Morality

Morality does not actually exist outside of us, it is a creation and springs into life only in society/ or if there is more than one. By “more than one” I am referring to people.

If people did not exist there would be no morality. Animals don’t judge other animals the way people judge other people, animals do not eat or kill one another over the problem of being “moral or immoral” there are no punishments for “immoral” animals, no justice and what not… Obviously.

The simple truth is that we live in a dog eat dog world where it is all consumerism. There is no good or bad, moral or immoral. It is a simple human construct for control, “justice” and human interaction.

If animals eating other animals is immoral than I guess survival or living is immoral.

False.

Amorality would bring doom. Morality is bundled into the animals instinct, higher animals do not attack their own tribe. Lower animals, like spiders, are less noble, and eat their own husbands. Mammals dont do things like this, mammals are romantic, love based. Nobility is a function of superiority.

If a living thing is programmed a certain way, to a certain degree or way of living then it is not immoral. It’s nature, not a matter of moral or immoral and we are in no position to label those things as such.

Natural instinct isn’t a matter of moral/immorality.

A spider luring it’s mate into food isn’t immoral, it’s the spiders way to eat easily, it is natural. It doesn’t matter what category of animal, it will do what it has to to survive, morality cannot touch that, it isn’t even logical.

And there is no such thing as a “higher” animal… We live in a world where our shit grows food and things rely on shit, which then feeds other food that we consume… And you say there are “higher” animals… That is laughable.

There cannot be higher this when it is based on reliance. We cannot claim ourselves higher than the fucking plant and cow, when we rely on it as a source of nutrients and living.

Morality is a kissing cousin of higher aspirations, which lower species lack. Animals kill for the hunt of food , tribal superiority plus territoriality. Humans do all that, only to compensate for them by
constructing the higher order out of need

for the survival of their own tribes. They cannot
behave as if they did not envision their own kind as

a higher caliber type, thus they develop
compassionate
killing with a view to kill with kindness, they seek

harmony in the rules of the game of war, as in the adoption of the

Geneva Convention, while gritting their teeth for

bloodlust lost. All for the sake of developing a self
serving style, about which they can feel comfortable,
telling their kids around the dinner table about the

kindness of strangers. They pristinely talk of coitus
in aesthetically pleasing ways as if making love was
the near entrance to divine aspirations, knowing well,

that the doggies’ style is the most pleasurable
position. Did they acquire this by imitation or, have
they finally settled down to the brute fact that once a

long time ago, they also travailed upon the terrain in
like manner, on all fours? Shame on Mr. Darwin for
the rude awakening, and shame on science for having
robbed such gloriously intended species, of such
treasured myths.

This is what magnus is talking about when he said Darwin was like a plague, bastardizing our understanding of Life. Mammals and higher animals have a spirituality which you do not want to acknowledge.

Wrong. Morality is evolution. The fact is that it was believed into existence, and emotions were, too. The fact of that is that those things probably already existed and only the awareness and labeling of them actually changed perception enough for them to take root. If you think that these things would not exist without humans, you’re wrong; for it becomes obvious from watching any living thing that love is involved on one level or another, no matter how wild and untamed; no matter how ‘evil’. These things would have come to fruition in any sentient species that developed tool-making capabilities and societies where they would have to interact and become conscious of what repercussions their actions had both in the short and the long term.

Even without humans, now; even if we were completely eradicated and all trace of our species wiped from the annals of existence; there would still remain those trace remnants of our passage, our insanity and our over-driving sanity to which reason and sense along with morality and emotions are bound whether cold or hot or in between. And, those trace amounts would take root in other species, somewhere, causing them to evolve and adapt, due to the strength of will to survive that is imbedded in every atom of our being AND the strength of will beyond just surviving as attributed and added to by our life experiences combined throughout our society into an encompassing ball of energy that would still remain regardless of whether we were here or not, just in sheer possibility as a remnant and a ghost either of a past, future or present that never was or was and is now gone, has been gone.

