Morality is based on the opinions of man, as we progress through time our morals change. Morals are what we believe to be right, that is a generalized definition, I know, but there is no moral stand point that every one can agree on, individually or as whole. Every human has a different way of thinking which means everyone has there own opinion of what is right and wrong and what the majority agrees on, becomes law until we disagree with it that law then it becomes another powerless opinion.
Was Adolf Hitler wrong for what he did? If your answer is yes, by what standard can you say that it was wrong? According to the atheistic worldview, there's no standard of good and evil. So, if a pedophile doesn't see his actions as wrong, but you do, are his actions wrong without there being a basis or objective standard for morality?
@@DruPetty42 that's where contractualism comes in. The principle by which the pedophile acted upon can be reasonably rejected by me or the guardians of the child
whenever the human perceptions increases his views towards some issues changes ,and that's obvious for morals too , there 're moral realism and moral relativism , and i think the second one is more strong .
Can you forecast the next and the next Gen of Aus. if you can. then i'm afraid it is hard to catch up on all majority levels...it may be an illusion now. But, only time will tell.
This is a very interesting debate. I have often wondered whether a psychopath is more of a sadist or more of an immoral person. That is, is he evil or does he simply refuse to follow the rules of society? There are huge diffferences between these two options. One might be tempted to believe that an evil person actually has a brain disorder or is mentally ill, whereas an immoral person is just a personality trait.
There doesn't seem like there can be a fact of the matter as to whether or not someone has a mental disorder because we arbitrarily stipulate criteria by which to determine proper biological function.
+Abstractum Noumenon It's not completely arbitrarily, that is why we have philosophy to talk about these things (we are learning as we go). Whom or what is evil is also up for discussion, since it's about morality and not science for which we have stipulated criteria. Saying you have the final answer on morality, means you know every possible outcome of every choice we as humans can make. Either you are a god, a beast or an super computer in this context.
I don't think that learning to be "good" (in whatever sense that any particular culture might define good) is the point of moral philosophy. Like most else that has guided human evolution, or much else that humans do, moral philosophy is a memetic tool for survival. Being "good" isn't even secondary, but tertiary. In any proper moral system, the survival of the practitioners' group always has the highest value. Next comes truth, which has a value that overrides everything other than survival. After that come values such as justice, freedom, etc. Justice has a value inferior to truth. That's because the pursuit of justice depends on knowing truth, or more exactly on the ability accurately to distinguish truth from falsehood. And likewise for freedom. Without a means by which the truth can be identified after all its imposters have been found and discarded, you can't even tell whether you really are free, let alone pursue freedom with any confidence. Notice also that the only value higher than truth is survival. Nothing matters to the dead - not even truth. Only to something alive may anything else be good (or have value). A rock doesn't care whether you hit it with a hammer. But a mouse does. Why the group, and not the individual? Because individuals are ephemeral. We can by no means endure as the ages pass. But the group of practitioners, having a moral system in common, which they heed and advance in the world, can indeed endure. And the most natural group is a race, which is strongest when its members hold a moral system in common; i.e. isn't factionalized, and therefore cannot be induced to attack itself. When the group of practitioners is also a race, it gains the ability to replace its dying members with new members who are born compatible with the culture of their fellows. Because inherited are most of the human qualities that determine which memetic qualities the individual can easily acquire, or can acquire at all. Native members have the requisite temperament and innate attributes for engaging in the group's culture; they're organic, not grafted in. They belong without having to adapt, as an outsider would have to adapt though continuous exertion. (And the immigrant will in most cases be unwilling to put forth the required effort.) What doesn't exist is worthless. What can't exist for long because of self-sabotage isn't worth much. Proper moral codes, which put the survival of the practitioners' group first in value, are therefore always better than improper moral codes, which give the highest value to anything else. A group that puts the highest moral value on anything other than survival will, sooner or later, encounter circumstances in which their survival is in conflict with whatever that other thing is. When that happens, the group will either abandon their improper moral system in favor of a proper one, or they will die off, and their improper code will vanish along with them. I won't declare the foregoing summary of moral philosophy to be the final word in moral philosophy. I'm not that pretentious. But it appears to be self-consistent and consistent with how the world really works. If anyone discovers a flaw, I'd like to hear about it. I think that one of the ways in which one culture can make war on another is by inducing its rival, by propaganda or by some other means, to get their moral priorities improperly sorted. Has this already happened; i.e., is such a war going on now? I suspect so, but I'll save the details for some other time.
