to abc then the next minute doing abc piss off God or abc is lame or something along those lines.
Very few realized what morality really is, while others didn't even accept it from the get go. Those who do usually just ignore morals completely while others seek to eradicate it.
The way I see it, morality is like the sugar that you get from a coffee shop and life is your coffee. You take a sip of your coffee and find it to be the most bitter thing you ever tasted. So you decided to put some sugar in your coffee and took another sip and this it isn't so bitter. You then put some more sugar and now the coffee is sweet. You then added cream and now the coffee is creamy. You added honey and now the coffee is even more sweet and starts to change colors. You keep adding more and more things in the coffee until it becomes the single most delicious drink you have tasted, forgetting it's natural bitter taste.
My question to you Fakku, should we really give a damn about morals?
Before I continue, I would like to clear up some of you all's idea of being immoral and being amoral. A man that is amoral has no morals whatsoever, in other words he is neutral of the whole moral system so to speak. Being immoral, on the other hand, means you took a step further and directly oppose and, in extreme cases, eliminate morals completely. As you probably could have guessed, of the two, immoral and amoral, a lot more people are amoral than immoral.
So why did I brother to mention these type of people? The answer is rather simple, it is because I want to help you all better understand immorality and amorality, and also show why the morality system is just ludicrous.
Let's look at the definition of moral. Based on my understanding of moral, and definitions of moral from multiple dictionaries, moral is s code of proper behavior that is accepted and/or define by a group. In other words, moral is designed by a group of people based on what they find to be acceptable behavior. If you haven't figured out what that really means let me spell it out for, moral is a tool to manipulate behavior.
Some you might say that my idea of moral isn't correct because you follow your "own" moral but ask yourself this, did you really came up with your moral without thinking of other already establish moral codes? With that in mind, I say that less than 1% of the human population actually follow their own morals, if there is any which I doubt.
Now lets go a bit deeper in morality. Here in the United States, it is consider immoral, in most states, for an adult to have any sexual relationships with a child. However,in other parts of the world pedophilia is consider a good thing. During the Early Modern Period, being involve in magic, witches, and sorcery in anyway was consider to be a crime against God, but now of days it is being glorify in movies like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Well what I basically trying to say is morality is a ho ( whore ). One minute it is moral to abc then the next minute doing abc piss off God or abc is lame or something along those lines.
Very few realized what morality really is, while others didn't even accept it from the get go. Those who do usually just ignore morals completely while others seek to eradicate it.
The way I see it, morality is like the sugar that you get from a coffee shop and life is your coffee. You take a sip of your coffee and find it to be the most bitter thing you ever tasted. So you decided to put some sugar in your coffee and took another sip and this it isn't so bitter. You then put some more sugar and now the coffee is sweet. You then added cream and now the coffee is creamy. You added honey and now the coffee is even more sweet and starts to change colors. You keep adding more and more things in the coffee until it becomes the single most delicious drink you have tasted, forgetting it's natural bitter taste.
My question to you Fakku, should we really give a damn about morals?
0
In my experience, people who claim they are amoral are immoral but are just making excuses for themselves.
This is not to say amoral does not exist. What it does mean is a person can never declare himself amoral without being an asshole first.
Anyway, to the point of the thread:
What you're trying to say is that morality is subjective. That's fine. Many people believe that.
Fuck yes.
Morals exist because man is a social animal. We don't simply grab another's guy's belongings and bash his head in because he annoyed us. Morals, at its core, is a system that allows us to coexit and work together. Even strict pragmatism/enlightened self-interest/objectivism is a morality of some sort.
Morality may be subjective and people may disagree, but NO MORALITY WHATSOEVER would end up with the human race dead and likely earth blown to smithereens.
I can't drink coffee black and without sugar. And I have no problems with other people who can't, either.
This is not to say amoral does not exist. What it does mean is a person can never declare himself amoral without being an asshole first.
Anyway, to the point of the thread:
Well what I basically trying to say is morality is a ho ( whore ). One minute it is moral to abc then the next minute doing abc piss off God or abc is lame or something along those lines.
What you're trying to say is that morality is subjective. That's fine. Many people believe that.
My question to you Fakku, should we really give a damn about morals?
Fuck yes.
Morals exist because man is a social animal. We don't simply grab another's guy's belongings and bash his head in because he annoyed us. Morals, at its core, is a system that allows us to coexit and work together. Even strict pragmatism/enlightened self-interest/objectivism is a morality of some sort.
