Morality in of Itself.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 252
#181
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific.
Last I checked The Bible is pretty specific.
I didn't say the Bible was unspecific. I said I was referring to religious text in general.
However, if you do more research on the definitions of words used in the Bible, you'll find out they have very ambiguous meanings.
#182
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
The first difference would be we are not committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties to nonbelievers of our religion. Perhaps many Christians would if it was written in our Bible, but it isn't. Our moral obligation is to be kind to others and promote peace, I believe this to be consistent through most religions. I believe even the Muslims share this characteristic. However, just like the Muslims we too must make sacrifices in order to obtain peace. The Muslims believe that through their terrorist acts the other side will create a more peaceful world. Perhaps it would, since there would be no one to oppose; the world would be unified, but the same goes the other way around. I believe the correlation is "defend what is good and destroy or outcast evil to promote peace." It's important to keep in mind that good and evil are interpretable which could imply morality is inconsistent throughout humanity, but I believe that good and evil are only perspectives to view a situation emotionally. For example, Thanos was considered a villain, yet his plan was selfless and overall time and the universe, happier. You could only consider something like this evil if you have a predetermined logicless notion of evil, such as a deontological moral structure as the Avengers did. I believe that morality is a human construct that is meant to promote peace so humans can live together. You may believe morals do something different but as for my definition goes this is accurate. With that in mind, we must consider what morals align with that goal, and which don't; then you can identify the true and false morals, some of which I believe to be propaganda that has been molded overtime. For example, YouTube has announced they are asking users to provide their demographics so they can promote fairness. However, fairness Is An ambiguous term as it refers to equality between two entities. When they say fairness they claim it as a matter of fact it is the equality between demographics but this is not even correct by the dictionary standard since they are using propaganda and emotionally attractive words such as "fairness" to promote their definition of a word that has already been defined. They should instead say help us promote fairness between human demographics, not help remote fairness. Most people are religious and believe in intrinsic human value, and somehow they believe that fairness between demographics aligns with this, but it does not because it directly demonstrates that there is an inequality between the individual because the populations of the demographics are not the same. By promoting group equality, they necessitate the inequality of individuals if the population of the groups are different, and they are. Personally, I find this to be repulsive.
#183
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I said I was referring to religious text in general.
But you weren’t, you were referring to The Bible.
#184
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I understand that words can be interpreted differently, and I believe this is the main cause of miscommunication. This is why I can only ask others to receive my words for their explicit meanings that I meant to be conveyed.
#185
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
The first difference would be we are not committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties to non-believers of our religion.

Let me stop you there.

One of two biased points of view, wherein both fight for freedom from the others ideology.


We've been committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties on the basis of religious nonsense for the past 1500 years or so.

And I've no idea who started it.

If the purpose of the exercise is to achieve a lasting World peace, then we should already know that the methodology is hopelessly flawed.



Our moral obligation is to be kind to others and promote peace.
Hollow words.

Which do not reflect the ongoing reality of the human condition.

I would suggest that moral obligation without legal obligation is pie in the sky.

That is to say, to ensure order within our National sub-groups, we have to enforce our own version of morality.

Whereas to ensure security within the wider community we have to be prepared to implement a modified version of morality.



Most people are religious and believe in intrinsic human value.

I would suggest that a lot of people still wear religious badges.

And that most people adhere to their National legal precepts, whereby to a greater extent National social order is maintained.

Though I would also  go as far as to say, that the notion of intrinsic human value doesn't exceed much beyond the value of the self and the family.

The weaker our bond to the wider community, the weaker our moral  consideration towards unrelated people.


So My dog died and I was grief stricken.


So the nice old Lady from down the road died........Did she......What's for dinner?


So Mr Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash.....So what.
























#186
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
This is why I can only ask others to receive my words for their explicit meanings that I meant to be conveyed.
Well I’m no “religious texts” expert so you referencing it isn’t responsive to the argument I’m making (especially when you take into account the various different interpretations) I do however believe in a higher power, I also believe that what we do in this life (morality) matters in the next otherwise it’s fair to question why care about anything at all in this life?
#187
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Frans de Waal, a Dutch primatologist and ethologist, wrote a book called Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes, which Jordan Peterson described as “a classic” and “a great book” in his lecture on chimpanzees and dominance hierarchies. In the book, de Waal observed the social behavior of a group of chimpanzees in captivity at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands. He documented how the chimps formed alliances, competed for power, engaged in deception, and resolved conflicts. He also compared the chimp society to human politics and found many similarities.

