Abortion Controversy

[danielsangeo]

The very concept that sex is immoral or bad and should be kept hidden lest we warp our children's fragile little minds is what leads, indirectly, to abortion (sex is a bad thing and if you partake in it, you should hide it from your friends and your family...and definitely, your family should never broach the subject of sex because our precious snowflakes need to be kept pure).

 

No one here is saying that but that's the mantra, at least in the United States.

 

And, no, I'm not suggesting that education will "numb" us from the facts of abortion. In fact, education will teach us about what happens in abortion....and also cut down on the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions. Is this a bad thing?

 

And, no, we don't care about not killing others because of morality. We do it because it's a survival instinct and we create morals around this instinct. But instincts are supposed to be suppressed, am I right? It's what separates us from the beasts, right?

 

Or am I way off base?

[Geneaux486]

And, no, we don't care about not killing others because of morality.

 

Of course we do, but more on that next:

 

We do it because it's a survival instinct and we create morals around this instinct.

 

Survival instinct != caring about others besides ourselves. We have the ability to reason, and thus are able to percieve morality. Going beyond our base instincts of simply doing what feels good at the time we do it, thinking about consequences of our actions and actually caring about them, that is part of morality. It is an inescapable part of reasoning, and making decisions beyond our base instincts. To say that morality itself is contrary to our best interests in any capacity is a complete logical fallacy.

[ProHypster]

You guys know that thinking about this type of topic too much will completely kill your morality.

(I went far with logical reasoning and kept going and going untill I had no more morality and care, then I reversed everything and said, ah fuck it, I'll live like an animal again.)

I might be pretty crazy now.... Or could I be????

I've always seen some crazy people (who live with no influence of society) are the completely free people in the world, man I'm really in trouble.

 

So, anyways I'm out because I learned about 2 years ago that freethought will kill your morality.

 

Before that though, I want anyone to answer here to answer what is ultimate right and what is ultimate wrong and why it is so. I know for an instance that our view of the world changes, during history we have seen many, now considered evil things happen, but crusaders, torture, slavery was all done without any feelings whatsoever, or even with positive moral feelings so I made a crazy hypothesis that there is no ultimate right and ultimate wrong.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Geneaux486]

You guys know that thinking about this type of topic too much will completely kill your morality.

 

Aside from that being baseless to begin with:

 

I know for an instance that our view of the world changes, during history we have seen many, now considered evil things happen, but crusaders, torture, slavery was all done without any feelings whatsoever, or even with positive moral feelings.

 

We come to the conclusions that these things were wrong because we do think about this type of topic so much. It's how we come to better percieve morality and the way we should and should not treat others. Your notion of "killing morality" is brought about by not thinking about these types of things.

[ProHypster]

You guys know that thinking about this type of topic too much will completely kill your morality.

 

Aside from that being baseless to begin with:

 

I know for an instance that our view of the world changes, during history we have seen many, now considered evil things happen, but crusaders, torture, slavery was all done without any feelings whatsoever, or even with positive moral feelings.

 

We come to the conclusions that these things were wrong because we do think about this type of topic so much. It's how we come to better percieve morality and the way we should and should not treat others. Your notion of "killing morality" is brought about by not thinking about these types of things.

 

Right, so my years of thinking and attending Sociology about this must've been a waste.

I've learned in Sociology that moral values change every year and the countries' laws reflect it.

 

EDIT: Also, may anyone here be smart enough to make a valid formula with intelligence and moral values, I don't understand how those are connected but I know they are.

 

I will then test it, if it works.

 

Also I've heard that once someone does something morally bad, he doesn't feel anything or less for the second time. Then ultimately he will have no feelings about the actions. How come?

 

I really should leave this topic as I'm afraid I'm just making myself sound crazy to you and promoting no-morality, which I don't want.

 

When I understand the connection better then I'm out of this topic.

 

Also, if you're now afraid of me for what unethical stuff I have wrote here, don't be, I want no harm to civilization and in fact my philosophy includes to help humans when I can and that goes for enemies too. All I want is to understand the world better and harming people will get me nowhere. Although I used to fight with my own age group over stupidity that they have done that harmed me but here in Ukraine fighting is completely normal for a teen.

[Geneaux486]

I've learned in Sociology that moral values change every year and the countries' laws reflect it.

 

True moral values evolve, they don't really change. And it still comes from thinking about them.

 

Also I've heard that once someone does something morally bad, he doesn't feel anything or less for the second time. Then ultimately he will have no feelings about the actions.

 

Guilt, penance, redemption, etc. To believe what you said to be true one would have to ignore the existence of these things.

[ProHypster]

Guilt, penance, redemption, etc. To believe what you said to be true one would have to ignore the existence of these things.

 

I know people who steal things and feel absolutely nothing. Do you think they are ignoring those values or do they simply don't have them anymore????

 

I should leave......

[Geneaux486]

I know people who steal things and feel absolutely nothing. Do you think they are ignoring those values or do they simply don't have them anymore????

 

They're probably ignoring them. Or they have an anti-social personality and do not feel guilt to begin with. This means morality isn't real how?

[ProHypster]

I know people who steal things and feel absolutely nothing. Do you think they are ignoring those values or do they simply don't have them anymore????

 

They're probably ignoring them. Or they have an anti-social personality and do not feel guilt to begin with. This means morality isn't real how?

I wish to have debated this but as I said, I'm out, I will further read posts here though.

[danielsangeo]

And, no, we don't care about not killing others because of morality.

 

Of course we do, but more on that next:

 

We do it because it's a survival instinct and we create morals around this instinct.