Morality may be subjective and people may disagree, but NO MORALITY WHATSOEVER would end up with the human race dead and likely earth blown to smithereens.
The way I see it, morality is like the sugar that you get from a coffee shop and life is your coffee. You take a sip of your coffee and find it to be the most bitter thing you ever tasted. So you decided to put some sugar in your coffee and took another sip and this it isn't so bitter. You then put some more sugar and now the coffee is sweet. You then added cream and now the coffee is creamy. You added honey and now the coffee is even more sweet and starts to change colors. You keep adding more and more things in the coffee until it becomes the single most delicious drink you have tasted, forgetting it's natural bitter taste.
I can't drink coffee black and without sugar. And I have no problems with other people who can't, either.
0
say what! wrote...
What do you think a lack of morals will lead to?A world without morals would to one of two things
!) Complete utterly chaos, however I don't really see that as a bad thing really.
2) A world where humans finally start to think for themselves instead following some damn code another man gave them.
I consider myself amoral and a bit immoral, meaning I do things because either I want to do them or I do them due it to benefit me. I don't why people think that we need morals for society to function. If you thinking like that then you have mind capacity of a slave. I just wish people actually start to think about this kind of stuff, but atlas I know what I want to achieve can't be done without extreme measures, but I hoped that just maybe just maybe I could help you all to think more logically and come into the light. Maybe I am a fool to think so.
0
Freaky Green wrote...
I say that less than 1% of the human population actually follow their own morals, if there is any which I doubt.
Total bullshit , you have absolutly no idea what the real % is , you base your opinion on a 100 of people that you know when there is billions of people on earth , your oppinion here is absolutly irrelevent .
Here in the United States, it is consider immoral, in most states, for an adult to have any sexual relationships with a child. However, in Canada, and various other countries, child marriage is actually legal.
Can you just shut the fuck up and stop insulting my contry ?
Get your shit right ok , an adult do not have the legal right to marry a child , it is pedophelia . Like in most states of the US the legal age to get married is 16 . What is legal , that you probably read on wiki , is a child to marry another child if the girl is pregnant and have the court's approval which is in the law for only one reason : religion . Religion says you have to be married to have sex so if the girl isn't married and is pregnant she have to get married to not go to hell . And even though , we aren't fundamentalists here , religion is not something really important in canada compared to the US (i'm surprised this law does not exist in the US in fact ). And I really don't think the court's have to pass a judgement on this matter often if it has to at all .
0
lordisgaea4 wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
I say that less than 1% of the human population actually follow their own morals, if there is any which I doubt.
Total bullshit , you have absolutly no idea what the real % is , you base your opinion on a 100 of people that you know when there is billions of people on earth , your oppinion here is absolutly irrelevent .
Here in the United States, it is consider immoral, in most states, for an adult to have any sexual relationships with a child. However, in Canada, and various other countries, child marriage is actually legal.
Can you just shut the fuck up and stop insulting my contry ?
Get your shit right ok , an adult do not have the legal right to marry a child , it is pedophelia . Like in most states of the US the legal age to get married is 16 . What is legal , that you probably read on wiki , is a child to marry another child if the girl is pregnant and have the court's approval which is in the law for only one reason : religion . Religion says you have to be married to have sex so if the girl isn't married and is pregnant she have to get married to not go to hell . And even though , we aren't fundamentalists here , religion is not something really important in canada compared to the US (i'm surprised this law does not exist in the US in fact ). And I really don't think the court's have to pass a judgement on this matter often if it has to at all .
Oh I am so sorry to insult "your" country, they doing a pretty good job themselves, but if it bothers you that much I will edit it okay? I really don't see how can that make my whole thread incorrect. Another thing about the 1% being total bullshit, you must be pretty damn ignorant to say such a statement. Shall we look at some of the factors? About only 15% of the human population have proclaim to no religion, give or take a few percents. The rest of the human population proclaim to be associated with some form of religion, which eliminates most of them from the group of people that creates their own morals, with a few exceptions of religions that aren't really religions. Then you have to consider the teachings your parents gave of "right" and "wrong". You also have to look at the requirements in order for someone to create their own morals from the ground up, which includes having great knowledge and the ability to reject any morals other than their own. After you calculate all of that you would get a rather small population if any. But I am pretty sure you would find some way to say that this complete bullshit.