The simple truth is that these things have defined human existence since the ages where we crawled out of the primordial soup to take form and has guided humanity with a firm hand through our long slow crawl through the evolutionary ladder of adaptive changes over the ages and, just because many humans are now out of synch with nature doesn’t mean they still don’t notice the schism, as you yourself have pointed it out in such a pessimistic seeming approach to the ideas and concepts that have built AND toppled empires. It will be there after we’re gone, has been there before we were even here and, as of this moment, still exists as you claim it not to.

Immorality paints a picture that it is all immoral. Morality is actually able to justify what it does through reason and emotional logic that states that we are all emotional, we are all prone to err and so perfection is not being perfect, but learning and growing and actually practicing what we preach in terms of tolerance, firmness in both gentleness and in toning down some reactions to a more soothing level and actually living in the better world we envision that we could have. Literally, be the change you want to see in the world. Live in heaven as others go through Hell; reach into Hell where they are and suffer more just to have good company; be discerning. You’re mortal, in human flesh, obviously you have biases and opinions and don’t like certain people. Nobody is asking you to. Just don’t do anything to wrong them, you don’t necessarily have to help them. Do you think God continues helping those that fuck It over? Hell no. forgives and continues to give chances, but those chances become fewer and farther between, become harder to reach for and then, when he’s tired of leaning in on you, will make it easier for you to earn them again and easier to get back into his good graces, until you betray that trust again.

Not to say that you should trust just in God, for if those religious fruitcakes are right, then we are made in Gods image of both the material and the immaterial and thus God must be emotional as well, and must have made it through to become stable enough for so many people to have that faith and loyalty regardless of how blind they are as they trespass through the devils land as bequeathed by God.

And these are concepts and metaphors at the same time as not being concepts and metaphors; being something more, something real; even if intangible. I believe that even demons and devils will get your back when you’re at your lowest and you would never know the difference; just so they could work you back up, enjoy your company, and then beat you down again. It’s nothing personal, they just respect strength and power. Somewhere along the line of human evolution that preceded where we are now, such a pinnacle of said evolution did grab the attention of energy remnants that had become sentient in their own right, driven by strong-willed spirits and caused them to respect the strength of morality and emotional stability. Then, after that person was gone and their influence waned, those spirits became increasingly more devilish; childish; twisted and dangerous and cruel.

It’s been a long time since the day when man first earned respect from nature. The term ‘God’ was simply what they attributed to those pinnacles of evolution; those advanced role models that exemplified what we could all be if we tried. It’s been a long time since people as a whole actually remembered why they first respected nature. Nature sorely wants to remind them of both.

Understanding more doesn’t mean we are higher.

I don’t see any morality or immorality among wild animals. They survive, the circle of life. Natural instincts. They don’t think of each other as bad or good… It’s a consumerism reality. We are the only judges.

Are you familiar with Nietzsche’s take on morality? If not, you would find it edifying.

I agree with your OP. It is a human-construct meant to police human behavior. In archaic times, things were primarily a matter of good/evil; now, in the 21st century, it’s mainly a matter of legal/illegal. But both religious morality and secular law are twin mephistos – phantoms conjured up by the sick minds of priests and statesmen.

I totally should have broken that lecture up into paragraphs. it’s almost impossible to read like that. My apollo gees.

"[New York City] does not actually exist, it is a creation and springs into life only in society/ or if there is more than one. By “more than one” I am referring to people. "

Seriously, ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿???

I could even replace it with “A child”. By your rules of existence sexually produced animals do not exist.

