[Talk] The Purpose of Morality

看板EngTalk (全英文聊天)作者BloodLust801 (就是要虐到神經崩潰)時間16年前 (2009/10/28 06:25)推噓2(2推 0噓 8→)

留言10則, 1人參與討論串1/14 (看更多)

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." ~Shakespear, the Hamlet As a Nihilist/Agnostic-Athiest, I naturally deny the validity of what is moral and immoral. To me, morality is utterly meaningless, and even harmful. However, does this mean that I think morality is completely useless? No. I was browsing a few discussions and saw an idea that caught my attention. Why did I not think of this? Such ingeniousity in one little paragraph: "What are morals? ...An adherence to a system that aids in the survival and well being of a group. We do what is best for the group because we have a higher rate of survivability and well being while living in a group." Indeed, although I think morality is an oppression that limits tolerance, morality has been, in the end, a necessary evil for a society's unity-- regardless of how twisted the society has always been. The society has brainwashed us to "behave" since our youth, correcting any "destructive" behavior since we were infants. One cannot really say that morality is instinctive when observing the behavior of a baby, when examining the interaction between infantile children. Therefore, wherefore did morality come from? To discuss this, one must delve into the beginning of mankind's existence, when there was no society, when we were a pack of apish beings, not yet even homo sapiens. With little or no language or communication methods, the most rational assumption here would be that we act like, say, a pack of gorillas. It is encoded in our DNA, that cooperation is necessary for our survival, as we can accomplish little by ourselves. However, this same survival instinct also programmed our priorities to be none other than ourselves. Therefore, conflict between priorities occur, and the disorder would threaten a pack's chances of survival. Unrestricted selfishness, in the end, would create chaos. Thus, leaders emerged, often with a clear advantage in physical coordination. Each leader had their preference, and fellow pack members followed their leaders' preferences or they'd be either driven out of the pack or worse, killed. The leaders' preference thus became the unspoken rule. General cooperation was enabled, mostly for the sake of survival. After years and years of experience, these apelike beings discovered, one at a time, the domestic means of survival--thus came the Neolithic Revolution, the transition of hunter-gatherer packs to agricultural packs. The success really now depended on the intellectual capability of a group and its leader. At this point, I must make an interruption in my theorizing, curiosity must've played a greater significance. These beings were now questioning where they came from, what made the world, etc. They drew on the cavewalls and thought of an answer. Because they were still far from discovering science, they sought the shortcut: A Supernatural Force, or some Greater Existence(s). (In the beginning the figures they had created were not "gods" yet, if you know what I mean.) Fables and tales sprung forth, and these homo somethings let their imagination run wild in attempts to explain the world with their limited understanding to sate their curiosity. Obviously some form of language had taken form long before this phenomenon came to be. Anyhow, back to the talk of these homo somethings (or were they homo sapiens at this point?) I am now speculating why there were differences in which paths these packs took, how there became "barbarians" and "Greeks/Romans/Han/Whatever". This really had to do with the leader. The rejectors of such an idea (to settle) were most likely the successful, powerful and simple-minded hunters, thinking that their way of living was not wrong. They loved fighting and encouraged fighting, and there was little division in status amongst themselves. So, a split in decisions occured. The smarter leaders who chose the path that led to settlement had also most likely discovered the efficiency that resulted from good cooperation-- and this good cooperation was enabled by a strict limitation on selfishness as well as the formation of a social pyramid. Leaders eventually enforced rules, these rules which ultimately became moral values was to actually obtain the most resource to himself by discouraging others, even though there were a couple of very intelligent leaders who just didn't like to see conflict in needs. These thought that, instead of conflict, why not just limit the source of conflict itself? Either way, the concept of morality was eventually invented--no, discovered--and enforced. This moral value was mostly based on the leader's preference, the leader's personal standards/preferences that which made the cooperation even more solid. A further step to enforce such values was to combine these moral rules to their inventions of greater existence, using fear and punishment to ensure the obedience of such moral values in most cases. They were masters of speech and manipulators of phenomenons, linking everything to their invention--religion. However, this is only true of some civilizations and would eventually lose footing in East-Asia. However, why did people follow these moral values? A possible explanation is that they thought it made sense--they didn't want someone else to get more than they had, so they would also abide