I was wondering if all or most humans throughout history have had a conscience, this inner feeling that makes them feel bad when they murder for no reason or makes them feel good if they feed a homeless man for example. Or is morality a man made thing, maybe with religion the religious authorities started telling everyone what is good and what is bad and told the masses what rules to follow because this is what God wants maybe his is how morality was originated?. I wonder if the people that owned slaves ever felt bad/guity about owning them or if they never experienced a discomfort in owning another human being or maybe they thought their slaves were animals or something. I wonder if in the distant past when humans were hunters if they didnt feel bad going into a village and killing the men and taking the women for themselves or maybe they did feel bad but they ignored that feeling.
I think we get our morality from those who care for us as infants/toddlers. As Lenin once said, "Give me a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be mine forever."
It's part nature, (biological), part nurture.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:02:19 PM
I was wondering if all or most humans throughout history have had a conscience, this inner feeling that makes them feel bad when they murder for no reason or makes them feel good if they feed a homeless man for example. Or is morality a man made thing, maybe with religion the religious authorities started telling everyone what is good and what is bad and told the masses what rules to follow because this is what God wants maybe his is how morality was originated?. I wonder if the people that owned slaves ever felt bad/guity about owning them or if they never experienced a discomfort in owning another human being or maybe they thought their slaves were animals or something. I wonder if in the distant past when humans were hunters if they didnt feel bad going into a village and killing the men and taking the women for themselves or maybe they did feel bad but they ignored that feeling.
Depends by what you mean by 'invention' and 'built in'.
Empathy and THE potential to social cognition seem Like traits passed on and develloped by biological evolution.
Morality and specific social cognition in a society are taught, and socially evolved. They are not 'invented' in The way one says: Hey we need a new X, let's make it Y.
That's my to cents in a nutshell. Not sure I'm explaining it well.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 10, 2016, 06:29:21 PM
It's part nature, (biological), part nurture.
Animals other than humans show morality. "Groom and be groomed", for example.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 10, 2016, 06:19:07 PM
I think we get our morality from those who care for us as infants/toddlers. As Lenin once said, "Give me a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be mine forever."
If kids are taught at an early age that its ok to murder steal lie etc if its for your benefit will they ever "feel bad" for doing what they do
I wonder if in the distant past humans didnt have any morals or a conscience and when religion/philosophies or more established religion like Christianity came along all of a sudden morals were introduced and people started having morals/ethics and fast forward to now i think most humans have what is known as a conscience that makes them feel bad if they steal or murder.
Was thinking if some humans live all their lives in a cave or are raised by animals/feral children I wonder if their introduced to the real/outside world if they would have any morals
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:41:20 PM
If kids are taught at an early age that its ok to murder steal lie etc if its for your benefit will they ever "feel bad" for doing what they do
It may happen. People can change what they "feel is right".
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:50:47 PM
I wonder if in the distant past humans didnt have any morals or a conscience and when religion/philosophies or more established religion like Christianity came along all of a sudden morals were introduced and people started having morals/ethics and fast forward to now i think most humans have what is known as a conscience that makes them feel bad if they steal or murder.
Was thinking if some humans live all their lives in a cave or are raised by animals/feral children I wonder if their introduced to the real/outside world if they would have any morals
Morals didn't come from religion, religion coopted morals to have something to "sell." My opinion, based on long term observation.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 10, 2016, 06:30:20 PM
Depends by what you mean by 'invention' and 'built in'.
Empathy and THE potential to social cognition seem Like traits passed on and develloped by biological evolution.
Morality and specific social cognition in a society are taught, and socially evolved. They are not 'invented' in The way one says: Hey we need a new X, let's make it Y.
That's my to cents in a nutshell. Not sure I'm explaining it well.
Did empathy evolve over time, meaning early humans didnt have any
By morality being invented I mean that maybe when religions started becoming known and getting popular people were told that God wants us to follow certain rules and so this was the first time in human history where alot of humans were having thoughts like i cant just murder someone simply because they made me angry or i cant just take for myself any woman i desire, etc.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 10, 2016, 06:51:09 PM
It may happen. People can change what they "feel is right".
I doubt their mindset can be changed, for example sociopaths/psychopaths, how can you tell them to have empathy or not do bad things, or to be nice, if it were legal they could get away with it alot of them would murder simply to steal a 100$ and they would not feel remorse at all, if they were to volunteer or feed someone whos hungry they would not get this feel good feeling that most humans would get.
Humans are social animals. That necessitates a primitive sense of "morality". The rest is cultural.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:58:04 PM
maybe when religions started becoming known and getting popular people were told that God wants us to follow certain rules...
When you decide to start studying religions around the world and in history, you will find an odd commonality, that the "god" of that area seems to share the same rules that the society that claims to follow that god….how odd eh? Think about it, it's not a trick question.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:03:11 PM
I doubt their mindset can be changed,
You doubt wrong, thankfully.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:58:04 PM
Did empathy evolve over time, meaning early humans didnt have any
By morality being invented I mean that maybe when religions started becoming known and getting popular people were told that God wants us to follow certain rules and so this was the first time in human history where alot of humans were having thoughts like i cant just murder someone simply because they made me angry or i cant just take for myself any woman i desire, etc.
If empathy evolved, and we can see it in other group-animals, Why would it not be present in our ancesters before humans could first be called humans?
Religions and THE belief in forces greater than ourselves develloped, evolved and changed through social evolution and social interaction. Just as laws and morality. Or so it seems. To claim one "fully develloped" as THE instigator of THE other seems Like a stretch to me.
If you need religion for morality, what would THE world look Like without religion, to you? What would people without religion be Like, according to you?
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on November 10, 2016, 07:05:12 PM
Humans are social animals. That necessitates a primitive sense of "morality". The rest is cultural.
What Im curious about is not so much morality but conscience. Have we always felt bad/guilty for killing someone who angered us, did slave owners feel any negative feelings.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 10, 2016, 07:12:32 PM
If empathy evolved, and we can see it in other group-animals, Why would it not be present in our ancesters before humans could first be called humans?