One of the main findings of de Waal’s study was that the dominant male chimp, named Yeroen, was not the strongest or the most aggressive one, but rather the most skillful at forming coalitions with other males and females. He maintained his position by being friendly, generous, and tolerant to his supporters, while also being firm and assertive when needed. He also avoided unnecessary fights and respected the boundaries of other chimps. Yeroen ruled for more than a decade, until he was eventually overthrown by a younger and stronger rival, named Luit, who had the support of another male, named Nikkie. Luit was more violent and oppressive than Yeroen, and he often abused his power by harassing and attacking other chimps. His reign was short-lived, however, as he was soon challenged by Nikkie, who had grown dissatisfied with Luit’s tyranny. Nikkie defeated Luit in a brutal fight and became the new alpha male. Nikkie was also more benevolent and cooperative than Luit, and he restored some of the peace and stability that Yeroen had established.

Peterson used this study to illustrate how dominance hierarchies are not only based on physical strength or aggression, but also on social intelligence and emotional regulation. He argued that humans have evolved from primates who had similar social structures, and that we still have innate tendencies to form hierarchies and to seek status and power. He also suggested that being a good leader requires a balance between competence and compassion, between assertiveness and agreeableness, and between self-interest and altruism. He warned that being too dominant or too submissive can have negative consequences for oneself and others, and that finding a healthy position in the hierarchy can lead to better psychological well-being and social harmony.

What do you think?
#188
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
The first difference would be we are not committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties to non-believers of our religion.
Let me stop you there.
One of two biased points of view, wherein both fight for freedom from the others ideology.
We've been committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties on the basis of religious nonsense for the past 1500 years or so.
And I've no idea who started it.
If the purpose of the exercise is to achieve a lasting World peace, then we should already know that the methodology is hopelessly flawed.
When you say, "we've been committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties on the basis of religious nonsense for the past 1500 years or so," are you referring to the active terrorist actions involved with targeting civilians across country borders such as the Muslims?

What do you mean by "we have been," do you mean Christians, Americans, or non-Muslims as a whole have been causing the same problem?

Our moral obligation is to be kind to others and promote peace.
Hollow words.
Which do not reflect the ongoing reality of the human condition.
I would suggest that moral obligation without legal obligation is pie in the sky.
That is to say, to ensure order within our National sub-groups, we have to enforce our own version of morality.
Whereas to ensure security within the wider community we have to be prepared to implement a modified version of morality.
Let me be more precise: We have an obligation to others to be kind and promote peace based on the cultural norm, otherwise we will be considered outcasts and have few to no friends. Moreover, friendships are a necessary part of stability it is sort of like the relationship between the United States, or maybe you're familiar with the phrase don't put all your eggs in one basket," in my case it would be oneself. You can see this correlation in movies where they show the hero with many friends and relationships against the villain who is much more powerful than the hero, but somehow in the end it is despite the hero's weakness his friendships are what saves him and defeats the more powerful and independent evil.

Most people are religious and believe in intrinsic human value.
I would suggest that a lot of people still wear religious badges.
And that most people adhere to their National legal precepts, whereby to a greater extent National social order is maintained.
Though I would also  go as far as to say, that the notion of intrinsic human value doesn't exceed much beyond the value of the self and the family.
The weaker our bond to the wider community, the weaker our moral  consideration towards unrelated people.

So My dog died and I was grief stricken.
So the nice old Lady from down the road died........Did she......What's for dinner?
So Mr Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash.....So what.
I'm not sure that most people do not believe in intrinsic human value such as in your examples. I think it's demonstrating that people acknowledge their limitation in promoting peace and they start to draw a barrier between which people are worth promoting peace and which are a waste of time because of the distance in friendship. Regardless, they can still believe in intrinsic human value for others that they don't know. Perhaps sometimes they believe that what has happened to the person was inevitable or deserved and it is not worth their time to fix something that they know the other person can handle. Perhaps they don't know what to do?
#189
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
What do you think?
I think this has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
#190
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Did you read it? It's in a direct response to your comment.

"I also believe that what we do in this life (morality) matters in the next otherwise it’s fair to question why care about anything at all in this life?"

Once you read it, you'll understand it answers why we should care about morality, even if we don't believe in an afterlife.
#191
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Did you read it?
I did, and all you did was rant about status and the like, but that still begs the question, why should we care about that?
#192
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
We have been

Humanity...It's what we have been doing.

