Morals.

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex: I always enjoy your posts Pyrotex. Your plume is quite pure.

:gift: tell me please, what is the soul of a human being?

I must be quick! The soul is the connectedness between your Hippocampus and your Cerebrum. It contains all the circuits that connect your relationships with all other Human Beings and your own emotions. It is a fragile, tennuous structure that innately seeks the Good for all those with functional souls, and help or restraint for all those with dysfunctional souls.

I must go.......................:surprise:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

It is a fragile, tennuous structure that innately seeks the Good for all those with functional souls, and help or restraint for all those with dysfunctional souls.

You can't use the word in the definition. That's cheating. :surprise:

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex: You can't use the word in the definition. That's cheating. :surprise:

By the very nature of their interconnectedness, souls are recursively self-referential. No soul exists alone. A single thread of spider silk is not a web. A web exists only when all threads are connected. Then each thread becomes the web.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

By the very nature of their interconnectedness, souls are recursively self-referential. No soul exists alone. A single thread of spider silk is not a web. A web exists only when all threads are connected. Then each thread becomes the web.

Perhaps, but your definition of moral includes not damaging the soul. If I don't know what you mean by the soul, the definition doesn't mean much.

One basically flies up one's hinder, familiar territory to be sure, but not where I wish to spend an inordinate amount of time.

When we use such vague concepts to create the blocks of the structure, perhaps the most important structure, it isn't going to hold much weight.

I think the future of humanity depends on getting this right and clarifying what it means to us as a species. A rational identification of morality will have an impact on all aspects of our lives and the lack of one, well, look around you. That's what we have now.

Lies, spin, corruption at all levels of society from county boards to churches to legislatures to board rooms to the supreme court exists because we do not understand what morality is and we think it's an arbitrary choice based upon whatever bullshit artist has the most charisma. And we equate being right to a show of hands.

People without morality are like boats without rudders. And that noise you hear, that loud thunderous noise, is Niagara Falls and we're in the water above it.

[BluesMan]

I agree with the tripping the rift philosophy of sin and morality.

Season 1

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex: Perhaps, but your definition of moral includes not damaging the soul. If I don't know what you mean by the soul, the definition doesn't mean much....People without morality are like boats without rudders. And that noise you hear, that loud thunderous noise, is Niagara Falls and we're in the water above it.

Okay, I accept that. Let me point out that possibly what you are asking for is not a definition of "morality", but a definitive list of moral injunctions.

 

There are many lists of moral injunctions. Every religion, indeed every denomination, has a list. (Even atheist groups have lists of moral rules.) Some lists are far more constraining than others. Some are for more utilitarian than others. And some just plain work better than others at keeping people "moral".

 

I am more interested in the (fuzzier) concept of morality. What is it in our minds that makes people in all cultures define a set of moral rules, and what has these rules share such a huge degree of commonality across cultures? My inclination is to say that cultural evolution over the last 50,000 years or so has favored those humans who had "personalities" (in the same sense that I speak of my cat, Harley, having a great "personality") that exhibited what we would call "moral qualities" today. Better people were more successful at surviving so they could pass on their better genes.

 

What do you think?

[Pyrotex]

I agree with the tripping the rift philosophy of sin and morality.

Season 1

I LOVED Tripping the Rift. Remind me again what they said about sin and morality???

[BluesMan]

I LOVED Tripping the Rift. Remind me again what they said about sin and morality???

 

 

The episode where Chode goes back in time to the big bang to see what really happened. He lands his ship on God and kills him. When he returns to his present there is no sin, inferring that religion creates sin.

He then introduces sin to the world and the world falls appart, so he goes back and saves God. God is so greatfull he throws Chode in front of his own ship from the first trip. :surprise:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

I am more interested in the (fuzzier) concept of morality. What is it in our minds that makes people in all cultures define a set of moral rules, and what has these rules share such a huge degree of commonality across cultures?

Me too. And that property of Humanity causes the need for moral codes, lists of limitations to human action.

A moral code then would be the implementation of morality. So morality drives creating(codifying) the list of a moral code or moral doctrine. But, what is it that determines what goes into the doctrine and onto the list?

It has to be unique to humanity because other species are not concerned with it. So, what about us requires discovery of morality?

Its intent also is to guide human action. Morality has zero use outside of human action. I include thought as a human action.

 

All actions are taken to maintain or to gain a value of some kind. From breathing to dropping an object onto the surface of Mars to thinking about the size of the universe. So, if morality is created to guide human action, it must be used to help define the path to gaining and/or maintaining a value. Or, perhaps that isn't right.

 

Maybe morality is a methodology for determining value. Specifically, values that are universal to all members of the species. Values that are inherent because of our identity as humans.

 

Pyrotex, I consider you to be a person with a great mind. That is a universal value to our species, perhaps the single thing that makes us unique and our most significant value. Any morality that doesn't recognize human intelligence as a value will not generate a valid moral code.

[Pyrotex]

The episode where Chode goes back in time to the big bang to see what really happened. He lands his ship on God and kills him. When he returns to his present there is no sin, inferring that religion creates sin....:hihi:

I absotively, posilutely LOVED that episode. Woof! Woof! :lol:

 

Certainly, not ALL sins are "created" by religion. Murder and theft come to mind. But in the church of my childhood, using the church building for anything other than worship was considered a "sin", as was allowing women in the building without a hat or scarf on their heads, as was dancing or anything that remotely looked like dancing.