Religions and THE belief in forces greater than ourselves develloped, evolved and changed through social evolution and social interaction. Just as laws and morality. Or so it seems. To claim one "fully develloped" as THE instigator of THE other seems Like a stretch to me.
If you need religion for morality, what would THE world look Like without religion, to you? What would people without religion be Like, according to you?
im not saying you need religion for morality i was just giving an example that maybe thats how humans started have a moral compass when religions like christi or islam gained followers or came into existence.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:13:24 PM
What Im curious about is not so much morality but conscience. Have we always felt bad/guilty for killing someone who angered us, did slave owners feel any negative feelings.
All the gods have not shown any "negative" feeling when bragging about killing millions of helpless, innocents humans…. so…..we are still better than the gods eh?
Quote from: aitm on November 10, 2016, 07:11:09 PM
You doubt wrong, thankfully.
Alot of them cant be changed, theres no arguments that you can use on them. Some people feel no empathy no remorse for doing evil things and dont get any pleasure in doing nice/good things, how can you convince them to adopt morals or to "acquire" a conscience
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:03:11 PM
I doubt their mindset can be changed, for example sociopaths/psychopaths, how can you tell them to have empathy or not do bad things, or to be nice, if it were legal they could get away with it alot of them would murder simply to steal a 100$ and they would not feel remorse at all, if they were to volunteer or feed someone whos hungry they would not get this feel good feeling that most humans would get.
If you're going with aberrant personalities, okay. But humans in general are quite capable of changing their viewpoints. Doesn't mean they will, just that they can.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:21:25 PM
Alot of them cant be changed, theres no arguments that you can use on them. Some people feel no empathy no remorse for doing evil things and dont get any pleasure in doing nice/good things, how can you convince them to adopt morals or to "acquire" a conscience
"A lot" of a small group is a smaller group. Using sociopaths as your beacon of morality and then also their habits has the median is a bit of a stretch.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:18:05 PM
im not saying you need religion for morality i was just giving an example that maybe thats how humans started have a moral compass when religions like christi or islam gained followers or came into existence.
Oh, fuck. People didn't have moral compass before Christ? Puh-leeze.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:50:47 PM
I wonder if in the distant past humans didnt have any morals or a conscience and when religion/philosophies or more established religion like Christianity came along all of a sudden morals were introduced and people started having morals/ethics and fast forward to now i think most humans have what is known as a conscience that makes them feel bad if they steal or murder.
Was thinking if some humans live all their lives in a cave or are raised by animals/feral children I wonder if their introduced to the real/outside world if they would have any morals
yeah there's just one thing. Lying stealing and killing were all things that most of the world agreed were unethical way before christianity came along to "tell" them what was right and wrong. You see Christians barrow many things from other cultures and religions. They were not the first and certainly aren't the end all.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:18:05 PM
im not saying you need religion for morality i was just giving an example that maybe thats how humans started have a moral compass when religions like christi or islam gained followers or came into existence.
And is the point of this thread to just think out loud? Or do you have any good reason to think your hypothesis is true?
I understand what you are saying. I don't know why you think it's a logical conclusion to make. I've alluded to some of the reasons why I think this hypothesis of yours seems unlikely. You don't need to repeat the message in response though. I got the idea. We all got the idea by now. Walk me through why you think it might be true.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 10, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
And is the point of this thread to just think out loud? Or do you have any good reason to think your hypothesis is true?
I understand what you are saying. I don't know why you think it's a logical conclusion to make. I've alluded to some of the reasons why I think this hypothesis of yours seems unlikely. You don't need to repeat the message in response though. I got the idea. We all got the idea by now. Walk me through why you think it might be true.
Its the only example that i can think of, i dont know if its true or not. What i want to know is have humans always had a conscience or has it changed/evolved/developed
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 08:00:57 PM
What i want to know is have humans always had a conscience or has it changed/evolved/developed
Well of course it has, ever hear/read about evolution? Really?
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 08:00:57 PM
Its the only example that i can think of, i dont know if its true or not. What i want to know is have humans always had a conscience or has it changed/evolved/developed
But then it's not the only example you can think of, right? If you concider it could have evolved, that is another 'example', isn't it?
If you want my opinion on the matter; unless you got good reason for thinking religion was the creator of 'morality' or 'conscience', don't assume it is. There are actually good reasons to think it isn't. But that doesn't even matter all that much. As long as you don't have any good reasons to think it is, it does not follow that you should think it is.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 10, 2016, 08:15:59 PM
But then it's not the only example you can think of, right? If you concider it could have evolved, that is another 'example', isn't it?
If you want my opinion on the matter; unless you got good reason for thinking religion was the creator of 'morality' or 'conscience', don't assume it is. There are actually good reasons to think it isn't. But that doesn't even matter all that much. As long as you don't have any good reasons to think it is, it does not follow that you should think it is.
What caused the change in humans at some point in the past, what happened where men were conquering other tribes/villages and raping the women and be ok with it, some buried female babies simply or being a girl, slavery, and all the other evil/barbaric things humans did, how do we go from this to humans starting to think and feel bad for their actions, starting to help their fellow man because it made them happy.
I guess its not that important, perhaps the only way to find the answers to my questions is if i could see what humans thought and felt all throughout history...
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 08:34:22 PM
What caused the change in humans at some point in the past, what happened where men were conquering other tribes/villages and raping the women and be ok with it, some buried female babies simply or being a girl, slavery, and all the other evil/barbaric things humans did, how do we go from this to humans starting to think and feel bad for their actions, starting to help their fellow man because it made them happy.
I guess its not that important, perhaps the only way to find the answers to my questions is if i could see what humans thought and felt all throughout history...
first of all, humanity is still doing the evil shit you start off with and second…you CAN see what humans thought and felt…they are called history books.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 08:34:22 PM
What caused the change in humans at some point in the past, what happened where men were conquering other tribes/villages and raping the women and be ok with it, some buried female babies simply or being a girl, slavery, and all the other evil/barbaric things humans did, how do we go from this to humans starting to think and feel bad for their actions, starting to help their fellow man because it made them happy.