0
Freaky Green wrote...
they doing a pretty good job themselves Hahaha says the guy who live in the US ... Whatever man , you just prove my point that you have great missconception abouth the world that you take for truth but are in fact nothing more than your opinion .
But I am pretty sure you would find some way to say that this complete bullshit.
But it is still bullshit .
You have a narrow vision of the humanity , you judge them and from it you give nothing more than an opinion which IS irrelevant .
How can you know that religious people cant have their own morals ? I mean most religious people don't follow everything from their books , they chose what to believe in .
But your real problem is there , since they chose from pre-existing morals , it is not their "own" morals right ? Then if that's what you're saying it's not 1% that have their own morals but 0% since no one can think totaly freely . This is the free will arguement that since we are all and always influenced by our environement we are nothing more than the profuct of it . If no one can think freely then no one can have their "own" morals .
0
lordisgaea4 wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
lordisgaea4 wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
I say that less than 1% of the human population actually follow their own morals, if there is any which I doubt.
Total bullshit , you have absolutly no idea what the real % is , you base your opinion on a 100 of people that you know when there is billions of people on earth , your oppinion here is absolutly irrelevent .
Here in the United States, it is consider immoral, in most states, for an adult to have any sexual relationships with a child. However, in Canada, and various other countries, child marriage is actually legal.
Can you just shut the fuck up and stop insulting my contry ?
Get your shit right ok , an adult do not have the legal right to marry a child , it is pedophelia . Like in most states of the US the legal age to get married is 16 . What is legal , that you probably read on wiki , is a child to marry another child if the girl is pregnant and have the court's approval which is in the law for only one reason : religion . Religion says you have to be married to have sex so if the girl isn't married and is pregnant she have to get married to not go to hell . And even though , we aren't fundamentalists here , religion is not something really important in canada compared to the US (i'm surprised this law does not exist in the US in fact ). And I really don't think the court's have to pass a judgement on this matter often if it has to at all .
Oh I am so sorry to insult "your" country, they doing a pretty good job themselves, but if it bothers you that much I will edit it okay? I really don't see how can that make my whole thread incorrect. Another thing about the 1% being total bullshit, you must be pretty damn ignorant to say such a statement. Shall we look at some of the factors? About only 15% of the human population have proclaim to no religion, give or take a few percents. The rest of the human population proclaim to be associated with some form of religion, which eliminates most of them from the group of people that creates their own morals, with a few exceptions of religions that aren't really religions. Then you have to consider the teachings your parents gave of "right" and "wrong". You also have to look at the requirements in order for someone to create their own morals from the ground up, which includes having great knowledge and the ability to reject any morals other than their own. After you calculate all of that you would get a rather small population if any. But I am pretty sure you would find some way to say that this complete bullshit.
But it is still bullshit .
You have a narrow vision of the humanity , you judge them and from it you give nothing more than an opinion which IS irrelevant .
How can you know that religious people cant have their own moral ? I mean most religious people don't follow everything from their book , they chose what to believe in .
But your real problem is there , since they chose from preexisting morals , it is not their "own" morals right ? Then if that's what you're saying it's not 1% that have their own morals but 0% since no one can think totaly freely . This is the free will arguement that since we are all and always influenced by our environement we are nothing more than the profuct of it .
Ok first of all, I am not giving an opinion I am giving out judgement, since it is based on some truth and can be tested out to certain extent. Also, you just my point that creating your own morals is next to impossible. The problem with you is that you are looking at the leaves when you should be trying to look at the roots. The other problem with you is that you seem like you not even trying to free-think and just accepting things as they are. It is kind of disturbing.
0
Freaky Green wrote...
say what! wrote...
What do you think a lack of morals will lead to?A world without morals would to one of two things
!) Complete utterly chaos, however I don't really see that as a bad thing really.
2) A world where humans finally start to think for themselves instead following some damn code another man gave them.
Wrong.
Having no "set" morals in a place will become one of the worst places to live in. Everyone will have different morals and go with the "but I believe it's a good thing!" as an excuse.
Let's make a town without morals.
Let's say in this town, there are 100 people. 85 who follow pretty much the same morals and 10 who believe in a few different/opposite things and 5 who believe in extremes.