0Private morality -morality of human conduct ,(ethics.)objective-vice and virtue-do what you like .habituation of virtue ,do yourself a fair Public morality -how society is structured so as to allow people live where.people should live in proximity to allow our actions affect others.human laws doesn’t stop all vices .state of nature has law of nature to govern it.
Revenge isn't supposed to be sweet in certain moral systems. But apparently revenge is sometimes good in a proper moral system, if it has the net effect of instructing rivals that you are someone who isn't to be trifled with. Whether that's so or not depends on your power, your stealthiness, and other traits by which you gain the ability to exact revenge and get away with it, or at least come off the better when the dust has settled.
how exactly is that.there is nothing like moral illusion ? haven't you heard that it is subjective ,and unless society live in proximity there is nothing like morality .which pains are you talking about.
well universal morality (not american), well be self sacrifice, conmiseration * philosophical conotation here not religious1 *, and knowledge, wether this be cause of human, contact or like an animal instinct, if a guy give his life to save somme comarades he's a hero, but if a god exist and make in this ecuation then he's making sommeting for fear or retribution, an as appointed before we got self-sacri, so a god notion degrades human moral, and of curse is a diff thing not a moral, relig1
taoumi mohamed think about that position. Ur implying religion came first and then morality came. Do you really think a society without morality can develope religion in the first place?
@@TheBullGangGeneral yes, just because they enter social contracts doesn't mean they developed real moral laws. They could engage in human sacrifices. The strong would opress the weak, Slavery, rape the list goes on and on. Only a Divine entity.who holds people accountable for their actions would instill the fear or love to do good actions and refrain from harmful evil ones long before the society develops laws based on innate morality.
yes very true. Public morality and private is different and related. I've Always thought that
Morality is based on the opinions of man, as we progress through time our morals change. Morals are what we believe to be right, that is a generalized definition, I know, but there is no moral stand point that every one can agree on, individually or as whole. Every human has a different way of thinking which means everyone has there own opinion of what is right and wrong and what the majority agrees on, becomes law until we disagree with it that law then it becomes another powerless opinion.
Was Adolf Hitler wrong for what he did? If your answer is yes, by what standard can you say that it was wrong?
According to the atheistic worldview, there's no standard of good and evil. So, if a pedophile doesn't see his actions as wrong, but you do, are his actions wrong without there being a basis or objective standard for morality?
@@DruPetty42 that's where contractualism comes in. The principle by which the pedophile acted upon can be reasonably rejected by me or the guardians of the child
whenever the human perceptions increases his views towards some issues changes ,and that's obvious for morals too , there 're moral realism and moral relativism , and i think the second one is more strong .
You think moral REALISM is weaker than RELATIVISM ?
That's the most dumb thing I ever heard .
Can you forecast the next and the next Gen of Aus. if you can. then i'm afraid it is hard to catch up on all majority levels...it may be an illusion now. But, only time will tell.
debate starts... here 5:55
This is a very interesting debate. I have often wondered whether a psychopath is more of a sadist or more of an immoral person. That is, is he evil or does he simply refuse to follow the rules of society? There are huge diffferences between these two options. One might be tempted to believe that an evil person actually has a brain disorder or is mentally ill, whereas an immoral person is just a personality trait.
There doesn't seem like there can be a fact of the matter as to whether or not someone has a mental disorder because we arbitrarily stipulate criteria by which to determine proper biological function.
+Abstractum Noumenon It's not completely arbitrarily, that is why we have philosophy to talk about these things (we are learning as we go). Whom or what is evil is also up for discussion, since it's about morality and not science for which we have stipulated criteria.
Saying you have the final answer on morality, means you know every possible outcome of every choice we as humans can make. Either you are a god, a beast or an super computer in this context.
The ancient Greeks said evil was ignorance.
Great presentation.
I don't think that learning to be "good" (in whatever sense that any particular culture might define good) is the point of moral philosophy. Like most else that has guided human evolution, or much else that humans do, moral philosophy is a memetic tool for survival. Being "good" isn't even secondary, but tertiary.