Try not to think of it in terms like 'caused the change' and 'at some point in the past'. History and sociology show us that while revolutions do occur and are fascinating subjects; most change happens gradually and over longer time.
Anyways, I'm going to leave it at that for now. I feel like this conversation is kind off going in circles. Sorry.
But one last thing though:
QuoteI guess its not that important, perhaps the only way to find the answers to my questions is if i could see what humans thought and felt all throughout history...
It's actually a very interesting topic; human empathy and morality. And I don't think you should resign your queste because the only way you see you can learn everything is through an impossible method. We may not be able to learn all, but we can learn and reason a great deal. Just attempt to also think of alternative hypotheses. And think of every one how they could be proven or disproven, why they seem more or less likely. And then examine. Don't just pose a hypothesis; think on it.
Quote from: aitm on November 10, 2016, 08:44:50 PM
first of all, humanity is still doing the evil shit you start off with and second…you CAN see what humans thought and felt…they are called history books.
easier to ask questions than reading books
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 08:54:03 PM
easier to ask questions than reading books
true, but simply getting answers thrown at you is not nearly as good as reading history. It says more, and stays more.
My 2 cents worth. Words like 'evil', 'good', 'murder', 'moral', are largely dependent upon the one who uses them. Why? Because it is subjective. What I think of as evil may not match (and most likely doesn't) what another thinks of as evil. Like beauty, morals is in the eye of the beholder. The morals we end up with individually are a mixture of the society and culture we are raised in and our experiences we have in life. Morals are subjective.
I don't know good question. There's definitely something biological probably based around a need to interact with others and build societies. You need some kind of rules if you want to be successful. But the majority of morals change as time changes and are predominantly subjective socialization and indoctrination. I think if we took the time to figure out the specifics of our biological drive for ethics and morality, we could probably largely cut down on killing each other, but I don't see how we'd go about doing so.
I suppose we should start with what you think are strong moral values or even just a definition of a moral?
Morality is the discovery of what works and doesn't in a functional civilization.
Morality began when Mommy Mammal first kissed her precious baby, and it evolved from there, into something more social, and finally into something more cerebral.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 11, 2016, 04:42:11 AM
Morality began when Mommy Mammal first kissed her precious baby, and it evolved from there.
That is a bit more instinctive. And since when do Mommy Rats "kiss" their babies?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 04:46:07 AM
That is a bit more instinctive.
Of course it's more instinctive. I said, that's where it
began.
It would have progressed to protecting the child, then to protecting all children, then to protecting each other, then to much more nuanced things. As intelligence developed, even more complex morality became part of our behavior. It's a catalog of survival traits. Which is to say, most who didn't have these socially beneficial traits, did not survive. Eventually these natural predispositions became thought-out rules and codified laws.
Quote from: CavebearAnd since when do Mommy Rats "kiss" their babies?
I was being a little poetic. It was probably more of a lick.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 11, 2016, 05:06:09 AM
Of course it's more instinctive. I said, that's where it began.
It would have progressed to protecting the child, then to protecting all children, then to protecting each other, then to much more nuanced things. As intelligence developed, even more complex morality became part of our behavior. It's a catalog of survival traits. Which is to say, most who didn't have these socially beneficial traits, did not survive. Eventually these natural predispositions became thought-out rules and codified laws.
I was being a little poetic. It was probably more of a lick.
It seems to me that you just negated your original argument...
?
Cavebear, I wasn't posting as a contradiction to your post, but as a first response to the original post.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 11, 2016, 05:17:25 AM
Cavebear, I wasn't posting as a contradiction to your post, but as a first response to the original post.
Well, you WERE replying yo my post... ;)
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 05:21:57 AM
Well, you WERE replying yo my post... ;)
I'm talking about my first post. I didn't even read your post until after I posted, so I wasn't trying to contradict your post directly above my first post, I was responding to the original post. Then you replied to my post, and I tried to clarify my post. :think:
But you claim I have negated my own statement. How so?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 11, 2016, 05:30:45 AM
I'm talking about my first post. I didn't even read your post until after I posted, so I wasn't trying to contradict your post directly above my first post, I was responding to the original post. Then you replied to my post, and I tried to clarify. :huh:
But you claim I have negated my own statement. How so?
The first thing *I* saw was "Morality began when Mommy Mammal first kissed her precious baby". And I questioned "kiss". So lets forget the mix up. LOL!
:agreenod:
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 11, 2016, 05:49:02 AM
:agreenod:
BTW, fully in agreement with your tag line. One of my favorite statements to the JWs who visit.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 10, 2016, 10:31:21 PM
I don't know good question. There's definitely something biological probably based around a need to interact with others and build societies. You need some kind of rules if you want to be successful. But the majority of morals change as time changes and are predominantly subjective socialization and indoctrination. I think if we took the time to figure out the specifics of our biological drive for ethics and morality, we could probably largely cut down on killing each other, but I don't see how we'd go about doing so.
I suppose we should start with what you think are strong moral values or even just a definition of a moral?
Personally for me moral are rules which you live or try to live by, like the golden rule, never stealing unless you really have to like our starving, or never cheating on your partner. I dont have morals i think currently in my life, im deciding how ill live my life or if ill always be all over the place like sometimes im nice and want to be a good person because it feels good but sometimes im selfish and am willing to screw over other people if it benefits me
i dont like the word morality because it involves rules that you impose upon yourself, if it wasnt illegal and i would never get caught and i dint feel guilty or remorse or experienced any "bad" feelings by doing it that it would benefit me somehow there would be no reason for me not to steal not to lie etc, if i enjoyed hitting dogs for no reason merely because it felt good for example, which i dont btw, but if it felt good i would honestly do it, some people may say thats immoral or wrong but you cant give me any reason for me to not do it
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 08:54:03 PM
easier to ask questions than reading books
You still have to process the answers.