 

Survival instinct != caring about others besides ourselves. We have the ability to reason, and thus are able to percieve morality. Going beyond our base instincts of simply doing what feels good at the time we do it, thinking about consequences of our actions and actually caring about them, that is part of morality. It is an inescapable part of reasoning, and making decisions beyond our base instincts. To say that morality itself is contrary to our best interests in any capacity is a complete logical fallacy.

 

Pardon for a moment, but why do you assume that "our base instincts" are "doing what feels good at the time"? Why can't "caring for others" and "thinking about consequences" also be "base instincts"?

 

I'm not saying that morality itself is contrary to our best interests. In fact, I think morality is what we use to explain our instincts. We're told, time and again, though, that "instincts" are somehow bad; that "instincts" are simply "doing what feels good at the time".

 

I don't buy this. At all.

 

As for those that feel no guilt for stealing, et al, I believe that this is a mutation of sorts (look out! I'm delving into evolution!) and these people do not have that basic instinct of empathy.

[Axeldeath]

I don't think caring for others and thinking about consequences are base instincts, base instincts are the instincts we fall back onto when we are in danger, fear etc.... The really strong over-powering ones

[Geneaux486]

but why do you assume that "our base instincts" are "doing what feels good at the time"? Why can't "caring for others" and "thinking about consequences" also be "base instincts"?

 

You're basically asking why thinking things through before we act isn't a base instinct. Thought and reason are how we overcome our most basic desires for pleasure. That is part of morality. Trying to percieve how we should and should not treat other living things is morality.

 

As for those that feel no guilt for stealing, et al, I believe that this is a mutation of sorts (look out! I'm delving into evolution!) and these people do not have that basic instinct of empathy.

 

You're a little late to be delving, the inability to experience guilt for one's actions is a well known psychological disorder.

[danielsangeo]

Of course it's a psychological disorder. I've never stated otherwise.

 

But, again, you're asserting that the "base instinct" is simply "pleasure" and I don't believe that. I believe that thinking things through is instinctual for most. Perceiving how we should and should not treat others is morality...and instinctual.

 

I know that I want to be treated a certain way and that, if I'm treated in another way, I don't like that so I try not to do that to others. But I will, if they do it to me first, respond in kind. If this isn't instinctual, what is it?

 

From whence comes "morality" if not from us? If you say another source, provide evidence for that source.

[Axeldeath]

Base instincts are survival instincts. It's possible that because over time our species has become a species that survives through our society, therefore it's needed to develop instincts different to others in the animal kingdom ( I haven't studied this, it's just a hypothesis ). Just thought I'd add my opinion to the discussion

[danielsangeo]

Well, considering that there are other non-human animals that possess traits like monogamy, concern for the well-being of other members of their species, and other such things that many would consider "human morality", perhaps "morality" isn't something for humans but something that we just invented for ourselves.

[Axeldeath]

Perhaps morality is a function animals develop when their species survival depends on each other.... maybe not, that might not work.

[Geneaux486]

if I'm treated in another way, I don't like that so I try not to do that to others.

 

That's not base instinct, that's logic and reason.

 

From whence comes "morality" if not from us?

 

It is our ability to percieve what is and is not moral that comes from us, not morality itself. The ability to percieve, for instance, that slavery is wrong because there is no discernable difference between the person who owns the slaves and the slaves themselves. What comes from us is the ability to percieve unfair, unjust, and immoral actions such as these.

 

Well, considering that there are other non-human animals that possess traits like monogamy, concern for the well-being of other members of their species, and other such things that many would consider "human morality", perhaps "morality" isn't something for humans but something that we just invented for ourselves.

 

But the trait these animals lack is the ability to think and reason. Furthermore, how would the existence of moral traits outside of human beings mean that morality is something humans created? The conclusion you've reached there seems contradictory to the evidence you presented leading up to it.

[ProHypster]

What do you think of this:

Arthur Schopenhauer's pessimism comes from his elevating of Will above reason as the mainspring of human thought and behavior. Schopenhauer pointed to motivators such as hunger, sexuality, the need to care for children, and the need for shelter and personal security as the real sources of human motivation. Reason, compared to these factors, is mere window-dressing for human thoughts; it is the clothes our naked hungers put on when they go out in public. Schopenhauer sees reason as weak and insignificant compared to Will; in one metaphor, Schopenhauer compares the human intellect to a lame man who can see, but who rides on the shoulder of the blind giant of Will.[2]

 

Likening human life to the life of other animals, he saw the reproductive cycle as indeed a cyclical process that continues pointlessly and indefinitely, unless the chain is broken by too limited resources to make continued life possible, in which case it is terminated by extinction. The prognosis of either pointlessly continuing the cycle of life or facing extinction is one major leg of Schopenhauer's pessimism.[2]

 

Schopenhauer moreover considers the desires of the will to entail suffering: because these selfish desires create constant conflict in the world. The business of biological life is a war of all against all. Reason only compounds our suffering by allowing us to realize that biology's agenda is not something we would have chosen had we been given a choice, but it is ultimately helpless to prevent us from serving it or to free us from the sting of its goad.[2]

[Geneaux486]

I think his view of reason is incorrect. Reason is what allows us to overcome our most basic instincts and kneejerk reactions, and it does so often.

 

EDIT: Also this is like the third time you've said you were done posting then posted again.

[danielsangeo]

But the trait these animals lack is the ability to think and reason.

 

Wait, how do you know that?

 

Furthermore, how would the existence of moral traits outside of human beings mean that morality is something humans created? The conclusion you've reached there seems contradictory to the evidence you presented leading up to it.

 

In other words, what we think are "human morals" or "morality" is just nature.