97 of them believe that murder is wrong, unless it is "rather fair" such as execution for a serial killer. However, two believe in imprisonment for life and ONE believes that he can kill anyone he deems fit, from "getting threatened by another person" to "he annoyed me" as a "reason" to why he would kill. That alone would already set off alarms to everyone else in the area. His moral in murder is twisted and has no place in any civilized area.
Besides, if there were no "set of morals", then everyone would be making up morals that would best help them out. Even if they conflict with the majority, they would use it as excuses. Everyone is out for themselves and truly ONLY WANT what is best for them in these kinds of situations or for their family only. Not for anyone else.
0
Freaky Green wrote...
say what! wrote...
What do you think a lack of morals will lead to?A world without morals would to one of two things
!) Complete utterly chaos, however I don't really see that as a bad thing really.
2) A world where humans finally start to think for themselves instead following some damn code another man gave them.
I consider myself amoral and a bit immoral, meaning I do things because either I want to do them or I do them due it to benefit me. I don't why people think that we need morals for society to function. If you thinking like that then you have mind capacity of a slave. I just wish people actually start to think about this kind of stuff, but atlas I know what I want to achieve can't be done without extreme measures, but I hoped that just maybe just maybe I could help you all to think more logically and come into the light. Maybe I am a fool to think so.
Humans are the most chaotic and destructive living creatures on earth and you think a lack of morals allows them to start thinking for themselves? The only thing keeping humans in line and preventing the worst outcome, which is always depicted in novels like "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy are morals. If you truly think utter chaos is not a bad thing then take a trip to Somalia and tell me how wonderful an unorganized society filled with chaos is.
definitions:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
0
Freaky Green wrote...
[/spoil]
Are you talking to yourself or you are trying to actualy have a discussion here ?
Ok first of all, I am not giving an opinion I am giving out judgement, since it is based on some truth and can be tested out to certain extent
I'm not eating a sandwitch , i'm eating bread with meat in it . Seriously , wtf ?
Also, you just my point that creating your own morals is next to impossible.
I supose you meant , "you just proved" ? No i didn't proved you right . I claim that there is two choices : else IT IS IMPOSSIBLE (there's a fucking big difference between almost nothing and absolutly nothing ) or that 1% is ridiculously too low . That depends if you consider that you have free will or not .
The problem with you is that you are looking at the leaves when you should be trying to look at the roots.
Dude , if you're gonna write shit like that at least explain what you mean .
The other problem with you is that you seem like you not even trying to free-think and just accepting things as they are.
In a discussion you don't attack the person , you attack the ideas . When you think something like that explain why and abouth which idea .
0
The Randomness wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
say what! wrote...
What do you think a lack of morals will lead to?A world without morals would to one of two things
!) Complete utterly chaos, however I don't really see that as a bad thing really.
2) A world where humans finally start to think for themselves instead following some damn code another man gave them.
Wrong.
Having no "set" morals in a place will become one of the worst places to live in. Everyone will have different morals and go with the "but I believe it's a good thing!" as an excuse.
Let's make a town without morals.
Let's say in this town, there are 100 people. 85 who follow pretty much the same morals and 10 who believe in a few different/opposite things and 5 who believe in extremes.
97 of them believe that murder is wrong, unless it is "rather fair" such as execution for a serial killer. However, two believe in imprisonment for life and ONE believes that he can kill anyone he deems fit, from "getting threatened by another person" to "he annoyed me" as a "reason" to why he would kill. That alone would already set off alarms to everyone else in the area. His moral in murder is twisted and has no place in any civilized area.
Besides, if there were no "set of morals", then everyone would be making up morals that would best help them out. Even if they conflict with the majority, they would use it as excuses. Everyone is out for themselves and truly ONLY WANT what is best for them in these kinds of situations or for their family only. Not for anyone else.
I don't think you quite understand in what I am suggesting. People should be able to freely think, adapt to their situations, and see things as they are. However, I fear that moral is halting this, and let me explain how. You say that killing is wrong, but let say you are in a situation where killing another man would prove beneficial to you and there was no way for you to get caught. However, you didn't kill him and your life is now shit and the thing that prevent you from doing so was your morals. Due to your morals you fail to take advantage of the situation.
Well I am basically trying to say is, you should letting your morals telling you what to do and think for yourself, because morals are not really there for your benefit.
