Anyone have some resources I can read about this?
Maybe reccomend an author? It seems like an interesting idea and I would like to look into it.
Maybe reccomend an author? It seems like an interesting idea and I would like to look into it.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Moral absolutism
- Thread starter Bork
- Start date
bob135
Regular Member
Many books on evolutionary psychology have something to say about morality. I've read Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" and Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue." They have a sort of mixed message. On the one hand, evolutionary psychologists generally find that most people have hardwired moral feelings that were adaptive in the environment of human evolution. On the other hand, because these moral feelings are just adaptations, they may be unreliable, since they are inherently selfish by favoring our genes, resulting in nepotism, among other things.
Upvote
0
Morals that are not based on solid reasoning, are not to be taken very seriously. Psychologists, being void of the potential, only reveal their assumptions and political alignment.
A "moral" is a fundamental behavior to NEVER betray. This means that it must be something pretty solidly founded else obeying it could be deadly. Morals are NOT based on what is common, polular, or what DNA might have caused through the generations. Although the DNA is hardly to be ignored for several reasons, primarily because it survived when others couldn't and thus displays wisdom in its tactics in that regard.
Most morals teachings are what people have guessed at as being the best way to ensure a solid and ever lasting society, if nothing else.
It is very difficult (although not impossible) to state anything that a person should truly ALWAYS do or not do (absolute) and thus many today preach that there can be no real morals and anyone who teaches otherwise are just being foolish and manipulative. But by them saying that, they are already admitting that there is something that should never be done( = moral).
Without first determining "purpose", no reasoning will ever be very logical. Psychologists can't determine purpose (nor can Science really). But a good Logician can and can spell out true provable morals, but they are not as simple minded as "Thou shall not kill" and such things. Even the Jews had to modify that commandment so as to make it survivable.
A "moral" is a fundamental behavior to NEVER betray. This means that it must be something pretty solidly founded else obeying it could be deadly. Morals are NOT based on what is common, polular, or what DNA might have caused through the generations. Although the DNA is hardly to be ignored for several reasons, primarily because it survived when others couldn't and thus displays wisdom in its tactics in that regard.
Most morals teachings are what people have guessed at as being the best way to ensure a solid and ever lasting society, if nothing else.
It is very difficult (although not impossible) to state anything that a person should truly ALWAYS do or not do (absolute) and thus many today preach that there can be no real morals and anyone who teaches otherwise are just being foolish and manipulative. But by them saying that, they are already admitting that there is something that should never be done( = moral).
Without first determining "purpose", no reasoning will ever be very logical. Psychologists can't determine purpose (nor can Science really). But a good Logician can and can spell out true provable morals, but they are not as simple minded as "Thou shall not kill" and such things. Even the Jews had to modify that commandment so as to make it survivable.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