Quote from: 374621 on November 11, 2016, 06:10:56 AM
Personally for me moral are rules which you live or try to live by, like the golden rule, never stealing unless you really have to like our starving, or never cheating on your partner. I dont have morals i think currently in my life, im deciding how ill live my life or if ill always be all over the place like sometimes im nice and want to be a good person because it feels good but sometimes im selfish and am willing to screw over other people if it benefits me
i dont like the word morality because it involves rules that you impose upon yourself, if it wasnt illegal and i would never get caught and i dint feel guilty or remorse or experienced any "bad" feelings by doing it that it would benefit me somehow there would be no reason for me not to steal not to lie etc, if i enjoyed hitting dogs for no reason merely because it felt good for example, which i dont btw, but if it felt good i would honestly do it, some people may say thats immoral or wrong but you cant give me any reason for me to not do it
I'm atheist, but think that some religions have good values atheistically arrived at.
Don't murder, Don't steal, Don't covet, Honor parents. Those always make sense in any society. No deity involved there.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 06:19:56 AM
I'm atheist, but think that some religions have good values atheistically arrived at.
Don't murder, Don't steal, Don't covet, Honor parents. Those always make sense in any society. No deity involved there.
Alot of people like myself wont follow those rules simply because its the moral/right thing to do, I need better reasons/incentives. take stealing for example, i may steal money/stuff if there werent any consequnces to my actions, after that no longer an issue the only thing that may prevent me from doing it is if i felt bad for doing it or if ill regret doing it or something, you cant just tell people at least not smart people to follow those rules you mentioned you need good arguments
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 01:14:07 AM
Morality is the discovery of what works and doesn't in a functional civilization.
"Morals are what allows us to live with ourselves. Ethics are what allows us to live with others."
The problem with the People of the Book claiming their god gave them morals is the many cultures who had a solid set of morals before they ever heard of Yahoo. (YHWH? Something like that.)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 11, 2016, 07:12:05 AM
The problem with the People of the Book claiming their god gave them morals is the many cultures who had a solid set of morals before they ever heard of Yahoo. (YHWH? Something like that.)
OK, you got me there. I normally keep a distinction between morals and ethics, but I slipped in casual discussion. Consider that I meant "ethics". Morality is more of a religious term.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 07:45:18 AM
OK, you got me there. I normally keep a distinction between morals and ethics, but I slipped in casual discussion. Consider that I meant "ethics". Morality is more of a religious term.
Lumping happens.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 11, 2016, 07:49:34 AM
Lumping happens.
Especially when making gravy. But what do YOU mean by "lumping"?
Gawdzilla? What is wrong with you? You are not acting the way you usually do. Trump?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 07:58:52 AM
Especially when making gravy. But what do YOU mean by "lumping"?
I think Gawdzilla Sama means that the concepts of 'ethics' and 'morality' overlap or something.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 01:14:07 AM
Morality is the discovery of what works and doesn't in a functional civilization.
Unfortunately, civilization is clearly dysfunctional.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:13:24 PM
What Im curious about is not so much morality but conscience. Have we always felt bad/guilty for killing someone who angered us, did slave owners feel any negative feelings.
Conscience is key, for those who have one. I don't think slave owners have much conscience, or they couldn't hold slaves. What they do feel is fear, that they will wake up with a justifiably slit throat. This applies to all slavery, including wage and debt slavery ... the 1% today, fear waking up with a justifiably slit throat.
You have to develop a conscience, it is like a plant ... but some people have a moral brown thumb ;-(
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:18:05 PM
im not saying you need religion for morality i was just giving an example that maybe thats how humans started have a moral compass when religions like christi or islam gained followers or came into existence.
Jews made progress, because they took care of their fellow Jews. Christians made even more progress, because they took care of their fellow Christians, and anybody else they could evangelize ;-) Muslims are required to pay a wealth tax (not an income tax) ... they would still be world beaters if they had kept that up. You don't see much of what we could call compassion, with Buddhists and Hindus ... because they can always say you are being punished for past lives (not just past sins).
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2016, 07:58:52 AM
Especially when making gravy. But what do YOU mean by "lumping"?
We have been lumping morals and ethics together.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:21:25 PM
Alot of them cant be changed, theres no arguments that you can use on them. Some people feel no empathy no remorse for doing evil things and dont get any pleasure in doing nice/good things, how can you convince them to adopt morals or to "acquire" a conscience
Some people should be eliminated early in their criminal careers ... but hope brings mercy ... even if it turns out to be foolish.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on November 11, 2016, 08:00:00 AM
Gawdzilla? What is wrong with you? You are not acting the way you usually do. Trump?
Actually, I have never acted the way I usually do. But today I'm home in my own bed and on hydrocodone, Valium, and lidocaine patches.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 11, 2016, 08:09:07 AM
I think Gawdzilla Sama means that the concepts of 'ethics' and 'morality' overlap or something.
They do overlap in action, but have different bases of origin and justification.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 08:34:22 PM
What caused the change in humans at some point in the past, what happened where men were conquering other tribes/villages and raping the women and be ok with it, some buried female babies simply or being a girl, slavery, and all the other evil/barbaric things humans did, how do we go from this to humans starting to think and feel bad for their actions, starting to help their fellow man because it made them happy.
I guess its not that important, perhaps the only way to find the answers to my questions is if i could see what humans thought and felt all throughout history...
Zoroaster said "Don't be cruel to animals or people" long before anyone else did ... it was an outgrowth of the "karma" culture of the Indo-Iranian peoples. But that was based more on fear of retribution in the next life (you might come back as the cow you were cruel to). Having empathy is a further development.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:02:19 PM
I was wondering if all or most humans throughout history have had a conscience, this inner feeling that makes them feel bad when they murder for no reason or makes them feel good if they feed a homeless man for example. Or is morality a man made thing, maybe with religion the religious authorities started telling everyone what is good and what is bad and told the masses what rules to follow because this is what God wants maybe his is how morality was originated?. I wonder if the people that owned slaves ever felt bad/guity about owning them or if they never experienced a discomfort in owning another human being or maybe they thought their slaves were animals or something. I wonder if in the distant past when humans were hunters if they didnt feel bad going into a village and killing the men and taking the women for themselves or maybe they did feel bad but they ignored that feeling.
