Humanity has no moral nature

"Morality" is a completely subjective concept and thus invalid when discussing societal norms. Laws are required to maintain order and keep the peace which may be based on fundamental ethics but rarely on morality.

 

I'll cut to the chase...we are aware that we don't like suffering and we develop through stages of awakening to that fact. From the developmentalist' Piaget to Kohlberg's stage of moral development to Buddhist sovereign code of ethics, it's easy to see that we, as conscious beings, realize we don't want suffering and we should strive to not place suffering on others....sometimes an impossible task.

 

I would say morality is pretty objective. And this is not at all from a religious standpoint. Societal Norms can be immoral. To say it's based on whatever society says it's based on is not saying it's subjective that saying it's relative meaning it's meaningless.

We base morality on something known as the Golden Rule we all know what to pain and suffering is and yes feeling pain and actually suffering is a subjective experience but the things that cause it are not subjective.

 

True. We no more have a moral nature than does any other organism on Earth.

 

Except those are also societal.

 

Or we could apply things like compassion and reason. Religion is just something man-made pretending that it isn't.

 

Speak for yourself, if you don't mind.

 

Not quite correct.

Morals are simply the habituated and evolved behaviours which confer the greatest chance of survival of the 'pack'. Children are the next generation so they're protected. Women are needed to raise the children, so they're protected along with the children. Men burn the most energy hunting/whatevering so they eat first, etc etc. All social mammals practice such things. It's very basic animal stuff, though humans have evolved these behaviours into ritual.

 

No, it applies to you as well, and to all other humans.

 

Yes.

You haven't got a clue as to what that means.

 

Whereas I am sure we are born with certain innate moral tenets.

Like fairness:

https://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/24/is-sense-of-fairness-innate/43644.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/lif...th-an-innate-sense-of-fairness/article548594/

And other species, too, apparently have a sense of fairness:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/chimps-have-an-innate-sense-of-fairness-1901948/

And other species, too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/as-babies-we-knew-morality/281567/

 

Old saying. You don’t have to teach kids to be bad.

 

Maybe you can explain it.

 

No, the intuitively obvious is not explainable. However, if you consider that polar bears think nothing of devouring their own young, perhaps the truth will begin to dawn on you...

 

Of course it is. That's a pretty weak copout.

And if your intuition was worth a ****, we wouldn't need science in the first place. So you come across as irrational and narrow.

 

Then do the class a favor and explain why exactly it's wrong to slit a child's throat just to watch it bleed to death.

We don't need science to see that your position is intellectually and morally bankrupt, just God-given insight - for those of us who haven't discarded it, anyway.

 

Because he is a sentient being, accutely aware of his own suffering, so it is cruel. It is also pragmatically wrong,, as our social contract contributes to the well being of all of us. I value my life, and I want ithers to value it. If you can't ouzzle these things out without some magical force dictating them to you, you might want to question your own ethical and moral.foundation.

Guess who doesn't see or feel anything wrong with that action? A clinical sociopath, whose disorder is grounded in the chemical.makeup of his brain. Imagine that...alter the brain chemistry, and the morality disappears. Further support for my point .

My position is not only not intellectually bankrupt, it is the only position based on both reason and evidence. That makes it the opposite of intellectually bankrupt. And you calling my position morally bankrupt is not an appropriate topic or point for this debate, as I clearly have a more logical and evidentiary support for my position, while you attempt to dictate yours from some sort of authority, divine or otherwise. That is immoral in itself.

 

And that is problematic because...?

One may enjoy all the well being you enjoy through your alleged obedience to said contract, and more also, merely by victimizing others. Perhaps you'd like to tell us why one should not do so.

More to the point, anyone who spends so much as microsecond doing so is mentally ill.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The problem being, I'm afraid, that WRT the human condition, both are worthless absent cognizance of certain transcendent principles to which you are clearly oblivious.

I'll be the judge of that.

 

Because we understand that suffering and it's horror, via our hardwired empathy and our own sentience. Well, except for those whose hardwiring is broken, and strangely enough, do not possess this magical gift of moral nature that you refuse even to attempt to describe.

Of course i do. Mental illnesses are due completely to biochemical causes in our brains. Are you suggesting they are not? Because that would be odd of you to do so.

I can change your "moral nature" with only a few ounces of ethyl alcohol. Is that some sort of magic or voodoo? Of course not.

Utter nonsense. Emoathy and reason are hardwired into our brains. Nobody has any need of your "transcendent ideas" to arrive at an objective morality that includes cooperation, protecting the weak, etc. There is no need for that undefined nonsense to explain human behavior.

 

Its been attempted to test.

Babies can tell good people from bad



James Randerson

Thu 22 Nov 2007 18.56 ESTFirst published on Thu 22 Nov 2007 18.56 EST

Babies as young as six months can distinguish between good and bad people, according to a study in which babies observed characters being helpful or unhelpful.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/nov/22/humanbehaviour

Do you think an animal, say a dog, can tell good person from bad person?

 

(4 Kings 2:23-24)
[23] And he went up from thence to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, little boys came out of the city and mocked him, saying: Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. [24] And looking back, he saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord: and there came forth two bears out of the forest, and tore of them two and forty boys.
Some religions, don't even have good moral guidance. From the leader.

 

*Written by humans

 

The person I posted that to, doesn't know that.
The point is, religions don't have any better morals.

 

They mocked a sacred Prophet, he cursed the boys and God sent bears to tear them apart I bet after hearing this no boys made fun of him again or any other prophet for a long time.

 

The point is, religions don't have any better morals.