Candiru Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Morality is based on safety, both physical and emotional. The threat of being held accountable for your actions makes society a safer place. I think it's as simple as that, but I bet no one will even acknowledge this post because it's not deep enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Morality is based on safety, both physical and emotional. The threat of being held accountable for your actions makes society a safer place. I think it's as simple as that, but I bet no one will even acknowledge this post because it's not deep enough. I can dig it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Morality is based on safety, both physical and emotional. The threat of being held accountable for your actions makes society a safer place. I think it's as simple as that, but I bet no one will even acknowledge this post because it's not deep enough. Fear of retribution is not morality. In fact, that appears to be the basis of Christian "morality": the idea that if there wasn't a God to keep us in check, we'd all go around murdering and raping each other. Morality = we don't go around murdering and raping each other because we don't want each other to get murdered and raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 also- what in the FUCK are you actually talking about anyway? i mean, really? ..and so it continues, the disease spreads. the microcosm is the macrocosm. just as cancers can spread in our bodies, so to dose it spread in the world. the world is acid and it must become alkaline or it will surly die.oh. wait ...i mean, what? that is why all this matters, what i am taking about.but WHAT are you talking about!? time management.ah, i see. we can't just dream our lives away doing what we please anymore, we must all join together and become part of the revolution. even spouting off like i am right now is part of it. do what you can, but be truly honest with yourself. you want me/us to join your revolution, and your posts are 'already part of it'? so in your head, by posting here, you are somehow... kicking ass at changing the world for the better? OK and you want me to help out? super! the code is there for a reason, it has a greater purpose and if we write our own it defeats that purpose and extends our suffering, on a personal level and the masses. oh there are codes now? crazy! if we indulge in the world only or for the most part then all we see isthe world, it blinds us and we lose sight of our spiritual law. before long we become sick or make someone else sick possibly through influencing them to do the same things we have done. this happens all the time. some of us find a way back and learn the law (the code) again, many do not. OH SHIT so these codes are spiritual in nature. you're in a cult, right? will they kill you if they find out that you're posting stuff in an online forum, or are you in charge of recruiting? seems like the latter since you're basically asking us to join you in a spiritual revolution involving some codes and shit. well, i gotta say, i'm not convinced! maybe try printing up some cool flyers with promises of 'finally belonging to something bigger' in them to hand out to kids in your local area? F- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambermonk Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Dammit. I forgot my toga and long silver beard today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvatorin Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 redruth uses poetic language to construct artistic representations of what he means. just cuz it's not straightforward doesn't mean its brainwashing nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Morality is based on safety, both physical and emotional. The threat of being held accountable for your actions makes society a safer place. I think it's as simple as that, but I bet no one will even acknowledge this post because it's not deep enough. Fear of retribution is not morality. In fact, that appears to be the basis of Christian "morality": the idea that if there wasn't a God to keep us in check, we'd all go around murdering and raping each other. Morality = we don't go around murdering and raping each other because we don't want each other to get murdered and raped. Because we care about eachothers' safety. We need others around to feel love and companionship. I don't think there are any completely selfless acts. It's all in the name of self-preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redruth Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share Posted December 15, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 this chick sums it all up methinks: Holy shit, fucking all star punch line. I needs to watch me more Woody Allen, stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Morality is based on safety, both physical and emotional. The threat of being held accountable for your actions makes society a safer place. I think it's as simple as that, but I bet no one will even acknowledge this post because it's not deep enough.i think you're right. Fear of retribution is not morality. In fact, that appears to be the basis of Christian "morality": the idea that if there wasn't a God to keep us in check, we'd all go around murdering and raping each other. Morality = we don't go around murdering and raping each other because we don't want each other to get murdered and raped. yeah but see, i think what Candiru was getting at, was the 'morality as a product of evolution' idea. the idea that our feelings/concepts of morality are a product of our evolution as a species, just like lots of other things that also are, and have a strong emphasis on social interaction. there are all these things hardwired in our brains that are there to help us deal with others in groups. we are social creatures. so, in this sense, you could say that these intense feelings of morality (which largely served as a catalyst for the formation of religions) are a thing that we have basically had foisted upon us by evolution, as a construct to keep us in line with the group. having these types of 'understandings' about where we fit in with the group, and what kind of things will make us (and everyone else in the group) safe, would and do increase chances of survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Morality