So I had a thought...

RandomThug · #1 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 07:31 PM

I had this idea the other day... well its been at my mind forever.. but here goes.

What is right what is wrong?

You say well obviusly thug we grew up raised, hopefully, by good people who teach us what is right and what is wrong.

Well who tought them? Oh thier parents... and so on and so on.

Back to the days of Religous lore... where all our good deeds bad deeds originate. Religion, something I dont believe in.

So I think.. If there were no religion to say "Thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery"... would we even consider killing BAD?

Is it Religion or rahter spirituality that sets our current morals and belief's, is todays basic morals and ethics based rudely off the ancient ways of religions hay days...

My fingers hurt so i cant really elaborate as much...

But here is my point. Would we be worse off or better without the religions of the past setting our ethics of today.

Would we be cavemen killing everyone, or would we be peacefull?

Personally I see the world I live in now and think "We might have failed"

Would we have succedded without the need for something so blind as faith?

Anyone?

Scayde · #2 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 07:42 PM

Hmmm ....I think it is all subjective..I know I feel somethings are inherently evil, yet there are many here who would espouse them as "ideal"....I wouold hazard to say that wright and wrong are defined by the society you live in, tempered by your personal compass and measured by the effect your actions have on others.

Bloodstalker · #3 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

So I think.. If there were no religion to say "Thou shall not kill, thou shall not commit adultery"... would we even consider killing BAD?

If you do not believe in religion, then it would follow that these rules were laid down by humans without divine inspiration, so, in that context, it would seem very likely that we would still consider these things wrong.

Besides, the basic precepts coming from religion were also put forth by governments. murder, theft, etc were part of the first codes of law that people got together and came up with. Whether or not religion was an issue, the fact would still remain that in order to have a stable society, rules would have to be adopted to maintain that society. without them, there is no secure basis for any kind of civilization. And since the original reasons people joined together would still have been there, ie farming, trade, industry, protection, etc, laws and moral codes would still have been set up and enforeced IMO

Tybaltus · #4 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 07:57 PM

Well the world would probably be more primal and instinctive. I mean in all sorts of nature it is bad to kill a fellow being unless for terratory. There isnt any random murders in the animal kingdom. They do everything for a reason, whether for protection, terratory, or food. But to argue that mankind would be the same is wrong wrong wrong. Because mankind has more intellegence and we wouldnt allow ourselves to hit that level.

I mean, we could do one of three things...

1) We could become a civilization with no morals and just go on crimesprees, thereby killing out everyone.

2) We could become unconcious of whats really bad and never do it. If there isnt knowledge of it, it might not even ever exist.

3) Every man for himself in a dog eat dog world. Utter chaos.

The question of: Would there be any truly evil leaders?

Well first off, we wouldnt know what "evil" is and we'd be unconcious of the evil acts. So in that sense, no. Because there is nothing to determine whats evil.

Secondly, many evil people were created because of trauma earlier in life or their minds are just messed up (CE, please correct me if Im wrong, this is just what Ive thought for some time) so would these minds ever exist? Sure I think so , if there is no morality...yeah... theres no telling who else would be evil...

There just needs to be morals in the world...its very hard for me to imagine the horrors of a world without ethics...without morals....

RandomThug · #5 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tybaltus
Well the world would probably be more primal and instinctive. I mean in all sorts of nature it is bad to kill a fellow being unless for terratory. There isnt any random murders in the animal kingdom. They do everything for a reason, whether for protection, terratory, or food. But to argue that mankind would be the same is wrong wrong wrong. Because mankind has more intellegence and we wouldnt allow ourselves to hit that level.

I mean, we could do one of three things...

1) We could become a civilization with no morals and just go on crimesprees, thereby killing out everyone.

2) We could become unconcious of whats really bad and never do it. If there isnt knowledge of it, it might not even ever exist.

3) Every man for himself in a dog eat dog world. Utter chaos.

The question of: Would there be any truly evil leaders?

Well first off, we wouldnt know what "evil" is and we'd be unconcious of the evil acts. So in that sense, no. Because there is nothing to determine whats evil.

Secondly, many evil people were created because of trauma earlier in life or their minds are just messed up (CE, please correct me if Im wrong, this is just what Ive thought for some time) so would these minds ever exist? Sure I think so , if there is no morality...yeah... theres no telling who else would be evil...

There just needs to be morals in the world...its very hard for me to imagine the horrors of a world without ethics...without morals....

I challenge that line about man not being able to achieve the same level of instinctive living like animals do, albiet our brains are much far supieror than animals. So far such we can imagine gods and ghosts and make up rules..

