Please log in. To create a new account, enter the name and password you want to use.
If you supplied an email address when you signed up or added a email later, you can have your password reset.
This user name doesn't exist. If you want to create a new account, just verify your password and log in.
This user name exists. If you want to create a new account, please choose a different name.
Enter the current email address you have registered in your profile. You'll get an email containing your new password.
You have no email address in your profile, so you can't have your password reset.
Password reset. Check your email in a few minutes
That account does not exist.
The email address specified is not registered with this account.
Delivery to this email address has failed.
Hmm... so now you are trying to discuss morality? I don't have too much to say on that, so I'll just be brief.
Why focus on survival?
Mnessie said: Why they focus on THOSE tasks (Survival?) is the real question then?
This is like gravity: an unknown required to exist.One of the biggest enigmas in physics is gravity. How does it work? Why does mass attracts itself to other masses? However, if you get practical, the only reason required is "because you need gravity or nothing would exist if matter could not hold itself together."
Likewise, the innate traits and impulses on all living beings exist for a very simple reason: to preserve life and pass it along to the next generation. If it were not that way... well, I imagine any species that didn't follow that plan went extinct rather quickly.
Our base programming is based on instinct and self-preservation. Looking at the now to maximize our survival rate.
Why do we need morality?
Mnessie said: I would like to ask the following question. What is morality? And why do "Living Things" require such a thing? At what point can we speak of morality is a critical factor here.
Morality is the higher-level system that we build on top of our instincts in order to be more far reaching. Our biological preservation system is limited to deciding what is best for us here, now. Morality looks towards what is best for us in general, for the long term.
It is not as apparent and that's why it requires years of building, testing and refining.
Can it be moral to impose decisions on the ignorant?
Gregol said: Is it moral to impose a change(even if it is for the better) on other beings if they disagree, even if they might not be fully aware/knowledgeable?
There is no right answer here. Or rather, the only right answer, as with pretty much every question, is "it depends on context". The key issue here is how can you know you have the right answer? Example of wrong while believing you are morally right.The Crusades were a bunch of well-meaning people who knew for certain their morality was right and they were just trying to save mankind from declining into chaos. Yet, being certain of being right doesn't make you right.
A much more difficult scenario: preventing suicide.Or, on the other hand. What if you manage to stop a person from committing suicide? Is that the morally right thing to do? If the person was just going through a rough patch in life and later on recovers, then yes, obviously. If their life continues being a dump and they still want to suicide, then it isn't so clear.
In the end, imposing a decision on others is morally right depending on what focus you are giving to morality. It's moral to look for the benefit of the whole, but it's also moral to respect the free-will of others. When both concepts are pitched against, I imagine the answer then is not so obvious and it's a per-case decision.
SK7000
over 11 years agoThis is like gravity: an unknown required to exist.One of the biggest enigmas in physics is gravity. How does it work? Why does mass attracts itself to other masses? However, if you get practical, the only reason required is "because you need gravity or nothing would exist if matter could not hold itself together."
Likewise, the innate traits and impulses on all living beings exist for a very simple reason: to preserve life and pass it along to the next generation. If it were not that way... well, I imagine any species that didn't follow that plan went extinct rather quickly.
Our base programming is based on instinct and self-preservation. Looking at the now to maximize our survival rate.
Morality is the higher-level system that we build on top of our instincts in order to be more far reaching. Our biological preservation system is limited to deciding what is best for us here, now. Morality looks towards what is best for us in general, for the long term.
It is not as apparent and that's why it requires years of building, testing and refining.
There is no right answer here. Or rather, the only right answer, as with pretty much every question, is "it depends on context". The key issue here is how can you know you have the right answer? Example of wrong while believing you are morally right.The Crusades were a bunch of well-meaning people who knew for certain their morality was right and they were just trying to save mankind from declining into chaos. Yet, being certain of being right doesn't make you right.
A much more difficult scenario: preventing suicide.Or, on the other hand. What if you manage to stop a person from committing suicide? Is that the morally right thing to do? If the person was just going through a rough patch in life and later on recovers, then yes, obviously. If their life continues being a dump and they still want to suicide, then it isn't so clear.
In the end, imposing a decision on others is morally right depending on what focus you are giving to morality. It's moral to look for the benefit of the whole, but it's also moral to respect the free-will of others. When both concepts are pitched against, I imagine the answer then is not so obvious and it's a per-case decision.