Our own highly complex sense of morality is obviously an exclusively human construct. But more basic morality exists within the rest of the animal kingdom
and this takes the form of reciprocal altruism. But I would be careful about making absolute statements about something you have no evidence or proof for
since you have no idea at all what animals are thinking. We do not even know what other human beings are thinking even though we have the advantage of
both spoken and written language. If I tell you that I am thinking of x [ whatever x is ] how do you know if I am telling you the truth or not ? For the fact of
the matter is you would have absolutely no idea. Lie detectors can be beaten. Body language can be manipulated. A cat scan would simply show activation
of brain regions. Psychologists can make mistakes. Torture would be more reliable but it is still not absolute. You could guess but that is not perfect either
And so as with other humans then also with all other animals. As the fact of the matter is that the only person who knows what you are thinking is yourself

Except a child can exist outside of society? … Good and evil can’t. What are you even talking about?

Morals cannot exist with just one person, there is nothing to show or reflect your morals, or test them. You need another being in order to have morality otherwise why would the person care about what they do, there would be no judgement, no scrutiny.

Is there wrong if there is no one else to tell you it is? We live in a world trapped by belief and illusion. Where the generally supported ideas or sets of morals reign, telling you what is right and what is wrong.

How can there be an objectively right or wrong answer/set when every set of morals is “Believed” to be right/wrong.

Sure there is proof it isn’t that hard to see or understand, animals don’t do what we do. They don’t live how we live. The circle of life and natural instincts just are, regardless of morality.

There is a prey because the predator has to feed, the prey doesn’t hate the predator and know it’s evil… The animal is hardwired to be passive and prey… So then why would it be wired to think of morality when about to be eaten. Makes no sense, it’s pointless to have.

It really isn’t complex and we are not superior, so if people could refrain from thinking and using terms to imply we are, should just stop.

Want more proof morality doesn’t exist in the natural world, but only as a human construct? Animals don’t wear clothes and judge themselves immoral for being nude, we humans do… I suppose one will say “that’s what makes us civilized” really? Clothes do? Sounds foolish.

Go to walmart tomorrow naked, you will be arrested for being “immoral” and indecent exposure. An animal doesn’t wear clothes, it’s natural for them to be naked and they do not judge or think of it being “good or bad”… Morality just seems to be constructed for control and a sense of superiority through thinking one can determine anothers set of motives/personality.

One may have their own moral code determined by their individual sense of right and wrong rather than what by society determines is right
and wrong. If you were the last human being left alive on the planet would you immediately become totally immoral just because you could

It isn’t about could. You would have to survive. And yes, a lot of people would because they could.

So in a simpler version is he saying ethics/morality just revolves around language and semantics? Because if that is the case it seems pretty true…

Another short simple example of morality not truly existing in an objective sense and is just mere opinion, judgement or view-stance.

You own a dog. Your dog has to go potty. It poops or pees on your carpet because it feels comfortable enough to go there, you find it, you tell your dog it is bad. You express that the dog pooping in your house is not good, thus immoral. So a human can classify natural instinct of a dogs need to go to the bathroom in a comfortable spot as bad/immoral? No. You can only express your opinion of it not being wanted or dislike and that proves right there that morality doesn’t truly exist outside or humanitys usage of it for judgment or view.

Artimas

So, what are you saying here, Artimas, that a psychopath’s and a rapist’s behavior cannot be construed as immoral simply because they feel they’ve been programmed a certain way?
When we’ve crossed that “bridge” into consciousness, as humans we are capable of transcending our natural instincts, those which lead to harm to self or others.

But how we respond to these instincts DO become a matter of morality or ethics.

I absolutely love spiders but they do not have human consciousness. They cannot respond with empathy and compassion.

Every living thing is higher or lower in a sense than another thing. I love animals but to say what you’re saying is a romantic notion based on perhaps love of animals.
So you would consider a cat equal to a person? although I have found some of these wonderful working dogs, like the seeing eye dog or the dogs or cats who cuddle with cancer patients, especially children, as higher than some human creatures.

[/quote]
Are you a buddhist, Artimas? I do get what you’re trying to say but still…
If a plant was thrown into the ocean and there was this thunderous wave coming toward you, would you run in to save the plant like perhaps you might if it were a little child about to drown?
The same goes for a cow - would you risk your life to save a cow drowning?