Many people make this mistake. They find something common, then assume it is natural, then assume natural is good.
Basically, go with the flow. Mob justice.
How dare anyone try to be better than the “natural”. That would be “unnatural”.
True morality would be about what is best, not what is most common or most natural.
Morals are in the eye of the beholder. Are you willing to make all follow what you see as right moral behavior? Are you willing to eliminate or ostracize those who disagree? My morals may be different from yours, does this make me wrong?
Should we all follow the same path and if so or no, why?
your morals can be very different from mine, but are “good” morals for the betterment of mankind and “bad” morals for the destruction of mankind. Treat others as you wish to be treated. Is that being moral?
Morals are not natural, they are cultural responses to natural urges.
Your last comment betrays you. This points to the fact that you are labouring under the same falsehood as those you criticise.
As common moral principles are no more natural than uncommon ones, your “true morality” is nothing more than whatever the indigenous culture invents.
The whole idea of a “true morality” is as bankrupt and idea as a 'natural morality".
What is “best”?? Best for whom? Best under what conditions. Best in what culture, at what time, and in which place?
It’s not the word common that betrays you, but the word natural. I agree with you by the way Dan.
Yay. Am a bit surprised too.
There are things which are grey, that anyone can do, or things that are white (saving or helping friends, family, pet animals, etc)
and there are things that are black, like random mass shootings, circumcision, putting weed smokers in jail, etc.
It’s not about making everyone be the same. Over 90% of what we do in life are grey areas.
We are more natural as babies, and least natural as adults.
If people weren’t put through so much conditioning, they would be more eutopian.
“Thow shalt not kill” is a eutopian idea, because everyone is eating and sleeping the whole predation and exploitation thing,
but on a soul level, is it really all that natural for everyone to eat each other and be affraid of each other?
Wouldn’t it be more natural to have a system where everyone works together as a team?
Circumcisions???
Morals are not natural, they are cultural responses to natural urges.
Your last comment betrays you. This points to the fact that you are labouring under the same falsehood as those you criticise.
As common moral principles are no more natural than uncommon ones, your “true morality” is nothing more than whatever the indigenous culture invents.
The whole idea of a “true morality” is as bankrupt and idea as a 'natural morality".
What is “best”?? Best for whom? Best under what conditions. Best in what culture, at what time, and in which place?
good question.
Just don’t contradict your motives… that’s cross cultural. You want to eat food to survive, then don’t kill the people who bring food to you. You don’t want to live anymore, just commit suicide, don’t do a suicide/homicide. You want innovation… do things that stop people from committing suicide and don’t kill them. etc…
Why is this comment directed at me?
Why not…
“CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES,
SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU,
AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN”
You said there were no universal morals, you tried to make them relative in your post, that’s why i directed it at you. I said earlier in the thread that i agree with Dan. He just got into trouble using the word natural, because then you have unnatural and supernatural which anyone can debate… because they don’t mean anything.
Your response was to give your homespun moral code?
Are you trying to refute relative morality, because you just did a great job proving that morals can’t be universal.
How so? Non-contradiction of motive makes morals absolute. Please explain Lev.
If there is one person on the planet that does not agree with your moral code then it is hardly universal.
ANd since you did not include the pleasure at hearing the lamentation of the women of your dead enemies then your moral code is exclusive.
There is a serious difference between “consensus of opinion”, and “universally applicable”.
The real laws of physics are, by definition, universally applicable. But that doesn’t mean that everyone agrees upon what they really are.
Morals are merely the ethics form of the universal laws of physics.
I think it’s the same for a eutopia. It’s possible, it can be real in all kinds of ways, but that doesn’t make it happen.
The phrase was neither of the ones you wanted it to be.
Thus, as so often, you are irrelevant.