In any proper moral system, the survival of the practitioners' group always has the highest value. Next comes truth, which has a value that overrides everything other than survival. After that come values such as justice, freedom, etc.
Justice has a value inferior to truth. That's because the pursuit of justice depends on knowing truth, or more exactly on the ability accurately to distinguish truth from falsehood.
And likewise for freedom. Without a means by which the truth can be identified after all its imposters have been found and discarded, you can't even tell whether you really are free, let alone pursue freedom with any confidence.
Notice also that the only value higher than truth is survival. Nothing matters to the dead - not even truth. Only to something alive may anything else be good (or have value). A rock doesn't care whether you hit it with a hammer. But a mouse does.
Why the group, and not the individual? Because individuals are ephemeral. We can by no means endure as the ages pass. But the group of practitioners, having a moral system in common, which they heed and advance in the world, can indeed endure. And the most natural group is a race, which is strongest when its members hold a moral system in common; i.e. isn't factionalized, and therefore cannot be induced to attack itself.
When the group of practitioners is also a race, it gains the ability to replace its dying members with new members who are born compatible with the culture of their fellows. Because inherited are most of the human qualities that determine which memetic qualities the individual can easily acquire, or can acquire at all. Native members have the requisite temperament and innate attributes for engaging in the group's culture; they're organic, not grafted in. They belong without having to adapt, as an outsider would have to adapt though continuous exertion. (And the immigrant will in most cases be unwilling to put forth the required effort.)
What doesn't exist is worthless. What can't exist for long because of self-sabotage isn't worth much. Proper moral codes, which put the survival of the practitioners' group first in value, are therefore always better than improper moral codes, which give the highest value to anything else. A group that puts the highest moral value on anything other than survival will, sooner or later, encounter circumstances in which their survival is in conflict with whatever that other thing is. When that happens, the group will either abandon their improper moral system in favor of a proper one, or they will die off, and their improper code will vanish along with them.
I won't declare the foregoing summary of moral philosophy to be the final word in moral philosophy. I'm not that pretentious. But it appears to be self-consistent and consistent with how the world really works. If anyone discovers a flaw, I'd like to hear about it.
I think that one of the ways in which one culture can make war on another is by inducing its rival, by propaganda or by some other means, to get their moral priorities improperly sorted. Has this already happened; i.e., is such a war going on now? I suspect so, but I'll save the details for some other time.
0Private morality -morality of human conduct ,(ethics.)objective-vice and virtue-do what you like .habituation of virtue ,do yourself a fair
Public morality -how society is structured so as to allow people live where.people should live in proximity to allow our actions affect others.human laws doesn’t stop all vices .state of nature has law of nature to govern it.
Revenge is sweet in every society
Revenge isn't supposed to be sweet in certain moral systems. But apparently revenge is sometimes good in a proper moral system, if it has the net effect of instructing rivals that you are someone who isn't to be trifled with. Whether that's so or not depends on your power, your stealthiness, and other traits by which you gain the ability to exact revenge and get away with it, or at least come off the better when the dust has settled.
how exactly is that.there is nothing like moral illusion ? haven't you heard that it is subjective ,and unless society live in proximity there is nothing like morality .which pains are you talking about.
well universal morality (not american), well be self sacrifice, conmiseration * philosophical conotation here not religious1 *, and knowledge, wether this be cause of human, contact or like an animal instinct, if a guy give his life to save somme comarades he's a hero, but if a god exist and make in this ecuation then he's making sommeting for fear or retribution, an as appointed before we got self-sacri, so a god notion degrades human moral, and of curse is a diff thing not a moral, relig1
morality came from religion in the first place.
taoumi mohamed think about that position. Ur implying religion came first and then morality came. Do you really think a society without morality can develope religion in the first place?
@@TheBullGangGeneral yes, just because they enter social contracts doesn't mean they developed real moral laws. They could engage in human sacrifices. The strong would opress the weak, Slavery, rape the list goes on and on. Only a Divine entity.who holds people accountable for their actions would instill the fear or love to do good actions and refrain from harmful evil ones long before the society develops laws based on innate morality.
@@user-z3r0187 'slavery, rape the list goes on'. Sound like the Abrahamic religions to me.