I understand your point.Quote by: Darklordabc
Just to make some stuff clearer to the group, I think "morality" alone does not build our society. One human creature in America's culture may have been different had it been raised in, say, Europe. Undeniably, the past determines the positions they now are in. If anyone thinks they're responsible for their own destiny, they've got it all wrong. They are certainly a part of it, but only that.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Morality is sewn into our soul and it vibrates out through our minds when we commit a sin or when we do righteousness.
We cant help but feel bad when we hurt someone. Its guilt, shame or remorse-fullness that comes up through our emotions.
However, When we help some one, heal them, uplift them or empower them in some way we cant help but feel great and uplifted as well. This is one of the many proofs of God.
Animals on the other hand have no moral code of such. They will steal from each other, hurt each other and covet each others mates. Some animals can and do kill eachother as rule in nature.
Our Human moral code tells us that this is wrong. Sometimes guilt becomes unbearable and it can cause us to sabotage ourselves because we cant go on for the sin we have committed. We can loose sleep over it. It can cause depression, madness or even suicide. We can torture ourelves for a break of morality. It can make us sick to our stomache. None of these things can a mere animal be mindful of wheather its an intelligent animal or not. Darwin's Apes arent mindful of morality or are Sagan's animals to any degree.
In Nature only the strongest survive. We humans know however that it is moral to heal the sick, to protect the weak and to confort the dying. Nature can not teach us this. In my opinion it can only come from something far greater that we are only beginning to understand. This proves my very point.
Peace. Affluence.
Lordy, I have to disagree that we always feel bad when we "hurt people." Some people don't feel bad much at all. Most, if not all, serial killers feel little or no guilt for their acts.
And, in fact, there may be instances where we shouldn't feel so bad about hurting others. For example, if someone is incorrect and we correct them, we may hurt their feelings in the process. How bad should I feel for hurting that person emotionally?
Do you get that idea?
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Ok, for starters, that is FAR from a legitimate proof of god. In order for that to be true, you'd have to show that not only do we experience empathy, but that we experience it in the same way and that the only viable explanation of that experience is god. All you've shown is that empathy exists- not that your god gives it to us.
False. Though I doubt we'll see animals debating Kantian vs. Utilitarian ethics any time soon, they certainly experience empathy. We've observed such behavior in rats liberating trapped companions, dogs responding to emotional distress, and monkeys electing to take smaller amounts of food to prevent harm from being inflicted on other monkeys. These are just a few examples of where we've observed empathetic behavior in animals and it suggests a more instinctive basis for morality than a divinely-gifted one.
This is a gross oversimplification. There are more ways to survive than physical strength, and communal living is a great example of it. Humans are naturally social creatures because we had a better chance of surviving and passing on our genes if we live as part of a cooperative group than we would if we had all lived on our own. And a community of empathetic people is more likely to grow, prosper and (most importantly from an evolutionary perspective) pass on its genes because if you instinctively care about me and I, you, we're both more likely to take care of one another, live longer and have children.
"Hegel remarks that all the events and personalities of world history occur twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." -Karl Marx
Is empathy biological? Could be, everything psychological has a biolgoical orgin. But even then, who cares? It's just genetics, or some other biological function and we all have it. Why should we supress a part of ourselves?
Not only is that possible, but it seems undeniable. I also think empathy has helped attention throughout the ages. We pay more attention to humans in our lives if we have empathy for them. If we pay more attention to others, they are more likely to care for us, and we can learn and grow as people. And so, if conditions are right, it's a win-win.
This doesn't happen to the extent I'd like, but it does happen.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Well yes it has helped us throughout the ages. The civil rights movement being a recent one. The first peace treaty between the Egyptians and Hitties another one. And I would like to see it a little bit more today then anytime later.
I don't necessarily disagree, but society is also something that is uniquely human. Morality is very much a social function, as it dictates how we interact with each other and provides emotional feedback for our actions. If morality did not exist, then our society would break down into base action and chaos. It seems to me that our moral center really developed with our social skills.
The basic mechanisms of empathy have been observed in various advanced animals. As our brains grew in size so did it grow in complexity, eventually into the underlying framework that powers our sense of right and wrong. If morality is genetically grounded, it is only partially so; for nearly all that we believe comes from our experience and teachings. Morality was an unformed concept that was shaped ever more with each passing generation. The collective experiences, mistakes, and success of society formed a universal concept of how one should act towards others. Much of this was dictated by religion (or dictated by God in the form of a religion)
Does man not steal? Has he never hurt his neighbor, or pursued his lover? We have retained basic animal instincts that we often bypass our moral code to satisfy. That there is ever an inner conflict here is support towards the idea that human morals are passed down mostly as a learned behavior; mans guideline for living in artificial civilization. The power of our brains rapidly outdoes genetic change now, and many of our impulses are residual from an age before we were truly human. Civilization is a team, and on a team it's important that everyone functions well together; not in it merely for their own survival.
Of course there will always be those who deviate from society and hold a perverted (or entirely different) set of beliefs. They are following their own morals far more actively than any of us are. This doesn't change the nature of morality.
Morality is a human abstraction. Its definition is ever changing and varies slightly from person to person. There is often no clear right or wrong, morality can become confusing, and the specifics of a situation will forever be argued by those with opposing views. This also does not change the nature of morality.
Sorry if I didn't make sense I tend to ramble.
There are at least probabilities of increased empathy in the coming years.
Flashback:
"Due partly to a new mood among the Negro masses"
and partly to the
nature of Birmingham itself--a large industrial city--the new mass
movement has a logic of development which could transform the whole
struggle for equal rights for Negroes in this country."
http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6717/671762.html
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Not all of them are just "following their own morals." Sometimes they never bother to invent any, and lack the feelings to do so. Others are following the questionable morals of their day and age, and feel they are right in doing so.
fairly often it's right to follow your own morals, rather than those of "society." That's often how progress is made; people did what they felt needed doing, against popular opinion.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Well that's good.
To go on a killing rampage normally requires extreme emotion and feeling. If nothing else the killer has to have developed some sort of "fuck everyone they don't deserve life" sentiment.
Getting back to the topic, how does everyone feel about globalization and social networking? Humanity has never been so connected in history, and response to global events is increasing. How do you see this changing the nature of human empathy?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks