Most of the ways that Humans have ... (114)
rwantin: Hey, I'm selling them at face value - otherwise, would not be very moral now would it?
Well it depends on who you ask I guess....
------ This thread is Archived ------
rwantin: Hey, I'm selling them at face value - otherwise, would not be very moral now would it?
So, what's the damage? 
------ This thread is Archived ------
How do we establish a code of ethics and morals without religion? Is morality/ethics inherent? Conversely, we have to ask if immorality is inherent as well.
Are we natural born killers? Tough questions that have been debated for thousands of years.
Atlantis and Lemuria and their belief or spirituality of "The Law of one". Supposedly the survivors carried their knowledge and spiritualities (not all of them) over to Egypt and to various parts of South America. Bear in mind that Atlantis goes back between 12,000 and 70,000 thousand years.
However, we cannot discount the indigenous cultures ( Native Americans, Aborigines, Sami) spiritualities that were living parallel with Atlantis and further down the road with Egypt and Greece. They had their code of ethics and spirituality way before the Europeans and Americans did their atrocities.
I'll just say that the question still remains, is morality and a code of ethics inherent? Is it instinct?
Anyways, this question can only be answered in some kind of metaphysical ( the ultimate nature of being and the world based on the principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.) content as far as I can conclude...
The way I observe and perceive it, is that when we are born into this world, these code of ethics and morals are waiting for us. It's already in place and has been in place for hundreds of years. Our parents, teachers, and other elders promote their code of ethics on to us as we grow up. They tell us either no, yes, or maybe in regards to what is okay to think and do.
The variables that are surrounding this issue are slippery. First we need facts. We have true or false facts that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have circumstantial facts that are pending. However, no moral facts exist to be really known. Anyone can make a case that moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social groups in different countries in which moral sensibility is formed. What's morally right in one society may not be morally right in another. Obviously there is no agreed universal moral truth.
Then we should factor in how we value actions, possessions, and situations. Our reactions are either reasonable or unreasonable as to how we define it on our terms. Whether it is a reaction from social conditioning, ego, or for the good for oneself and humanity. With those choices, actions, and reactions come accountability and consequences for your actions. What's right or wrong? It's really up to you. Your choices will have benefits and consequences. Those choices and actions are ones that you are going to be responsible for and accept. You may encounter judicial liabilities, social liabilities, and psychological or emotional liabilities.
This moral dilemma is associated with how we value our relationship with ourselves independently, with others in our society, with God/religion/spirituality, Atheism,and nature.
Are we natural born killers? Tough questions that have been debated for thousands of years.
Atlantis and Lemuria and their belief or spirituality of "The Law of one". Supposedly the survivors carried their knowledge and spiritualities (not all of them) over to Egypt and to various parts of South America. Bear in mind that Atlantis goes back between 12,000 and 70,000 thousand years.
However, we cannot discount the indigenous cultures ( Native Americans, Aborigines, Sami) spiritualities that were living parallel with Atlantis and further down the road with Egypt and Greece. They had their code of ethics and spirituality way before the Europeans and Americans did their atrocities.
I'll just say that the question still remains, is morality and a code of ethics inherent? Is it instinct?
Anyways, this question can only be answered in some kind of metaphysical ( the ultimate nature of being and the world based on the principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.) content as far as I can conclude...
The way I observe and perceive it, is that when we are born into this world, these code of ethics and morals are waiting for us. It's already in place and has been in place for hundreds of years. Our parents, teachers, and other elders promote their code of ethics on to us as we grow up. They tell us either no, yes, or maybe in regards to what is okay to think and do.
The variables that are surrounding this issue are slippery. First we need facts. We have true or false facts that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have circumstantial facts that are pending. However, no moral facts exist to be really known. Anyone can make a case that moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social groups in different countries in which moral sensibility is formed. What's morally right in one society may not be morally right in another. Obviously there is no agreed universal moral truth.
Then we should factor in how we value actions, possessions, and situations. Our reactions are either reasonable or unreasonable as to how we define it on our terms. Whether it is a reaction from social conditioning, ego, or for the good for oneself and humanity. With those choices, actions, and reactions come accountability and consequences for your actions. What's right or wrong? It's really up to you. Your choices will have benefits and consequences. Those choices and actions are ones that you are going to be responsible for and accept. You may encounter judicial liabilities, social liabilities, and psychological or emotional liabilities.
This moral dilemma is associated with how we value our relationship with ourselves independently, with others in our society, with God/religion/spirituality, Atheism,and nature.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I did not prove anything, just made an observation because this issue has been on my mind for a long time. The problem is that I have metaphysical theories to reason away. I don't have hard evidence. However, this is currently being looked at in science. So everything is just theory for now, but bear in mind how often science is reproving itself.
Empirical science fails to explain or even entertain the notion that certain phenomena and supernatural occurrences exists. The evidence exists in layered forms of perplexing complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes as observed by empirical science.
The only thing I can really say about inherent morality and make a paranormal case would be to use Carl Jung's theory on the collective unconscious. That humanity has inherited mythological systems and moral codes that we inherit from distant ancestors. A collective unconscious or a library of knowledge existing on a different frequency that is connected to our individual unconsciousness. I can unpack this further with other theories and concepts and make a valid argument...it's my project right now. I can also add that we all have this goodness in us that is part of the Source. Conversely, we also have this cruelness or evil or selfish ego that is also part of the God Source. We have a divine spark that brings us closer to ourselves and allows us to evolve as spiritual beings. On the other hand, we have a selfish ego that takes us away from positive energy and unconditional love, and we may regress as spiritual beings.
So I'll just stop right there and observe other posts with a keen and observant eye.
Empirical science fails to explain or even entertain the notion that certain phenomena and supernatural occurrences exists. The evidence exists in layered forms of perplexing complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes as observed by empirical science.
The only thing I can really say about inherent morality and make a paranormal case would be to use Carl Jung's theory on the collective unconscious. That humanity has inherited mythological systems and moral codes that we inherit from distant ancestors. A collective unconscious or a library of knowledge existing on a different frequency that is connected to our individual unconsciousness. I can unpack this further with other theories and concepts and make a valid argument...it's my project right now. I can also add that we all have this goodness in us that is part of the Source. Conversely, we also have this cruelness or evil or selfish ego that is also part of the God Source. We have a divine spark that brings us closer to ourselves and allows us to evolve as spiritual beings. On the other hand, we have a selfish ego that takes us away from positive energy and unconditional love, and we may regress as spiritual beings.
So I'll just stop right there and observe other posts with a keen and observant eye.
------ This thread is Archived ------
tipaly81: Can't have much of a big picture is there are no examples of good and evil. We had Mother Teresa and Princess Diana, and even the last Pope. They were the becon to the light, but now there are no good doing, selfless people being presented to us and the younger generation, instead we have Paris Hilton . Oh brother. We have turned into people who view who is good or evil by one's worldly posessions, not they actions.
A selfless act of someone close to us is what brings that into perspective. When we have these cheerleads and leaders in play, then the moral compus can be set and me can have a universal standard.
A selfless act of someone close to us is what brings that into perspective. When we have these cheerleads and leaders in play, then the moral compus can be set and me can have a universal standard.
Selfless acts are good for reminding us that there is so much good in this world!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
FlowerOfTheSun: Selfless acts are good for reminding us that there is so much good in this world!!!
I enjoyed the conversation. Thankyou, but need to get home and take the pup for a walk and wrestle with the cats.
Cheers,
------ This thread is Archived ------
FlowerOfTheSun: Selfless acts are good for reminding us that there is so much good in this world!!!
By the way I forgot to tell you...Good thread flower....
------ This thread is Archived ------
S/F 
Well done. Now stop it. You're making me think.