Though I was referring specifically to the perpetual battle between Christian and Muslim ideology.

"Terrorism" is no more or less the same as war....US led war on terror kills as many if not more civilians as Islamic terror does.

I'm not sure that in terms of "morality", dressing up war in some sort of global legal framework makes a whole lot of difference when the bomb hits.



We have an obligation.
Then why do "we" perpetuate the immoral ideological battle.

And by we, I mean everyone.

Well, presumably because we attribute our respective ideologies with having some sort of greater moral integrity.



Arguments have two sides.

And there is no greater moral authority to judge which side is righteous.

So we rely upon disparate assumptions of righteousness and apply actions relative to disparate ideological values, irrespective of "intrinsic" human moral awareness.

Which to me suggests that "morality in of itself" is no more than an ongoing and variable assumption relative to circumstance.

And intrinsic awareness is no more than an acquired and modifiable data programme, rather than an instinctive species programme. 



Instinctively, survival is everything, and survival is dependant primarily upon the self.

Association has it's benefits, though respect for associates diminishes the wider the circle of association becomes.

And the individual selfishly learns to utilise association for the benefit of the self and it's survival.

So I would suggest that idea of morality is no more than an acquired means to survival.




#193
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,419
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4
So I would suggest that idea of morality is no more than an acquired means to survival.
Spot on. Did you know that Rudy Giuliani is 79?

#194
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree that morality is a human construct that is relative to the time and culture, and that morality is merely a means of survival. Everything anyone does during life is their way of coping with existence. However, I believe it doesn't degrade the importance of morality and it is an important part stability and peace for civilizations.
I gave more details on why in comment #187.
#195
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,338
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I should inform you that Tarik is using sealioning debating tactic. Its tactic that uses infinite questions fallacy.

Example:

Why care about X?
Because Y.
Why care about Y?
Because Z.
Why care about Z?
Because B.
Why care about B?
Because C.
Why care about C?
...
...
And so on to infinity.
#196
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Its tactic that uses infinite questions fallacy.
There’s no such thing, however the mere fact that I can ask those infinite questions only displays fallacy on the opposing side, and it’s called circular reasoning in case you didn’t know.
#197
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
I appreciate your concern, but I've long been aware of this situation. Despite that, our conversation has been beneficial. It either aids me in forming a solid stance or guides me to my own deserved downfall. What matters most to me isn't whether my stance is right or wrong, but that I arrive at the correct solution. Furthermore, I see our conversation as reinforcing my thoughts. While this doesn't confirm my correctness, it suggests that if there is a flaw, it's not readily evident, thus boosting the likelihood of being right.
#198
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Hypothetically going around in circles, passes the time of day.

Or should I say, going around in hypothetical circles.

Or if there is no end and no beginning, then does it matter in which order the words occur?

Hypothetical circles going around in hypothetical circles going around in circles hypothetically going around hypothetically in circles...And so on.

Infinite question fallacy for sure.
#199
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
There’s no such thing, however the mere fact that I can ask those infinite questions only displays fallacy on the opposing side, and it’s called circular reasoning in case you didn’t know.
This is a straightforward falsehood. Anyone is capable of asking an infinite number of questions about anything, even about the truth.
The mere fact that you can ask an infinite number of questions does not display fallacy on the opposing side.

However, it does increase the probability of discovering a flaw, which would be beneficial to both involved parties if we're seeking the truth. On the other hand, if no flaw is found it increases the probability that the stance is correct as there was no flaw found, even though it does not prove it correct. Either way asking questions is beneficial to both parties that are seeking truth. It is through every question that can be answered from a given stance that provides a stronger reliability in its correctness.

The problem becomes when the questions no longer make sense or start repeating themselves in a cycle, which I have yet to notice and why I'm still responding.
#200
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
As long as the questions remain sensical and do not repeat themselves I consider them to be only beneficial as they could potentially uncover a flaw of mine which I can then correct, or they will support my idea as it proves how many distinct aspects my theory remains true.

I was not privy that there was a name for such tactic although I could have guessed it, but I occasionally use it in order to gain a deeper understanding of someone with an opposing view when I am unsure why they think how they do. It encourages them to implement critical thinking as it tests the rigidity of the person's claims, and either potentially leads them to face their inconsistency, or it further rigidifies their claim and I better understand it after they elaborate. When properly used, I consider it to be a positive way to continue a conversation.
#201
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,993
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Anyone can create a name for a tactic.


Nonetheless in my response to BK, I was simply agreeing that the infinite questioning or circular reasoning of an unattainable conclusion to a hypothesis, will therefore achieve nothing more  than the acquired mental stimulation that it generates. Which in of itself is a reasonable outcome.


And most certainly, I have acquired new ideas and ways of thinking from such discussions.


Though when the circumference of the circle is so short, it becomes a circular rant.
#202
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
The mere fact that you can ask an infinite number of questions does not display fallacy on the opposing side.
It does if those questions are a direct result of question begging from the opposing side.
#203
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,338
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
Usually, I ignore sealioning questions and talk about other parts of my own case. I mean, sure, one can answer questions over and over again, but I find that rather annoying since the other person never accepts any answer as valid and just asks more questions. Of course, another thing I sometimes like to do is ask counter questions to show that I can do sealioning too. Also, I like to remind that those questions arent really arguments. An argument must be a claim, not a question. Question itself doesnt refute anything.
#204
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Interestingly enough if you dig deep enough into anything you will find circular reasoning.
The root of this problem is all derived by the following.

Here's a chain of questions that forms a circular reasoning loop when attempting to prove one's own existence:

  1. Question: How do you know that the external world exists?
    • Response: Because I perceive the external world.
  2. Question: How do you know you exist?
    • Response: Because I perceive the external world.
  3. Question: How do you know that your perception is accurate?
    • Response: Because I exist to perceive and assess it.
  4. Question: How do you know you're capable of perception?
    • Response: Because I exist and am conscious.
  5. Question: How do you know you exist?
    • Response: Because I am conscious and capable of perception.
In this chain of questions, each response relies on the existence of the individual, creating a circular reasoning loop. The idea of existence and perception are mutually reinforcing, and the chain doesn't offer independent evidence or external verification of one's existence. This is because there is nothing externally proving the universe, only the universe itself creating a closed loop of circular reasoning. This demonstrates how circular reasoning can arise when attempting to prove one's own existence. In other words, everything that exists in the entire universe is founded upon the principle of circular reasoning, which all derive down to this simple chain of responses.

Moreover, you have yet to ask me an infinite number of questions and cannot given your limited existence, proving that you cannot disprove my claim by asking many questions as long as my theory can answer them.
#205
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Best.Korea
You're correct that a question does not refute anything, but I'm willing to for a given time consider that they have an alternative perspective to mine that would enlighten me of a flaw. I'm continuously searching for problems with my theories of reality in order to make more rigid and encompassing ones, and it would be against my goal if I immediately dismissed someone who disputes my claim by asking many questions. I agree that they would probably not alter their views even after my long explanation, but perhaps they will since no one has spent enough time to walk them down the train of thought.

Earlier on I did ask many questions in response, but I felt as though we weren't making much progress on the answers, so I withdrew from questioning the opposing theory and focused on the rigidity of my own.

I do appreciate your insights into this sort of thing.
#206
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Question itself doesnt refute anything.
No, but one can arrive to that conclusion by there inability to answer.
#207
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
Moreover, you have yet to ask me an infinite number of questions and cannot given your limited existence, proving that you cannot disprove my claim by asking many questions as long as my theory can answer them.
Well as far as I’m concerned you still haven’t answered the original question, because leadership isn’t of any interest to someone who doesn’t care about anything, so bringing that up proves nothing.
#208
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
Moreover, you have yet to ask me an infinite number of questions and cannot given your limited existence, proving that you cannot disprove my claim by asking many questions as long as my theory can answer them.
Well as far as I’m concerned you still haven’t answered the original question, because leadership isn’t of any interest to someone who doesn’t care about anything, so bringing that up proves nothing.
I never implied I want to be a leader.
What I said proved what I claimed.
You have asked a great many questions; which one was the original?
#209
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
You have asked a great many questions; which one was the original?
If there’s no afterlife to validate everything we do then why should we care about anything at all?
#210
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tarik
I already gave the full explanation in comment 187, but I'll put it more concisely. Study of chimpanzee behavior by Frans de Waal reveals that effective leadership involves balancing competence, compassion, assertiveness, and altruism. Dominance hierarchies aren't just about physical strength, but also social intelligence. This emphasizes the importance of morality for psychological well-being, social harmony, and successful leadership, irrespective of an afterlife.