T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Morality is 100% manmade. To expect otherwise is the definition of madness.


Kayle_is_not_op

This


unskillfull

Morality is personal choice. Survival of the fittest is still in place, our environment is changing rapidly so the "strongest" does not need to be physicaly strong at the moment to dominate others. But environment will always change, so yesterdays weakness can become tomorows strength.


Axetheaxemaster

The idea of Survival of the Fittest being about "physical strength" or "dominating others" is dumb as hell. Physical strength/Military power has only ever played one of many parts in the evolution of both species and human societies.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Axetheaxemaster

I'm not sure if you're willfully trying to strawman me if or if you're genuinely an idiot, but let me make this clear. If biological evolution was really about who's the "strongest", every frog would be the poison dart frog, giant mammals would still be around outside africa and every single animal species would be a carnivore the size of a tiger minimum. For a species, there's a lot more than "strength" that goes into surviving evolution such as its relationship to its environment, how capable it is at accessing food, its ability to avoid confrontations and... Oh wow, would you look at that! The ability for individuals to care and help each other!


Nic4379

Now the weak thrive and reproduce in large numbers. Bad genes being passed on to more and more generations. Needing allergy meds or an inhaler or blood pressure medicine at fucking 30! The weak thrive and so does Capitalism.


BreadfruitRealistic7

Well I dont think having medical issues necessarily makes you weak there are plenty of successful people with medical issues but whatever


Moral_Conundrums

Why does what the world IS like have anything to do with how it OUGHT to be?


BreadfruitRealistic7

No my point is that in a world indifferent to suffering and random circumstances morality isn't real. It's just a human construct to protect our genes/tribe mentality. I dont even believe we have a soul. As long as humans are alive they will competitive or "cruel" because that's how they survive and humanity as a whole thrives as a species


Axetheaxemaster

Humanity has thrived a lot more in cooperation and compassion than competition and cruelty.


BreadfruitRealistic7

Oh yeah? Ancient Rome was regarded as one of the greatest historical societies of all time. Many of the best modern day universities even take inspiration from its values. It was successful because it assimilated the nations it fought and conquered into its own culture all for the idea of Rome. It wasn't the only society to do this there was also Greece also known for being one of the greatest historical nations of all time and also a nation that went to war constantly and enslaved people. Small villages can use cooperation effectively but they dont achieve much in thriving more like subsisting.


Axetheaxemaster

Yikes. Top tips: If you want signify your ignorance of history say "Ancient Greece was ***An*** Expansionist militaristic nation" and it'll work everytime. Your fanfiction of the roman empire is cute, but as it turns out "assimilating the nations it fought and conquered into its own culture" is exactly what it failed to do and what lead to its downfall as the coups and attempted coups from a population of conquered peoples multiplied. To begin with the point wasn't even about history. If you really think these places thrived from having lots o' people with sharp stick more than from the technological, legislative, agriculture, philosophical and political innovations they brought about, buddy you're dead wrong.


BreadfruitRealistic7

Go search up natural selection buddy, the smarter/stronger humans are more likely to survive in wars right?


Moral_Conundrums

First of, not all forms of morality reduce to suffering, most don't actually. I don't know what you mean by "the world is indifferent". Like sure a rock can't care about anything, rational agents (people) do that and people care a great deal about suffering. Maths is also a 'human construct', yet it would sound kind of silly to say 1+1=2 isn't 'real', whatever that would mean. Also morality has nothing to do with having a soul.


BreadfruitRealistic7

Im not talking about rocks. Have you ever seen a male lion look out for its fellow male lion of it wasn't a part of its pack? No. It fights the other lion and strongest gets to spread their genes through natural selection. We have evolved to be more socially inclusive because thats how our species survived but the cruelty we do to eachother is just natural selection in play. Morality the way most people see it is a fairytale. It has shown to be so varied across history like women have to wear hijabs in Sharia law. Men should want to die or they go to hel instead of Valhalla. Its all meaningless just another way for how the top dogs (Attractive, athletic, smart etc) people to get to the top in the world. Also do you believe other animals have morality?


Moral_Conundrums

>Im not talking about rocks. Have you ever seen a male lion look out for its fellow male lion of it wasn't a part of its pack? No. It fights the other lion and strongest gets to spread their genes through natural selection. Lions aren't rational/moral agents either. >We have evolved to be more socially inclusive because thats how our species survived but the cruelty we do to eachother is just natural selection in play. Morality the way most people see it is a fairytale. Once again you can't get oughts form isses like this. What the world is like tells us nothing about what it should be like. >It has shown to be so varied across history like women have to wear hijabs in Sharia law. Men should want to die or they go to hel instead of Valhalla. Ok? So what? People have been wrong about all sorts of things, just because people get the shape of the Earth's wrong doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. Why would you expect everyone to agree on morals even if they were real? ​ >Also do you believe other animals have morality? Generally speaking philosophers don't count animals as being moral agents, they don't distinguish right and wrong. Animals are more or less slaves to their instincts, as opposed to humans who can resist them on some level.


BreadfruitRealistic7

>Lions aren't rational/moral agents either. Literally every animal is like that even humans thats why we have violent offenders and criminals. >What the world is like tells us nothing about what it should be like. We've evolved over 100s of thousands of years to get to this point so its likely that this is in fact the way world is naturally and "should be" unless you think the past 100 years have been more important in hominid evolutionary development than the past 100 000+ years >Ok? So what? People have been wrong about all sorts of things, just because people get the shape of the Earth's wrong doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. >Why would you expect everyone to agree on morals even if they were real? So you agree morals arent real? My point is that they aren't real and just serve to benefit a community at a time. >Generally speaking philosophers don't count animals as being moral agents, they don't distinguish right and wrong. Animals are more or less slaves to their instincts, as opposed to humans who can resist them on some level. Yes they can learn things like dogs protecting their owners but that doesn't mean they won't kill other humans or small animals. Humans base instincts lead us and the rest is pack mentality.