Well done. Now stop it. You're making me think.
------ This thread is Archived ------
If we define authority as the right, and power to command obedience, then we must ask where the authority to establish a moral unit comes from.
If there is no higher existence on Earth than human beings, then we are doomed to a perpetual cycle of wars and violence. If there is no higher power, then I am no different morally than pond scum, and anything goes.
If there is no higher existence on Earth than human beings, then we are doomed to a perpetual cycle of wars and violence. If there is no higher power, then I am no different morally than pond scum, and anything goes.
------ This thread is Archived ------
StressFree: How do we establish a code of ethics and morals without religion? Is morality/ethics inherent? Conversely, we have to ask if immorality is inherent as well.
Are we natural born killers? Tough questions that have been debated for thousands of years.
Atlantis and Lemuria and their belief or spirituality of "The Law of one". Supposedly the survivors carried their knowledge and spiritualities (not all of them) over to Egypt and to various parts of South America. Bear in mind that Atlantis goes back between 12,000 and 70,000 thousand years.
However, we cannot discount the indigenous cultures ( Native Americans, Aborigines, Sami) spiritualities that were living parallel with Atlantis and further down the road with Egypt and Greece. They had their code of ethics and spirituality way before the Europeans and Americans did their atrocities.
I'll just say that the question still remains, is morality and a code of ethics inherent? Is it instinct?
Anyways, this question can only be answered in some kind of metaphysical ( the ultimate nature of being and the world based on the principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.) content as far as I can conclude...The way I observe and perceive it, is that when we are born into this world, these code of ethics and morals are waiting for us. It's already in place and has been in place for hundreds of years. Our parents, teachers, and other elders promote their code of ethics on to us as we grow up. They tell us either no, yes, or maybe in regards to what is okay to think and do.
The variables that are surrounding this issue are slippery. First we need facts. We have true or false facts that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have circumstantial facts that are pending. However, no moral facts exist to be really known. Anyone can make a case that moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social groups in different countries in which moral sensibility is formed. What's morally right in one society may not be morally right in another. Obviously there is no agreed universal moral truth.
Then we should factor in how we value actions, possessions, and situations. Our reactions are either reasonable or unreasonable as to how we define it on our terms. Whether it is a reaction from social conditioning, ego, or for the good for oneself and humanity. With those choices, actions, and reactions come accountability and consequences for your actions. What's right or wrong? It's really up to you. Your choices will have benefits and consequences. Those choices and actions are ones that you are going to be responsible for and accept. You may encounter judicial liabilities, social liabilities, and psychological or emotional liabilities.
This moral dilemma is associated with how we value our relationship with ourselves independently, with others in our society, with God/religion/spirituality, Atheism,and nature.
Are we natural born killers? Tough questions that have been debated for thousands of years.
Atlantis and Lemuria and their belief or spirituality of "The Law of one". Supposedly the survivors carried their knowledge and spiritualities (not all of them) over to Egypt and to various parts of South America. Bear in mind that Atlantis goes back between 12,000 and 70,000 thousand years.
However, we cannot discount the indigenous cultures ( Native Americans, Aborigines, Sami) spiritualities that were living parallel with Atlantis and further down the road with Egypt and Greece. They had their code of ethics and spirituality way before the Europeans and Americans did their atrocities.
I'll just say that the question still remains, is morality and a code of ethics inherent? Is it instinct?
Anyways, this question can only be answered in some kind of metaphysical ( the ultimate nature of being and the world based on the principles of reality transcending those of any particular science.) content as far as I can conclude...The way I observe and perceive it, is that when we are born into this world, these code of ethics and morals are waiting for us. It's already in place and has been in place for hundreds of years. Our parents, teachers, and other elders promote their code of ethics on to us as we grow up. They tell us either no, yes, or maybe in regards to what is okay to think and do.