Native Americans had myths to deal with the problem of killing animals, yet seeing animals as a kind of people, that were being murdered. Compensation had to be offered, to the animals, or the gods, for the trespass of hunting. Also fear of an enraged buffalo stomping on you. Native Americans got in touch with this, by the stories told by their parents, and thru a spirit quest (shamanism). They basically stitched their individual story into the larger story of their tribe and of nature. This is a poetic and creative act. This is part of the reason for the elaborate animal sacrifice system, including the Jerusalem Temple. Sacralized barbecue.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 10, 2016, 06:35:08 PM
Animals other than humans show morality. "Groom and be groomed", for example.
Ah yes, the Clinton Foundation ;-)
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:41:20 PM
If kids are taught at an early age that its ok to murder steal lie etc if its for your benefit will they ever "feel bad" for doing what they do
The real Arabs are raised in a harsh climate. Well supplied Polynesians are very different (not Easter Island). So being an Arab is a harsh circumstance ... and they are a harsh people. Polynesians ... one big luau.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 09:39:44 AM
The real Arabs are raised in a harsh climate.
"God created Dune to train the faithful."
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 07:13:24 PM
What Im curious about is not so much morality but conscience. Have we always felt bad/guilty for killing someone who angered us, did slave owners feel any negative feelings.
Let me break down the basic "primitive" morality:
1. Don't kill members of your own tribe.
2. Share your resources with your tribe.
3. Assist members of your tribe.
Of course there's a bit more than that, and some nuances, but those are the three main "rules". Tribalism makes it easier to kill members of a another group. They're not human anymore to you, because they're an outsider. Likewise a slave master would not feel guilty for mistreating his slaves because they are not "human" to him.
This attachment to other humans regardless of what group they're part of is due to cultural influences that are taught to you from birth. You begin to see all other humans as part of your tribe. That's why the military tries to deprogram that in a way, they try to make the enemy seem as less than human or as outsiders to your tribe. That's also why it's so easy for someone in a group like ISIS to so casually behead someone, they see anyone not sufficiently Islamic to them as outside the tribe. There is nothing wrong according to the primitive morality with killing or mistreating things outside of your tribe.
Agreed ... but modern people can't even qualify as primitive tribal members ... we are toxic except in the war of everyone against everyone else.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
Agreed ... but modern people can't even qualify as primitive tribal members ... we are toxic except in the war of everyone against everyone else.
Really? Dang. I had hopes for a global village.
Quote from: Sal1981 on November 11, 2016, 12:28:54 PM
Really? Dang. I had hopes for a global village.
That is the Oprah planet ... you aren't on the Oprah planet.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 09:28:14 AM
Some people should be eliminated early in their criminal careers ... but hope brings mercy ... even if it turns out to be foolish.
Don't you think it's inefficient to try and track down every criminal before they really start their "careers"?
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2016, 09:36:49 AM
Native Americans had myths to deal with the problem of killing animals, yet seeing animals as a kind of people, that were being murdered. Compensation had to be offered, to the animals, or the gods, for the trespass of hunting. Also fear of an enraged buffalo stomping on you. Native Americans got in touch with this, by the stories told by their parents, and thru a spirit quest (shamanism). They basically stitched their individual story into the larger story of their tribe and of nature. This is a poetic and creative act. This is part of the reason for the elaborate animal sacrifice system, including the Jerusalem Temple. Sacralized barbecue.
I think the Native Americans were among the few who got society right. Then the Europeans showed up.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 12, 2016, 08:17:59 PM
I think the Native Americans were among the few who got society right. Then the Europeans showed up.
Some did--others not so much.
Quote from: 374621 on November 11, 2016, 06:10:56 AM
Personally for me moral are rules which you live or try to live by, like the golden rule, never stealing unless you really have to like our starving, or never cheating on your partner. I dont have morals i think currently in my life, im deciding how ill live my life or if ill always be all over the place like sometimes im nice and want to be a good person because it feels good but sometimes im selfish and am willing to screw over other people if it benefits me
i dont like the word morality because it involves rules that you impose upon yourself, if it wasnt illegal and i would never get caught and i dint feel guilty or remorse or experienced any "bad" feelings by doing it that it would benefit me somehow there would be no reason for me not to steal not to lie etc, if i enjoyed hitting dogs for no reason merely because it felt good for example, which i dont btw, but if it felt good i would honestly do it, some people may say thats immoral or wrong but you cant give me any reason for me to not do it
I don't think we impose morals on ourselves, I think we collectively agree on what we like and don't like and then teach our children through the generations. Stealing is only bad because people need property to be protected. The gut feeling people receive when about to steal is socialization. I see many more reasons to steal, and was a bit of a kleptomaniac in my younger days. Cheating is hardly amoral anymore with changing societal standards on sex and relationships.
For example, how you're forming morals these days is probably how they did it back in the day, except everyone acted as you do and it was a system of trial and error.
"Hmm, I just killed that dude and now his friends are trying to kill me. Maybe I should tell my son to be careful not to murder needlessly."
Which evolved into only kill in self-defense. The morality aspect is that we generally feel that killing is bad. I don't know this to be true of course, but it's a guess. For example, on this website I think we've all learned to value rational thought over blind following. I agree that our current system doesn't have an actual reason behind a lot of our morals and ethics, not that they are wrong it's just we don't know why they're right. That's why laws are so important, because it no longer becomes optional, and that's the price of the social contract.
Ironically I'm currently drafting a book on the subject of global ethics and rational reasoning behind laws.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 12, 2016, 08:28:31 PM
Some did--others not so much.