 

Those were definately religion created sins!!

[Southtown]

I absotively, posilutely LOVED that episode. Woof! Woof! :cup:

 

Certainly, not ALL sins are "created" by religion. Murder and theft come to mind. But in the church of my childhood, using the church building for anything other than worship was considered a "sin", as was allowing women in the building without a hat or scarf on their heads, as was dancing or anything that remotely looked like dancing.

 

Those were definately religion created sins!!

Outrageous. Antagonistic religion... yet again.

“

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”

—

Matthew 15:2-3 asv

Regarding definitions, the phrase 'that poor soul' comes to mind, not referring to a piece of that individual, but the operational whole. In that light, one would wonder why a definition would need to be more specific than that.

 

And morality (google "define: morality") is the discerning between good and evil — two new definitions? (Genesis 3:22 comes to mind) I googled "evil" and got "bad or wrong" HAHAHA — circular reasoning?

 

The definitions of good and evil or right and wrong may be at the heart of this topic if not the answer itself. The concept that we "should" or "shouldn't" behave in certain ways seems universal, at least for humans, in one form or another, does it not? I know people who would say otherwise, but they scream the loudest when they are cut off in traffic. LOL

[ldsoftwaresteve]

SouthTown:

Outrageous. Antagonistic religion... yet again.

It might surprise you to know that I think the only answer to correcting the evils of the Human condition is in religion. But where I differ is the form the religion should take.

"Scientists" follow a mantra as do all people in one form or another. It's their internal voice or conscience.

whether it's, "Kill the infidels" or "fire and brimstone" or "Love thy neighbor" it's only a matter of what is being played through the internal voice.

 

But they could just as well be:

 

"be reasonable"

"be logical"

"be honest"

"be critical of your thought processes"

"know who you are"

"know what you want"

"people are inherently good"

"the world can make sense"

"don't take what isn't yours"

 

theres lots of them and they drive the world.

and absolutely everyone has them.

[Southtown]

SouthTown: It might surprise you to know that I think the only answer to correcting the evils of the Human condition is in religion. But where I differ is the form the religion should take.

How do you mean religion? And would it be universal? I might agree with you. LOL

 

The list of mantras are sensible. I especially like the first four. The problem I see with modern religions/sects/ideologies/philosophies/etc. is that the mantras are not always sensible but dogmatic. I am of the opinion that biblical morality is sensible, despite the dogmas promulgated by churches/denominations/preachers/etc.

 

So I agree humanity needs sensible mantras, adding they should be universal. But I don't see it happening. I think humanity's too self-centered. Even if we figure out the most beneficial standards of behavior, people will still have a choice to comply for harmony's sake or not. For example, look at science. Not even scientific evidence can make people accept things they don't want to accept. Can I get an amen?

 

I see humanity as animals who incidentally aquired the divine wisdom of good and evil by way of the tree in the garden. But as animals, we are powerless to act on it, bringing shame to our consciousnesses. So this leaves me with the "we have no hope but a Savior" approach.

[TheBigDog]

Can I get an amen?

Amen! Tell it like it is Southtown!

 

Here is to respectully and peacefully disagreeing, and getting along just fine!

 

:cup: :) :singer: One for you, one for me, and one for the first passer by...

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

:cup: :) :singer: One for you, one for me, and one for the first passer by...

 

Thank you kindly, sir, I'll have that there beer...

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

I see humanity as animals who incidentally aquired the divine wisdom of good and evil by way of the tree in the garden. But as animals, we are powerless to act on it, bringing shame to our consciousnesses. So this leaves me with the "we have no hope but a Savior" approach.

Well buddy, I disagree. Perhaps you include too broad a range of human action into your category of immoral? I grant you that some people will fall into any category we can dream up. Some people have parts broken.

When we deal with 'humanity', shouldn't we deal with the 'essence' of what it means to be human? It might not be wise to abstract from folks who've been subjected to very large doses of insanity as they might not be representative of people raised in a sane, rational, loving environment. We can nitpick on this and get nowhere, and perhaps that's the real purpose behind these discussions, but I'd like to think it isn't.

If one's purpose is to understand humanity (as it should be and ought to be), perhaps we need to be selective in the set of individuals included in the class of human. That sounds very unscientific, but let me assert a simple truth first, before you draw conclusions and dismiss it out of hand: one very important characteristic of a human is that it is an animal that requires (for the most part and yes, there are exceptions) a healthy growth environment in order to attain the stature of human, in order to attain the stature of 'rational'. We're the only species that needs that. So, perhaps we need to bend the rules a little or be more careful when we draw broad generalities about ourselves. What I'm basically saying, my inability to precisely specify notwithstanding, is that the John Wayne Gacys of the world should not be included as representatives of rational humans. They are broken, flawed, and in my mind definitely outside the bounds of humanity. It is not valid to include them in studies of humanity.

We're different from birds and dogs in the sense that we choose the identity we wish to have and that identity does not have to be rational.

Morality should be a roadmap that helps guide us toward a rational identity.

We need that because unlike other species, it isn't built in.

[questor]

Steve, what would you predict would happen if you separated identical twins at birth. one went with a religious family, loving and ambitious for their children, the other went with a non religious , non caring, uneducated family?