The variables that are surrounding this issue are slippery. First we need facts. We have true or false facts that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have circumstantial facts that are pending. However, no moral facts exist to be really known. Anyone can make a case that moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social groups in different countries in which moral sensibility is formed. What's morally right in one society may not be morally right in another. Obviously there is no agreed universal moral truth.
Then we should factor in how we value actions, possessions, and situations. Our reactions are either reasonable or unreasonable as to how we define it on our terms. Whether it is a reaction from social conditioning, ego, or for the good for oneself and humanity. With those choices, actions, and reactions come accountability and consequences for your actions. What's right or wrong? It's really up to you. Your choices will have benefits and consequences. Those choices and actions are ones that you are going to be responsible for and accept. You may encounter judicial liabilities, social liabilities, and psychological or emotional liabilities.
This moral dilemma is associated with how we value our relationship with ourselves independently, with others in our society, with God/religion/spirituality, Atheism,and nature.
Wonderful contribution Stressfree!!!
The bit I have highlighted is exactely what this thread is about. Do you think there could ever be a universally accepted moral truth?
I agree that spirituality has much to do with it but necessarily religion (dogma)
------ This thread is Archived ------
If I say it's moral....then it is. Universally!
There...problem solved
There...problem solved
------ This thread is Archived ------
StressFree: I did not prove anything, just made an observation because this issue has been on my mind for a long time. The problem is that I have metaphysical theories to reason away. I don't have hard evidence. However, this is currently being looked at in science. So everything is just theory for now, but bear in mind how often science is reproving itself.
Empirical science fails to explain or even entertain the notion that certain phenomena and supernatural occurrences exists. The evidence exists in layered forms of perplexing complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes as observed by empirical science.
The only thing I can really say about inherent morality and make a paranormal case would be to use Carl Jung's theory on the collective unconscious. That humanity has inherited mythological systems and moral codes that we inherit from distant ancestors. A collective unconscious or a library of knowledge existing on a different frequency that is connected to our individual unconsciousness. I can unpack this further with other theories and concepts and make a valid argument...it's my project right now. I can also add that we all have this goodness in us that is part of the Source. Conversely, we also have this cruelness or evil or selfish ego that is also part of the God Source. We have a divine spark that brings us closer to ourselves and allows us to evolve as spiritual beings. On the other hand, we have a selfish ego that takes us away from positive energy and unconditional love, and we may regress as spiritual beings.
So I'll just stop right there and observe other posts with a keen and observant eye.
Empirical science fails to explain or even entertain the notion that certain phenomena and supernatural occurrences exists. The evidence exists in layered forms of perplexing complexity that cannot be explained by natural processes as observed by empirical science.
The only thing I can really say about inherent morality and make a paranormal case would be to use Carl Jung's theory on the collective unconscious. That humanity has inherited mythological systems and moral codes that we inherit from distant ancestors. A collective unconscious or a library of knowledge existing on a different frequency that is connected to our individual unconsciousness. I can unpack this further with other theories and concepts and make a valid argument...it's my project right now. I can also add that we all have this goodness in us that is part of the Source. Conversely, we also have this cruelness or evil or selfish ego that is also part of the God Source. We have a divine spark that brings us closer to ourselves and allows us to evolve as spiritual beings. On the other hand, we have a selfish ego that takes us away from positive energy and unconditional love, and we may regress as spiritual beings.
So I'll just stop right there and observe other posts with a keen and observant eye.
I strongly believe in that!!
More contributions welcome!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
shipoker58: If I say it's moral....then it is. Universally!
There...problem solved
There...problem solved
Amen Ship!! Oooops! Sorry guys!! I forgot I said no religion!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
tipaly81: I enjoyed the conversation. Thankyou, but need to get home and take the pup for a walk and wrestle with the cats.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Enjoy your day!! It's more like bed time here!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Hey, Flower - I'm always impressed that such important philosophic questions are so often raised here.
