Comment

Comment by Richard W. Symonds on January 16, 2011 at 3:19pm

Just a modern form of Greek philosophical 'Stoicism'

Comment by Chadia on January 13, 2011 at 5:39pm

hey, guys, great group!

I read a post in a topic quoting atheïst don't have 'morality' or 'immorality'.  My question: Is this true?  I childabuse for instance not called immoral?  If not, how do we explain or call crimes like that?

Comment by Richard W. Symonds on January 12, 2011 at 3:48pm

Adriana, this guy on Media Lens thinks all this talk of oxytocin is "depressing" :

 

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1294845841.html

Comment by Richard W. Symonds on January 4, 2011 at 4:00pm

"Both Christians and Atheists can take these new scientific findings, one accepting that these rules were created by God, while the other can avoid such conclusions by observing how these rules would have arisen via Evolutionary processes" - Marc Hauser "Moral Minds"

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on January 3, 2011 at 6:36pm

FYI: There is a post by another TA member on morals in the main forum: Chomsky on Morals.

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on January 2, 2011 at 11:37am

Adriana, the Moral Instinct article by Stephen Pinker that you have linked above was very good. Lots of great info. I circled some of the names and the concepts in order to look into them further.

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on December 31, 2010 at 9:34pm

Comment by Michael Sizer-Watt on December 31, 2010 at 11:09am

I figured it didn't warrant a discussion in here, because it's not really about morality itself, but due the injustice against GLBTs, I wanted to point out www.itgetsbetter.org   It has some touching moments in some of the videos.  On that note, anyone who can watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-awVQkTeVE and still hate really worries me deep down.

Comment by Brian Stewart on December 31, 2010 at 5:56am

Here are some of my thoughts on this: 

What is morality? It's essentially a code of values that seek to guide man's (generic) choices while ethics deals with the process of discovering and defining
such a code. The standards/norms for the definition of the principles
underlying ethics has been one of the most debated issues in philosophy for
centuries...does society decide and if these are evil, is it 'good' because
society has decided it is in the 'interest of society'? Mystics held sway and
used 'the will of God' as the standard and the validation of their ethics. By
implication, both these false standards deny three things, viz:
reason, man's mind and reality.
The ultimate 'value' is life and only living
entities can have goals, make choices and seek to add or destroy value.
However, trees and the amoeba etc don't have the capacity to consciously change
their basic functions although when their environments change and become life
threatening they (given time) adapt to these changes in most cases: their
single purpose remains however to ensure the survival of the species.
Man however has a mind and can take decisions and
is conscious of this: it is this consciousness which is man's fundamental and most
important tool for survival, but man has no automatic code to survive like the
trees; his senses do not tell him what goals he should pursue; he has to
discover these through trial and error.
Because man has the capacity to make choices
(indeed it is his/her undeniable responsibility), he can choose not to think;
to evade reality but he cannot avoid the consequences of his actions/choices. 
So what are the values he should base his choices
upon?
First and foremost it must be based on 'life'
itself or that which is required to sustain it and ensure his survival. If he
chooses to rob, murder, enslave, and loot others to survive his survival is
made possible only by his victims, and he is essentially a parasite and simply
functions at a sub-human level. This not sustainable and will lead to
destruction, not because of a god's punishment but due to the unsustainability
of his actions in the long term.
A man without morals implies that he has given up
the ethical standard against which his actions are measured; he has chosen to
evade his responsibility but he cannot evade the consequences of his actions. 
Long answer to a short question: Hope it helps!

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on December 30, 2010 at 6:57pm

Adriana, thanks. But I was just looking for opinions. I didn't intend for you to go out and have to do my research. : )

 

You may be right though, that a sense of fairness or inequity aversion may be more important in reciprocity. Fairness or inequity aversion has more to do with ME / SELF and empathy has more to do with YOU / OTHER.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page