Yes I suppose that was a bit of a broad generalization.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on November 11, 2016, 10:53:23 AM
Let me break down the basic "primitive" morality:
1. Don't kill members of your own tribe.
2. Share your resources with your tribe.
3. Assist members of your tribe.
Of course there's a bit more than that, and some nuances, but those are the three main "rules". Tribalism makes it easier to kill members of a another group. They're not human anymore to you, because they're an outsider. Likewise a slave master would not feel guilty for mistreating his slaves because they are not "human" to him.
This attachment to other humans regardless of what group they're part of is due to cultural influences that are taught to you from birth. You begin to see all other humans as part of your tribe. That's why the military tries to deprogram that in a way, they try to make the enemy seem as less than human or as outsiders to your tribe. That's also why it's so easy for someone in a group like ISIS to so casually behead someone, they see anyone not sufficiently Islamic to them as outside the tribe. There is nothing wrong according to the primitive morality with killing or mistreating things outside of your tribe.
Cultural solidarity is the basis for all organization. Family first, friends second, allies third, and trade after that.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 12, 2016, 08:28:31 PM
Some did--others not so much.
Resource scarcity drives human violence. Central Mexico is a scrub desert, Yucatan is a jungle ... both are hard places to live in. Once your population gets too big, and the resources are marginal to begin with you become Easter Island.
Ah, but we do love or Noble Savage myth of Rousseau! So 1970s, so crying native.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 12, 2016, 08:16:59 PM
Don't you think it's inefficient to try and track down every criminal before they really start their "careers"?
People who are into pre-crime aren't worried about efficiency. They are paranoid. The original pre-crime effort was spanking your children.
Quote from: Baruch on November 13, 2016, 10:13:25 AM
Resource scarcity drives human violence. Central Mexico is a scrub desert, Yucatan is a jungle ... both are hard places to live in. Once your population gets to big, and the resources are marginal to begin with you become Easter Island.
Ah, but we do love or Noble Savage myth of Rousseau! So 1970s, so crying native.
The Noble Native American is sort of like the bible. One can find whatever they want to trot out as the best example of something or to prove their point. The Native Americans (who were not really Native since all human life comes from Africa) were/are people. Each group, tribe or nation had great points and some not so great. Sort of like people everywhere. But we cannot escape the fact that they were here prior to the Europeans (or any other group) and did not deserve what history dealt to them.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on November 10, 2016, 06:35:08 PM
Animals other than humans show morality. "Groom and be groomed", for example.
Exactly.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 13, 2016, 10:44:27 AM
The Noble Native American is sort of like the bible. One can find whatever they want to trot out as the best example of something or to prove their point. The Native Americans (who were not really Native since all human life comes from Africa) were/are people. Each group, tribe or nation had great points and some not so great. Sort of like people everywhere. But we cannot escape the fact that they were here prior to the Europeans (or any other group) and did not deserve what history dealt to them.
It takes an act of the imagination, to put yourself into Apocalypto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eE1hxj1yzU .. the city slickers against the red necks
Native Americans are a mirror, that shows us who we all are ... not some ideal.
Wonder Woman as savior ...
"I used to want to save the world, this beautiful place, but the closer you get, the more you see the great darkness within."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q8fG0TtVAY
Movies are fiction, but they are closer to the truth than some think.
Quote from: Baruch on November 13, 2016, 10:14:47 AM
People who are into pre-crime aren't worried about efficiency. They are paranoid. The original pre-crime effort was spanking your children.
fair enough, however I don't know if the society-citizen relationship is as strong or close a bond as the parent-child relationship, at least not in the modern day.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on November 13, 2016, 03:41:02 PM
fair enough, however I don't know if the society-citizen relationship is as strong or close a bond as the parent-child relationship, at least not in the modern day.
It varies. Generic socialization is thru the public school system. Serious socialization is done in the armed forces. Citizens are made, they don't happen spontaneously. Family/clan/tribe organization happens spontaneously ... hence bigotry against outsiders. With nations, this is channelled into patriotic warfare. Of course religion (to bind) is used for socialization ... into sectarian groups. I have experienced all of these (though as a civilian in the military).
Europe is different than the US ... at least in the short run, the EU diminishes patriotism, in favor of a much weaker ideal.
I don't think we are so completely disconnected from each other, that we don't feel something instinctively when we cheat, steal or kill. We are a complex species, with a brain to match. Natural selection has no doubt limited the number of sociopaths in the population.
But don't forget that there is such a thing as ignoring your conscience, and doing it anyway. That's the image I have of these kids in ISIS: they override their conscience, and end up getting a thrill, from the rush of emotion. It is very similar to fear. The conscience isn't foolproof.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 14, 2016, 02:37:20 PM
I don't think we are so completely disconnected from each other, that we don't feel something instinctively when we cheat, steal or kill.
The vast majority of us, certainly. But one of the hallmarks of a serial killer is a complete lack of empathy for his* victims.
*"His" because the overwhelming majority of serial killers are male.
I could kill without much concern for a good reason... You aim a gun at an innocent person, and I have one, you're dead. There are 6 billion of us, you aren't special, and no loss when you you are gone.
Morality and the conscience are natural for man. If this has always been the case; who knows. But evidently it was bound to happen. Other animals show empathy and altruism as well. It is very significant for the advancement of man and life as a whole on this planet, but due to societal norms and greed most actively preoccupy themselves and in doing so basically ignore the conscience or twist it to work towards ones one greedy wants and needs which isn't the correct usage. Kind of like how people shut off emotions, insisting they are insignificant. It is a conclusion predetermined to fit into ones tendencies. Anyone can grasp that emotions and intellect work together in a system much more effectively than separated. If one has no emotion then nothing has significance to them. This is a type of neurosis, as is negation and manipulation of the conscience.
Religions didn't invent it. They attempted, as best they could, to grasp hold of it and expound on it as it is within all of us. Somewhere along the line, shortly after the crucifixion of the Christ, man was intentionally lead astray by those who where wholly enveloped in greed. These powers have successfully lead the masses astray ever since. This is slowly changing though and eventually will only be a memory of a chaotic time when people let pride and greed run the world and perhaps nearly destroy it.
