Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Empathy.
Was Jesus gay?
- Thread starter Aroddo
- Start date
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
dame sorry wrong thread
That wouldn't work. I don't believe that Moses existed, or at least that he didn't exist in the way he was described. All the records of Moses are from a time when the Hebrews had already forgotten their own history. There's no reason to assume he's anything other than an oral myth, intended to create social cohesiveness through a sense of nationality and divine destiny.
Word.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I don't know. I think it fitted quite well
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Morality is the tool for guiding the natural human condition. Empathy is realizing that we are all in the same boat.
Governments are another form of morality, unless of course they are just used to control people. That is how we just defined religion, is it not?
The only difference which it seems that we are avoiding is the source of the authority. But we have a stale mate that all forms of control are human inventions, so there really is not a point that religion is an invention of man. So is government.
I realize that modern man thinks they have outgrown the God authority. My point is God put man in the condition his is, so unless you say that man invented the condition the condition evolved. We evolved into a need to control the natural condition we evolved into would seem to be your point. But there really is no need to control it at all is there, since that is just the natural progression of things?
Says who? Unless a human made that a law, it is just natural to have sex before marriage. Before marriage, was it still wrong? Who invented marriage? It would seem to be just another control over the natural condition we already enjoy.
Sin is just another term for breaking a law. Unless one accepts that sin is disobeying God. Driving over the speed limit would be a sin, but God did not set the speed limits. Jesus did say to render unto Caesar (human law, or actually back then human divinity. it was a religion instituted by humans) that which is Caesar and unto God that which is God's.
Today it could be interpreted render unto human government, the will of such government and unto God that which is God. You would be correct that human government changes according to the whims of human nature. But God will always remain God.
If we invented God, though, as you insist, sin is just the human condition. The "law" or morals would be that which controls humans against that natural condition. Sin would be acting naturally against such control.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
There is a need if you wish to live in a succesful society.
Your point is moot, since God either does not exist nor did it put any man in any condition. Man invented the conditions by natural selection of societies. Those who's conditions made it succesful where the ones we adopted and use now. Those which weren't did not make it, so we're not abiding by those conditions.
There is no need for a superior being dictating rules.
Christ.
Just never mind. If you need to missrepresent me to score points, go ahead. But go ahead without me.
What you are saying is quite correct regarding higher moral laws since empathy is a psychic feeling but most of morality functions on the mental level and thats when concept of sin comes to a play.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No it doesn't.
So why just we do not follow our instincts? Why we do have a need of higher law and an emphaty? How else you can establish some moral law on the mental plain if not by clear discrimination of good and bad?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Am I talking Swahili perhaps?
That would explain a lot.
That would explain a lot.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
As social animals empathy is one of our instincts.
O.K. I can live with beeing dumb. Now go on and answer the questions my Swahili friend...
How do you explain that different instincts tend to colide then?
I think that while it is 'more natural' for humans to be in general non-harmful* (at least after the onset of their existence, cause infants and bordering ages seem to be quite keen on harming other infants/near aged), it is also true that this balance is easy to break if met with obvious external hostility or other source of threat.
For example a pupil can be on the peaceful side of things, but if bullied a lot then you may have caused a chain reaction which won't end well.
*Plato discusses this too. I agree with his claim that nasty behavior is generated in the absense of a remaining link or insight to pleasant human states.
For example a pupil can be on the peaceful side of things, but if bullied a lot then you may have caused a chain reaction which won't end well.
*Plato discusses this too. I agree with his claim that nasty behavior is generated in the absense of a remaining link or insight to pleasant human states.
This just seem over simplified. Did "dark ages" happened becouse of mans selection? Why have we descended from partialy enlightened Greco-Roman culture to barbarian for many centuries? Why there is presently less and less democracy with corporations and oligarchy gaining power?
How is possible that one of the richest nation in history India has become the poorest?
I think this is a good question, and you might just have confused people with your previous phrasing. And, that we don't call 'sin' what you're calling 'sin'.
A LOT of our morality is extrapolated from our instincts regarding morality. "Be kind to animals" is an extrapolation of "be kind to cute animals" which is merely an extrapolation of "be kind to cute babies" which is evolutionarily selected for. There are other examples, obviously. Our heuristics regarding property and fairness, for example, are due to our primate lineage.
What's the basis of 'be kind to animals'? Well, empathy, yes. And also our instinctive urges being extrapolated upon.
So, yes, if you call these extrapolations the 'creation' of our conception of right and wrong, and thus the 'creation' of the idea of sin, I guess it's true enough.
I tell a kid to not burn a mouse. Why? Because it's wrong. I mean, that's the entirety of the explanation, and I really might not be smart enough to unpack why I think it's wrong, I just know it is.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I did not say that to indicate you're dumb, but rather to indicate my lacking ability to get my message across.
Maybe an example will help. But I doubt it.
Why don't you just take what doesn't belong to you if you want it?
Empathy: You are able to realise that the possesion will be missed by the person who it does belong to. You are able to imagine the feeling of loss that person would feel. But not everyone's empathy is tuned to that level. There are some who would take that possesion without second thought.
Society: If you realise that instead of earning stuff, you may as well take it from others, the need to earn stuff deminishes. This is a downward spiral, because no one is going to make or earn stuff when it can be nicked. Therefor a rule to prevent people from nicking other people's stuff would be benificial to a society. A society with this rule will fare better than one without it.
One of our biggest instinct is the need for safety and security. So we are keen to buy into a society where these concepts are important and protected.
Here is my take on the issue: Instinct is a guide in lower nature. In higher nature the role is played by intuition. Man is still to a large extent stuck in lower nature but intuitively feels need for progression. But man is neither pure animal nor he can function on exclusively intuitive plane. The middle ground for man is his mental capacity which is capable of overriding instincts and turn deaf ear on intuition for its own purposes.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
You're wrong, there is nothing to guide our morals because we are just a product of our genes and we just act on what we do.
To be honest the instinctive part in man is being forced by morality and society into empathy. The fact is that the instinct are so strong that you need something else to force you to abandon them. Its not just matter of choice exclusively but most man agrees to make that choice on the realisation that its better to subdue their instintcts at least in part in other to achieve their goal in higher way. Its a great conflict and any time the lower gets upper hand the society and subtle laws in it start to deteriorate.