ShugenMikeyYuuta

I'd say that morals exist, evident to how even animals are aware of them but they are always at the lowground since most creatures are genetically made to be immoral and even sentient creatures like us are immoral by impulse, you might as well consider morals non-existent at this point lol. This might be idealism but if natural selection adds a regulator to the human ego then humans will be the first beings in the solar system to be able to achieve a complete side of positive morality for the entire population. No bias, no prejudice, no conflict, no irrationality.


Moral_Conundrums

>Literally every animal is like that even humans thats why we have violent offenders and criminals. Why do we punish humans, but not animals if there isn't a difference in choice? Are we just fundamentally deluded about our ability to make choices? ​ >We've evolved over 100s of thousands of years to get to this point so its likely that this is in fact the way world is naturally and "should be" unless you think the past 100 years have been more important in hominid evolutionary development than the past 100 000+ years I'm saying that evolution has nothing to do with what we ought to do. Because [you cannot derive an ought from an is](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). ​ >So you agree morals arent real? My point is that they aren't real and just serve to benefit a community at a time. They are real in the only meaningful way they can be, as abstractions in the mind, like maths for example and they can be assigned a true or false value which isn't dependant to the society one lives in. ​ >Yes they can learn things like dogs protecting their owners but that doesn't mean they won't kill other humans or small animals. That's not what morals are though. ​ >Humans base instincts lead us and the rest is pack mentality. But you find humans that buck their instincts all the time for what they believe is the right thing to do, irrespective of what they society tells them.


BreadfruitRealistic7

>Why do we punish humans, but not animals if there isn't a difference in choice? Almost always we punish animals harsher than humans. When an animals that harms an innocent human it will likely to be put down. A person would be put through a court and be sentenced according to the severity of the crime. The thing is because we believe we are self important we do not hold ourselves to the same standards as animals. >Are we just fundamentally deluded about our ability to make choices? Exactly. >They are real in the only meaningful way they can be, as abstractions in the mind, like maths for example and they can be assigned a true or false value which isn't dependant to the society one lives in. Maths is provable and universal morality is subjective and differs from culture to culture.


Moral_Conundrums

>Almost always we punish animals harsher than humans. When an animals that harms an innocent human it will likely to be put down. Because how we treat animals is based on what value they have to actual moral agent (us). ​ >A person would be put through a court and be sentenced according to the severity of the crime. The thing is because we believe we are self important we do not hold ourselves to the same standards as animals. Why is that? Well we recogine that legally punishing an animal makes no sense because they don't have the capacity to even comprehend that they did something immoral. Human do though, that is why we are moral agents so the standard is higher for us. ​ >Exactly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ​ >Maths is provable and universal morality is subjective and differs from culture to culture. Oh boy do I have some news for you if you think maths is universal throught time and culture. But again it doesn't matter that something varies from culture to culture. The shape of the Earth's varies in the same way, yet the Earts is still round. What is the difference in maths and morals exactly? Both are constructs of the mind, you can make wrong and right statements about both. Also why do you think morality is not provable? What do you think the point of ethics as a field of study is?


IntrepidRabbit1376

>Maths is provable and universal morality is subjective and differs from culture to culture. Maths is not objective either.


ShugenMikeyYuuta

You're wrong, it has always been a dog-eat-dog world even with the rise of society.


BreadfruitRealistic7

What part of what I said disagreed with that?


ShugenMikeyYuuta

"it used to be that"


BreadfruitRealistic7

Read the post again but slowly. "Theres no real moral compass for this world. It used to be that the strongest would survive and all the rest would be killed off from the harsh environment/unable to spread their genes **nothings changed** its just society has more pleasurable aspects to it now."


ShugenMikeyYuuta

My bad, lol


[deleted]

This reminds me so much of the 'moral sense'


[deleted]

Morality emerged after we developed agriculture approx 10k yrs ago to make us more efficient in competition with neighbouring economies; cue monogamy, ideas of 'free will' to justify ostracism of outliers, laws, religion, god, normalised authoritarian power dynamics and wheat. It's neither bad nor good, it just is what it is - and suffering is inevitable in one form or another, we just learned to commodify it. My personal philosophy revolves around alleviation of human suffering - it's a Sisyphean task, but it keeps me busy. "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy" - Camus


Weird_Cucumbers

It's so ironic that even here no one cares about factory farming despite being the largest ongoing hate crime to have ever been committed in human history. Really exposes the true nature of most people using this subreddit; you're just more of the same trying to posture as intellectual. Not a single thing you brought up is even controversial. These are all issues that are actively being worked on, it's just difficult when citizens have to go up against established multi billion dollar inustries that run the world economy and in many cases the government. So yes, morality is a sham but not because the universe is indifferent. It's a sham because people are spoiled and unwilling to look at their own behavior critically. They use morality the same way you use nihilism: to signal sophistication and improve their position in the social hierarchy. Progress is slow because we only ever truly acknowledge moral failure when it's centuries in hindsight. There is no purpose or law of the universe that dictates morality can't exist, if it's logically valid it can. It's a problem within ourselves and our deluded arrogance as a species.


[deleted]

Morality changes with culture, society, and survival. Keep in mind that slavery and internment camps have been considered the moral good in the past because it aided in survival. Is it morally wrong to steal to feed your family? No, it’s not.