I think there already exists some agreement on this basic "moral unit" - at least among Western nations - something along the lines of: "Immoral actions are those that needlessly harm others."
Of course, the part where individuals and nations strongly disagree is about what constitutes "needlessly." I've indulged, for instance, in countless arguments about the Iraq invasion wherein defenders of that invasion claim it was a "necessary evil" or something to that effect. Similar arguments have been made for the fire bombing of Tokyo or the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I reply to these kinds of claims in two ways. First, I ask the person if they believe that collateral damage was justified - to the point where they *personally* were willing to gun down or maim or bomb the individuals who died of that supposed necessity. If they aren't willing to personally kill or harm the individuals in question, then they don't believe the actions resulting in these things to be necessary.
I also ask if they believe an extremely high degree of certainty is required before harming other people. Assuming the answer is affirmative, then I follow up with: Have you performed the study required to obtain hard, rigorous proof and/or evidence for your actions? Have you sweated bullets and shed tears and felt your blood run cold as you performed the calculations sufficient to justify your actions?
If they haven't, then, again, they don't truly believe those actions are necessary.
So what I'd suggest as a basic Moral Unti would be something along the lines: An act is immoral if harms others AND those committing or supporting the action are not willing to take personal responsiblity for their results of their actions, and cannot offer the most rigorous arguments/evidence for that act.
I think there already exists some agreement on this basic "moral unit" - at least among Western nations - something along the lines of: "Immoral actions are those that needlessly harm others."
Of course, the part where individuals and nations strongly disagree is about what constitutes "needlessly." I've indulged, for instance, in countless arguments about the Iraq invasion wherein defenders of that invasion claim it was a "necessary evil" or something to that effect. Similar arguments have been made for the fire bombing of Tokyo or the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I reply to these kinds of claims in two ways. First, I ask the person if they believe that collateral damage was justified - to the point where they *personally* were willing to gun down or maim or bomb the individuals who died of that supposed necessity. If they aren't willing to personally kill or harm the individuals in question, then they don't believe the actions resulting in these things to be necessary.
I also ask if they believe an extremely high degree of certainty is required before harming other people. Assuming the answer is affirmative, then I follow up with: Have you performed the study required to obtain hard, rigorous proof and/or evidence for your actions? Have you sweated bullets and shed tears and felt your blood run cold as you performed the calculations sufficient to justify your actions?
If they haven't, then, again, they don't truly believe those actions are necessary.
So what I'd suggest as a basic Moral Unti would be something along the lines: An act is immoral if harms others AND those committing or supporting the action are not willing to take personal responsiblity for their results of their actions, and cannot offer the most rigorous arguments/evidence for that act.
------ This thread is Archived ------
It’s a noble idea but it is one that is destined to go nowhere morals are set by the individual based on a number of factors , I suggest we just forget the idea and try a love in 
------ This thread is Archived ------
diogenes: If we define authority as the right, and power to command obedience, then we must ask where the authority to establish a moral unit comes from.
If there is no higher existence on Earth than human beings, then we are doomed to a perpetual cycle of wars and violence. If there is no higher power, then I am no different morally than pond scum, and anything goes.
If there is no higher existence on Earth than human beings, then we are doomed to a perpetual cycle of wars and violence. If there is no higher power, then I am no different morally than pond scum, and anything goes.
Doomed?
Must what constitutes morality and power and obedience be linked?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Didn’t George Orwell write a book involving the morals police ???
------ This thread is Archived ------
FlowerOfTheSun: Doomed?
Must what constitutes morality and power and obedience be linked?
Must what constitutes morality and power and obedience be linked?
Unless you expect the world to voluntarily comply I reckon so.
I am confounded that you think the matters are separate.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Sleepy Don!
your personality
other can see but not you
How far is too far?
The Best of the GOP
1830's Music
Common Issues with the BMW X1
rarotonga
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Hey, I'm selling them at face value - otherwise, would not be very moral now would it?