0
I have to agree with the OP, and the Jerry Sandusky case is the main reason that has got me to think this way. Penn State was *considering* reporting Sandusky to PA state authorities, but instead Paterno opted for a more "humane" solution. Could anyone call Paterno's decision immoral? Rather, the morality of the decision is something Kenshin Himura would do, and it shows the flaws of pacifism. Some people will never change, and those people you really can't trust with a pacifistic, humane viewpoint. But it doesn't necessarily make the "give a second chance" adage evil, flawed perhaps, but not evil.
And yet, for his humanism in this case no matter how flawed, what has become of Paterno's legacy? Destroyed, utterly destroyed and it's made me realize: Virtue is nonexistent, as is morals. What we claim to be morality today, may not be so tomorrow. We Humans are no different from the animal kingdom, and it's our insistence on trying to be otherwise that harms us. Our fear of devolving into the animal, makes us devolve into a beast.
The current system we have, is actually the one producing the serial killers, the rapists. Because it's in this system of absolutes, and human judgment, that people who are deemed "wacked out of it", are isolated and through that isolation fall deeper into the realms of insanity.
And yet, for his humanism in this case no matter how flawed, what has become of Paterno's legacy? Destroyed, utterly destroyed and it's made me realize: Virtue is nonexistent, as is morals. What we claim to be morality today, may not be so tomorrow. We Humans are no different from the animal kingdom, and it's our insistence on trying to be otherwise that harms us. Our fear of devolving into the animal, makes us devolve into a beast.
The current system we have, is actually the one producing the serial killers, the rapists. Because it's in this system of absolutes, and human judgment, that people who are deemed "wacked out of it", are isolated and through that isolation fall deeper into the realms of insanity.
0
lordisgaea4 wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
[/spoil]
Are you talking to yourself or you are trying to actualy have a discussion here ?
Ok first of all, I am not giving an opinion I am giving out judgement, since it is based on some truth and can be tested out to certain extent
I'm not eating a sandwitch , i'm eating bread with meat in it . Seriously , wtf ?
Also, you just my point that creating your own morals is next to impossible.
I supose you meant , "you just proved" ? No i didn't proved you right . I claim that there is two choices : else IT IS IMPOSSIBLE (there's a fucking big difference between almost nothing and absolutly nothing ) or that 1% is ridiculously too low . That depends if you consider that you have free will or not .
The problem with you is that you are looking at the leaves when you should be trying to look at the roots.
Dude , if you're gonna write shit like that at least explain what you mean .
The other problem with you is that you seem like you not even trying to free-think and just accepting things as they are.
In a discussion you don't attack the person , you attack the ideas . When you think something like that explain why and abouth which idea .
Okay I just gonna point out that most people have limited free will due to the lack of free-thinking so it doesn't change anything too much. When i say the whole thing about the roots and leaves I was referring to people saying they have their own morals but at the base they all the same, and I mention this to disprove the whole idea of having your own morals. I apologize if I have offended you in any way.
0
say what! wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
say what! wrote...
What do you think a lack of morals will lead to?A world without morals would to one of two things
!) Complete utterly chaos, however I don't really see that as a bad thing really.
2) A world where humans finally start to think for themselves instead following some damn code another man gave them.
I consider myself amoral and a bit immoral, meaning I do things because either I want to do them or I do them due it to benefit me. I don't why people think that we need morals for society to function. If you thinking like that then you have mind capacity of a slave. I just wish people actually start to think about this kind of stuff, but atlas I know what I want to achieve can't be done without extreme measures, but I hoped that just maybe just maybe I could help you all to think more logically and come into the light. Maybe I am a fool to think so.
Humans are the most chaotic and destructive living creatures on earth and you think a lack of morals allows them to start thinking for themselves? The only thing keeping humans in line and preventing the worst outcome, which is always depicted in novels like "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy are morals. If you truly think utter chaos is not a bad thing then take a trip to Somalia and tell me how wonderful an unorganized society filled with chaos is.
definitions:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Wow you are kinda one-sided. I see chaos more as opportunity than simply as mind-less destruction. Before there can be any order there is always chaos. Trying to get rid of chaos is just kind of ridiculous. Chaos is also can help you in a way, in the sense of toughen you up and get rid of the weak.
0
Freaky Green wrote...
Okay I just gonna point out that most people have limited free will due to the lack of free-thinking so it doesn't change anything too much.Did you pull this out of your ass once again ? Seriously all you're doign is saying things without any evidence or aguements for what you're saying . I can even conter-argue your statement :
Let me take my previous exemple : Why can't religious people be free-thinkers ?