to the rules so that no one has any benefits. For the most part anyway. Those without power or ability had no choice but to abide such rules and they were ignorant of what went on in higher levels. Also, since the moral taboos were combined with religion, fear was another factor that drove these people to abide. Never once did these people question their "moral values". Religion eventually became a means to justify actions and punish violators. Strangely, the leaders were always of divine whatevers. Most claimed to be the son of god, or better yet, god themselves. Those communities which had discovered this law-like religion eventually thrived as "civilization". Unfortunately, humans came to REALLY worship and abuse such ideas, their acceptance of the "strange" thinning. Morality, which had ensured their survival, became a limitation. They could not understand things outside of what they were taught, they could not accept things that did not comply to what they were taught because they were brainwashed to think that any oddity that conflicted with these "moral values" were wrong. And so, misunderstanding, blind faith, and narrowmindedness eventually led to the persecution of the "outcasts" of society. They belittled the prior hunter dudes, not understanding why they had "no morals" and thus naming them as "barbarians". Moral values had long spiraled out of control, and those with power never obeyed the moral values because they could use surplus benefits created by mass obedience of such moral values to their advantage. However, one cannot deny the general order that it had granted the society with when people were still not very informed. Fast-forward to now, where science has refuted many religious creation fables, morality is now being examined by countless atheists/nihilists. An increasing number of people are informed, and it was encouraged to question what people tell them in democratic-like countries where freedom and human rights were the focus of their functioning. In the past, morality was essential for a society to function. Now, people are able to live by their own personal standards and to not follow set moral values that which have no real basis for their validity. These people are living very decently, basing most of their actions on how well they treated others, and how well they expected to be treated by them as well as well as the effects of their actions. Whether they wanted to contribute to the society was based on their personal preference. And surprisingly, this works wonders, as people really have personal standards that they live by. Nowadays, people are constantly bickering about religious interpretations, on what is moral and what is not, and basically these people are fighting for what they believe in--their personal standards. Wait a minute. So if these people are all living by their personal standards anyway, why do they need to rely on the definition of moral values? Alas, they cannot accept having others disagree with their views, they believe too strongly that they are correct and therefore they want to force their own personal standards onto others to adapt. However, people all have their own personal standards now. They choose what they want to believe in and interpret things to fit their own standards. Is the concept of "morality", then, needed anymore? We have law to deal with those who trespass on the rights of others already, after all. Even if the concept of moral values was enforced onto us by the society, there are still those who'd violate those moralities just like they violate law anyway. So, is the concept of morality needed anymore? The concept of morality was useful in the past, but now it is mostly used as a tool to feel superior to those who are "immoral", it is used as a justification to scorn what some people cannot accept (e.g. GLBT, abortion, etc). A large reason they aren't able to accept is that they were taught not to accept. Those who bend the moral values to accept accept because or their personal values and not because of the set moral values, even though they'd like to think that their personal values is the correct interpretation of the set moral values. Therefore in the end it has nothing to do with the actual "universal" moral values but rather has more to do with personal belief. If this is so, why teach a stiff moral value that would only encourage narrow-mindedness when tolerance stems from values set from personal standards? As one person put it: (saw this on a discussion board addressing related topic) "I would say that the religious absolutists cling to a standard that is purely man-made, a set of values that may have a unifying role to play in that particular group - but still has no ultimate, universal value... Sure, as a group it enables them to judge their fellow-men, but that's about it. Feeling superior to others is in itself is anti-social, and a clear sign of immaturity." Now, this is a bit extreme but I do agree somewhat with what this dude said. I am not denying the benefits of having a spiritual reliance or whatever believers of some deity want to call what they worship, but I am questioning the use of the concept of this limit called morality that inflicts suffering and misunderstanding. Lack of forgiveness on a one time "violation" can ruin an individual. -- -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.168.239.82 ※ 編輯: BloodLust801 來自: 118.168.239.82 (10/28 06:30)

推