Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Why are so many people so bad?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Everybodyknows" data-source="post: 72034704" data-attributes="member: 393674"><p>I'm approaching it historically, in that I'm talking about the origins/foundations of human morality. I suppose 'maximising social benefit' is a rather cold way of putting it. I'm thinking way back to hunter gatherer society where the simple act of cooperation is sufficient to explain the foundation of morality in terms of benefit/harm without invoking some higher prefect good beyond ourselves. </p><p></p><p>With time these basic moral values became instilled in us and we no longer do them simply for the benefit (even though they are still beneficial) but rather because they have become ideals and feel right. Morality has become an abstraction, a complex collection of ideas and ideals, far less simple than the view I've been presenting. I'm merely going back in time to illustrate morality in it's simplest form.</p><p></p><p></p><p>What is you view of virtues? Are virtues objectively defined or are they measured by beneficial results? In saying that "what is psychologically and socially healthier for the individual" you still seem to be approaching morality in terms of well-being or benefit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Everybodyknows, post: 72034704, member: 393674"] I'm approaching it historically, in that I'm talking about the origins/foundations of human morality. I suppose 'maximising social benefit' is a rather cold way of putting it. I'm thinking way back to hunter gatherer society where the simple act of cooperation is sufficient to explain the foundation of morality in terms of benefit/harm without invoking some higher prefect good beyond ourselves. With time these basic moral values became instilled in us and we no longer do them simply for the benefit (even though they are still beneficial) but rather because they have become ideals and feel right. Morality has become an abstraction, a complex collection of ideas and ideals, far less simple than the view I've been presenting. I'm merely going back in time to illustrate morality in it's simplest form. What is you view of virtues? Are virtues objectively defined or are they measured by beneficial results? In saying that "what is psychologically and socially healthier for the individual" you still seem to be approaching morality in terms of well-being or benefit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Why are so many people so bad?
Top
Bottom