Eventually people will understand that refuting nonsensical dogma isn't synonymous with refuting the conscience or objective morality, and that though man has lead and gone astray, that in no way refutes the possibility of the existence of GOD or the significance and origin of the conscience. Due to our freedom we must learn from our mistakes. Those who proudly proclaim their own salvation make a grand mistake due to pride. Those who consider morality or the conscience to be an invention of corrupt man to manipulate the masses too make a grand mistake. What they did was find away to distract people from it, all while lining their own pockets.
Sorry, probably rambling.
Sort of a touchy subject.
Peace
Man led himself astray, in the Garden. It is a lot older than Jesus.
But I agree completely about conscience and compassion as being positive influences.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 21, 2016, 09:03:29 PM
Morality and the conscience are natural for man. If this has always been the case; who knows. But evidently it was bound to happen. Other animals show empathy and altruism as well. It is very significant for the advancement of man and life as a whole on this planet, but due to societal norms and greed most actively preoccupy themselves and in doing so basically ignore the conscience or twist it to work towards ones one greedy wants and needs which isn't the correct usage. Kind of like how people shut off emotions, insisting they are insignificant. It is a conclusion predetermined to fit into ones tendencies. Anyone can grasp that emotions and intellect work together in a system much more effectively than separated. If one has no emotion then nothing has significance to them. This is a type of neurosis, as is negation and manipulation of the conscience.
Religions didn't invent it. They attempted, as best they could, to grasp hold of it and expound on it as it is within all of us. Somewhere along the line, shortly after the crucifixion of the Christ, man was intentionally lead astray by those who where wholly enveloped in greed. These powers have successfully lead the masses astray ever since. This is slowly changing though and eventually will only be a memory of a chaotic time when people let pride and greed run the world and perhaps nearly destroy it.
Eventually people will understand that refuting nonsensical dogma isn't synonymous with refuting the conscience or objective morality, and that though man has lead and gone astray, that in no way refutes the possibility of the existence of GOD or the significance and origin of the conscience. Due to our freedom we must learn from our mistakes. Those who proudly proclaim their own salvation make a grand mistake due to pride. Those who consider morality or the conscience to be an invention of corrupt man to manipulate the masses too make a grand mistake. What they did was find away to distract people from it, all while lining their own pockets.
Sorry, probably rambling.
Sort of a touchy subject.
Peace
Theistic rules generally represent civilization rules worked out slowly over millenia by non-theists. The theists take the rules that work for society and add a few religious strictures in there and LO! THERE BE RELIGIOUS COMMANDMENTS!
From basic ethical/social rules non-theists worked out on their own...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 17, 2016, 06:18:37 AM
I could kill without much concern for a good reason... You aim a gun at an innocent person, and I have one, you're dead. There are 6 billion of us, you aren't special, and no loss when you you are gone.
"Shooting people is easy, living with yourself afterward not so much."
I mostly shot at people who were shooting at me. Or were likely to be shooting at me.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 21, 2016, 10:25:30 PM
Theistic rules generally represent civilization rules worked out slowly over millenia by non-theists. The theists take the rules that work for society and add a few religious strictures in there and LO! THERE BE RELIGIOUS COMMANDMENTS!
From basic ethical/social rules non-theists worked out on their own...
What don't you get about morality and the conscience not being developed by man, but intrinsic and natural?
Also I didn't mean that the conscience came along only after the Christ. That era is when man became generally oblivious to it is what I was saying.
Practical history is hard to do, psychological history is even harder. Color me skeptical. I think people are jerks now, and have pretty much always been jerks.
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2016, 07:17:17 AM
Practical history is hard to do, psychological history is even harder. Color me skeptical. I think people are jerks now, and have pretty much always been jerks.
There is freedom and potential for either direction. Each with a profound effect on existence, be it positive or negative.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 22, 2016, 06:52:16 AM
What don't you get about morality and the conscience not being developed by man, but intrinsic and natural?
Also I didn't mean that the conscience came along only after the Christ. That era is when man became generally oblivious to it is what I was saying.
I'll answer that question, Pops, with one of my own. What don't you get about morality and the conscience being developed by mankind from within the fabric of a group or culture? It's part of evolution; man developed morality to help insure the survival of the group. That's why there is no set 'morality' worldwide, because the world is made up of numerous groups and cultures, each with their own 'morality' and conscience.
Since christ (which you still don't seem to understand is not Jesus' last name--there were/are many--and that christ is a fiction) is a fiction, the bible is only a reflection of the morality of a specific group at a specific point in time. So, the 'morality' of the bible is not a fiction, but too specific to be of any value now. And it is even more complicated than that in that there are several 'moralities' reflected in the bible since there are several groups at several different time frames. But it is still too specific to be of any value to us now.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 22, 2016, 08:55:44 AM
I'll answer that question, Pops, with one of my own. What don't you get about morality and the conscience being developed by mankind from within the fabric of a group or culture? It's part of evolution; man developed morality to help insure the survival of the group. That's why there is no set 'morality' worldwide, because the world is made up of numerous groups and cultures, each with their own 'morality' and conscience.
Since christ (which you still don't seem to understand is not Jesus' last name--there were/are many--and that christ is a fiction) is a fiction, the bible is only a reflection of the morality of a specific group at a specific point in time. So, the 'morality' of the bible is not a fiction, but too specific to be of any value now. And it is even more complicated than that in that there are several 'moralities' reflected in the bible since there are several groups at several different time frames. But it is still too specific to be of any value to us now.
If a thing is developed by mankind then it is a fabrication. You cannot say it is a product of evolution or nature and a product of man.
As far as your comments on the Christ and the bible; I don't even know why you emphasize them here. Why even bring them up?
You say that morality isn't universal due to different cultures and traditions. I agree that there are variable due to these things and others.
Though morality can be seen as variable, the conscience is universal among healthily functioning free agents. Though each has their own subjective perceptions even within the conscience, the ability to negate want of self allows for objective morality. Researching and studying books similar to the one you claim is irrelevant allows one to understand these prerequisites to objective morality, and what is good and right as it pertains to existence as a whole and the peaceable advancement there of.
Peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 22, 2016, 08:40:12 AM
There is freedom and potential for either direction. Each with a profound effect on existence, be it positive or negative.
Unfortunately, even positive action, leads to unforeseen future negative consequences ;-( But I would rather be guilty of that, than guilty of negative action.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 22, 2016, 06:52:16 AM
What don't you get about morality and the conscience not being developed by man, but intrinsic and natural?
Also I didn't mean that the conscience came along only after the Christ. That era is when man became generally oblivious to it is what I was saying.
All human ethics are human-made. Morality, in the sense of sin, is merely religious codifications of existing ethics that work for any society.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 22, 2016, 09:43:19 AM
If a thing is developed by mankind then it is a fabrication. You cannot say it is a product of evolution or nature and a product of man.
Peace
Everything made or thought of by mankind is a fabrication. We are living fabrication, the first self-aware creatures who can consider their own origins, current existence, and future demise. No creature before us ever looked at the stars and wondered what they were. Heck, no lion ever looked at an antelope hoofprint and made the connection that one passed and maybe should be followed.
The smartest ape can pound a nut with a rock. Seen any writing a book or trying out a kite? We look at stars, contemplate our past, and measure the planet.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 05:32:26 AM
Everything made or thought of by mankind is a fabrication. We are living fabrication, the first self-aware creatures who can consider their own origins, current existence, and future demise. No creature before us ever looked at the stars and wondered what they were. Heck, no lion ever looked at an antelope hoofprint and made the connection that one passed and maybe should be followed.
The smartest ape can pound a nut with a rock. Seen any writing a book or trying out a kite? We look at stars, contemplate our past, and measure the planet.
We agree, but many would have you think that the human race, nor life on earth are special or unique.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 21, 2016, 09:03:29 PM
most actively preoccupy themselves and in doing so basically ignore the conscience or twist it to work towards ones one greedy wants and needs which isn't the correct usage.
Most? Probably all people do this. Every neurosis, probably every psychosis, can be found in small traces in every one of us. It's part of the clutter created by an evolved brain, which while providing survival potential, is also horribly flawed.
I don't know what you mean by correct usage. How do you determine correctness?
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 21, 2016, 09:03:29 PM
Kind of like how people shut off emotions, insisting they are insignificant.
Generally speaking, shutting off emotions to the point of not feeling them, is unhealthy, although everyone does this to a degree. Emotions do serve a purpose in our survival, and I welcome them as much as I welcome reality. Where people commonly err is to read their emotions as indicators of reality. Emotions can help you flee or fight or even love, but as indicators of reality, they are useless. Emotions are not knowledge, and that's where people get confused. Here's an example of how emotions are unhelpful indicators of realty:
I hate witches.
We should burn all witches.
It makes me feel safer.
I like doing God's will.
Quote from: popsthebuilder on November 21, 2016, 09:03:29 PM
Anyone can grasp that emotions and intellect work together in a system much more effectively than separated. If one has no emotion then nothing has significance to them. This is a type of neurosis, as is negation and manipulation of the conscience.
We obviously disagree on this point.
Quote from: SGOS on December 09, 2016, 08:09:11 AM
Most? Probably all people do this. Every neurosis, probably every psychosis, can be found in small traces in every one of us. It's part of the clutter created by an evolved brain, which while providing survival potential, is also horribly flawed.
I don't know what you mean by correct usage. How do you determine correctness?
Generally speaking, shutting off emotions to the point of not feeling them, is unhealthy, although everyone does this to a degree. Emotions do serve a purpose in our survival, and I welcome them as much as I welcome reality. Where people commonly err is to read their emotions as indicators of reality. Emotions can help you flee or fight or even love, but as indicators of reality, they are useless. Emotions are not knowledge, and that's where people get confused. Here's an example of how emotions are unhelpful indicators of realty:
I hate witches.
We should burn all witches.
It makes me feel safer.
I like doing God's will.
We obviously disagree on this point.
Correct usage would be hat usage that confirms what is known within the selfless conscience and is equally profitable and peaceable for all existence.
Emotion is intrinsic to the reception of he conscience.
You statement about emotions being useless as knowledge in them self may be seen as true. Emotion signifies importance to self, but to conflate this with regular ole emotions in ones life is flawed. One must at least be able to see self deception and consciously negate want for self in active conclusive thought processes in order to even realize what type of emotion I'm speaking of, and how it connects to truth and reality and significance.
Surely you think this is fluffy hot air, as I would expect many to do, but to assume such prior to ever realising self deception is a blind or one sided opinion on a two sided topic.
peace
Quote from: popsthebuilder on December 09, 2016, 08:50:36 AM
Correct usage would be hat usage that confirms what is known within the selfless conscience and is equally profitable and peaceable for all existence.
Emotion is intrinsic to the reception of he conscience.
You statement about emotions being useless as knowledge in them self may be seen as true. Emotion signifies importance to self, but to conflate this with regular ole emotions in ones life is flawed. One must at least be able to see self deception and consciously negate want for self in active conclusive thought processes in order to even realize what type of emotion I'm speaking of, and how it connects to truth and reality and significance.
Surely you think this is fluffy hot air, as I would expect many to do, but to assume such prior to ever realising self deception is a blind or one sided opinion on a two sided topic.
peace
I don't know what you are talking about. It almost sounds like you are going to make sense, and then it ends up wandering about leaving what seems like a trail of half thoughts and confusion.
Quote from: 374621 on November 10, 2016, 06:02:19 PM
I was wondering if all or most humans throughout history have had a conscience, this inner feeling that makes them feel bad when they murder for no reason or makes them feel good if they feed a homeless man for example.
Some humans don't have that feeling even now. They don't feel bad when they do bad things, and they don't feel good when they do good things.