God gave them free-will so they must be able to think by themself no ? So they must be able to make their own morals ?
0
Freaky Green wrote...
I don't think you quite understand in what I am suggesting. People should be able to freely think, adapt to their situations, and see things as they are. However, I fear that moral is halting this, and let me explain how. You say that killing is wrong, but let say you are in a situation where killing another man would prove beneficial to you and there was no way for you to get caught. However, you didn't kill him and your life is now shit and the thing that prevent you from doing so was your morals. Due to your morals you fail to take advantage of the situation.Well I am basically trying to say is, you should letting your morals telling you what to do and think for yourself, because morals are not really there for your benefit.
I'm actually for the death penalty.
I actually loathe people who don't kill in very serious and grave situations, I would kill anyone who dares to do the same.
Now that I got a better view, I do agree with your statements and your example helped. I do agree with you, however, I would say breaking such a moral like that should be allowed. But when it comes to pedophilia, I don't think I can allow that. However, bestiality is fine if the person and animal are enjoying it for example. I'm thinking now on the whole "what-if the Greeks and Romans each conquered half of the world", seeing how they had orgies of all kinds in their time.
0
lordisgaea4 wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
Okay I just gonna point out that most people have limited free will due to the lack of free-thinking so it doesn't change anything too much.Did you pull this out of your ass once again ? Seriously all you're doign is saying things without any evidence or aguements for what you're saying . I can even conter-argue your statement :
Let me take my previous exemple : Why can't religious people be free-thinkers ?
God gave them free-will so they must be able to think by themself no ? So they must be able to make their own morals ?
Wow I am not pulling this out my ass thank you very much. To answer you question of why religious people can't be free-thinkers let me ask you this, do you really know what it means to be religious? If so, do you honestly believe a free-thinker would consider themselves to be religious? One more thing, free will can be taken away through certain measures, some more extreme than others.
0
Freaky Green wrote...
say what! wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
say what! wrote...
What do you think a lack of morals will lead to?A world without morals would to one of two things
!) Complete utterly chaos, however I don't really see that as a bad thing really.
2) A world where humans finally start to think for themselves instead following some damn code another man gave them.
I consider myself amoral and a bit immoral, meaning I do things because either I want to do them or I do them due it to benefit me. I don't why people think that we need morals for society to function. If you thinking like that then you have mind capacity of a slave. I just wish people actually start to think about this kind of stuff, but atlas I know what I want to achieve can't be done without extreme measures, but I hoped that just maybe just maybe I could help you all to think more logically and come into the light. Maybe I am a fool to think so.
Humans are the most chaotic and destructive living creatures on earth and you think a lack of morals allows them to start thinking for themselves? The only thing keeping humans in line and preventing the worst outcome, which is always depicted in novels like "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy are morals. If you truly think utter chaos is not a bad thing then take a trip to Somalia and tell me how wonderful an unorganized society filled with chaos is.
definitions:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Wow you are kinda one-sided. I see chaos more as opportunity than simply as mind-less destruction. Before there can be any order there is always chaos. Trying to get rid of chaos is just kind of ridiculous. Chaos is also can help you in a way, in the sense of toughen you up and get rid of the weak.
I know chaos allows the strong to survive and the weak to dwindle in size. Look at our society and compare to any other society with little to nothing and how the weak fare in each. I guess I'm just too pessimistic when it comes to human behavior and to see without what I view as morals do not aide humans in today society.
0
Freaky Green wrote...
lordisgaea4 wrote...
Freaky Green wrote...
Okay I just gonna point out that most people have limited free will due to the lack of free-thinking so it doesn't change anything too much.Did you pull this out of your ass once again ? Seriously all you're doign is saying things without any evidence or aguements for what you're saying . I can even conter-argue your statement :
Let me take my previous exemple : Why can't religious people be free-thinkers ?
God gave them free-will so they must be able to think by themself no ? So they must be able to make their own morals ?
Wow I am not pulling this out my ass thank you very much. To answer you question of why religious people can't be free-thinkers let me ask you this, do you really know what it means to be religious? If so, do you honestly believe a free-thinker would consider themselves to be religious? One more thing, free will can be taken away through certain measures, some more extreme than others.
You have to learn how to argue (don't they learn you that in school in the US ?) , for the moment ill stop this conversation here .