If we never made up those rules would we be worse off? I mean it isalready a world of survival of the fittest, dont get me wrong were no lions and zebra's... they kill for food we do it in the name of what isRIGHT and what is WRONG.

Hence my argument, if religion never settled in and man didnt have a god to worry about (therefor no urges to rebel because everyone knows when your told NO you want it more than ever) would man be better off?

Would we survive like animals, living only off the land and in tribes... surely this dream couldnt exist in todays population, but the fact we have so many people isnt a good thing either.

I just dont believe we are on the right track right now, and perhaps it could have been better.

RandomThug · #6 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:04 PM

Also I am not invisioning a world without ethics or morals, just a world in which they arn't laid out in a fashion as to scare you into following them.

The Z · #7 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:06 PM

The problem is that even though we have a set of laws, there are ways to be "evil" within the parameters. There are ways around them, there are ways through them. Also, I don't believe humans are really capable of being truly "black or white" (yes, a game rip, I know). Our genetics (once again, CE correct me if I'm mistaken), tell us what is pushing the line. I mean, if you were born a sociopath, how are you supposed to find that border between good and bad? If you were a psychopath? It's in the eye of the beholder. Some people cheat in school and see no trouble in it. Some people would consider that a heinous crime. Is it religion's fault that some of our laws might be debatable? There is no right answer, since all of us have a moral code at different levels.

RandomThug · #8 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:18 PM

Maybe Im just a prick looking for a way outa being blamed?

Who knows, btw i hate kam

Skooter327 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:18 PM

@Thug, have you ever been robbed of something significant? Has anyone you know ever been murdered, or arguably worse, beaten into quadriplegia? I think you err in assuming the concepts of right and wrong were imposed by religion. IMHO, these concepts arouse when extreme actions such as murder and assualt occured, and people could only react. The most primal course of action would be to prevent such acts from continuing--through religion or not.
If you were in a clan of cave men that kept getting attacked by wolves, and you chose to stop the wolves attacks rather than pray for them to stop, that's fine. But if one of the "wolves" was a member of your clan, would you not take similar action to stop those attacks as well?

RandomThug · #10 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:24 PM

Skooter I like your analogy.

But dont get me wrong my intentions on this thread is to prove that without religion we would not be such a cruel state and mor common sense laws would interact. So much Pride and Glory in our lives are based off religous intent years past, a society that did not fear eternal damnation nor would they even consider what the did to be wrong.

I guess human instinct would make us kill the "wolf" in our tribe, but would that not be fair justice. In the sense of the tribe.

I do not see a world thriving like ours does today without the push religous morals and ethics have given us, i dont see the amount of death equal to my view either.

Its not a question of IF there are morals and ethics, just a question of IF it were left up to the animal side of man rathert han the logical (often loony) side of man.

dragon wench · #11 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:30 PM

I believe that there exist a set of universal truths. Moreover, I feel that these truths are inherent to most human beings. We are social animals and as such depend on one another for survival; this is a significant factor in determining human behaviour. However, these 'truths' are subject to both cultural and individual interpretation.

A good example of this is the "universal incest taboo".... French anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss, was one of the first to publish that all cultures hold some kind of prohibitive laws against incest.

But, cultural definitions of incest vary. For example, in many African societies marriage between first cousins is considered to be an ideal union, while sexual relationships between siblings are viewed as incestuous. Compare this to 'western' interpretations...

I feel, though, that sociopaths and psychopaths fall outside of 'normal' social perameters because they do not hold an ethical code of conduct. From what I know (which is very little because this stuff falls way out of my area)... medical factors are very much a part of such conditions... but I think people like CE, Scayde and Thantor would be much better able to expand on the subject.

RandomThug · #12 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:32 PM

I dont know.. I think scayde falls into the psychopath catagory... be careful.

(IF i cant spam in my own thread then Blaw!)

The Z · #13 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:34 PM

Sorry for the SPAM....but this topic will probably encompass all the previous discussions that have ever graced SYM (psychology, morality, war, etc.)

Scayde · #14 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RandomThug
I dont know.. I think scayde falls into the psychopath catagory... be careful.

(IF i cant spam in my own thread then Blaw!)

LOL........you may be on to something there

Nightmare · #15 (**permalink**) 01-21-2003, 08:42 PM

Well, I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in morality imposed by god or anything...and I don't pretend to know right from wrong either.

Simply put, I abide by this: "Do the others how they would do to you."

Morality is all subjective...but humans still have an instinct of right and wrong.

Maybe I'm just extremely shallow on this, but that's how I see it.