is based on safety, both physical and emotional. The threat of being held accountable for your actions makes society a safer place. I think it's as simple as that, but I bet no one will even acknowledge this post because it's not deep enough. Fear of retribution is not morality. In fact, that appears to be the basis of Christian "morality": the idea that if there wasn't a God to keep us in check, we'd all go around murdering and raping each other. Morality = we don't go around murdering and raping each other because we don't want each other to get murdered and raped. Because we care about eachothers' safety. We need others around to feel love and companionship. I don't think there are any completely selfless acts. It's all in the name of self-preservation. Part of the idea is that we don't go around raping and murdering people because we don't want to live in a society where we have to worry about getting raped or murdered. I think what you're describing is the sort-of training wheels of morality, that will prop us up in the meantime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lucy Faringold Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Yo calm down everyone. Be cool. :-) I think Troon, in his own questionably-worded way, is at least trying to honestly outline his own opinion and shouldn't be insulted. For my part, I think it's important to try to remember that all these terms we're using (religion, spirituality and god in particular) have a ton of baggage and that it is possible to evolve our definitions of all these things. Personally I find talk of God distracting but I am interested in the idea that we as a species can evolve our consciousness to think of ourselves as a collective rather than a series of individuals. This idea of seeing other people/things as another discrete manifestation of the same essence rather than as a completely foreign entity with whom we have to compete would seem to have enormous and obvious benefits on how we treated and regarded each other. I personally don't believe in 'moral codes' or absolute ideas of right and wrong, but if we were all raised to perceive ourselves as 'one thing' (this seems enormously corny, I know, but hang in there) then our preferences would naturally lead to actions and decisions that were beneficial to all. I don't think you even have to label such ideas as inherently 'spiritual'. You don't need much imagination to interpret certain ideas in modern physics as variations on the idea that everything is 'one thing' and that nothing is truly separate. This is probably a badly worded friday night post but I think these things (ideas of self and ego and our apparent separation from each other) are worth thinking about. Particularly in light of what happened in Connecticut. Anyway, other people have written and spoken far more eloquently about this than me (Alan Watts, Jane Roberts, Jean-Luc Picard) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterE Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 to be fair, this is one of those friday nights where i wish i had some of troons peyote and could be right there with him/her. i mean, not physically/geographically with them, but 'spiritually'. or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvatorin Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'd like to play a game of chess with Mr. Troon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 auschwitz? hiroshima? not a very good comparison since most Americans still believe Hiroshima is morally justifiable. I know weird right? the point you bring up in your original post that struck me is that morality, or what is perceived to be moral is controlled in large part by the people who have the most power. Which is why bombing countries into oblivion like Afghanistan and Iraq and targeting people with robotic planes is seen as 'moral' by a large percentage of the population. In Nazi Germany the holocaust (while mostly hidden from the public eye) was morally justifiable to the people who carried it out. Morality is a weird thing because every population on the planet would like to believe his or her morals are the right way. We still allow male circumcision in this country, which by my account is extremely amoral and stupidly religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'd like to recommend this awesome lecture series on morality. When I say awesome, I mean it - these lectures are jam packed full of interesting questions . I watched the second half of them (about 4-5 hours) while coming down from a particularly long & exhausting acid trip, and still managed to grasp most of what was being said... What Candiru mentioned in this thread touches on one of the episodes - morality is a sort of social insurance. That's not the only outlook on morality though, and Kant in particular would never agree with that being the end of the discussion (iirc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'd like to recommend this awesome lecture series on morality. When I say awesome, I mean it - these lectures are jam packed full of interesting questions . I watched the second half of them (about 4-5 hours) while coming down from a particularly long & exhausting acid trip, and still managed to grasp most of what was being said... What Candiru mentioned in this thread touches on one of the episodes - morality is a sort of social insurance. That's not the only outlook on morality though, and Kant in particular would never agree with that being the end of the discussion (iirc). Locke would certainly agree with this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'd like to recommend this awesome lecture series on morality. When I say awesome, I mean it - these lectures are jam packed full of interesting questions . I watched the second half of them (about 4-5 hours) while coming down from a particularly long & exhausting acid trip, and still managed to grasp most of what was being said... What Candiru mentioned in this thread touches on one of the episodes - morality is a sort of social insurance. That's not the only outlook on morality though, and Kant in particular would never agree with that being the end of the discussion (iirc). awesome post. will listen to these while finishing up my grading. thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.