Sociopath Community

"Again, Morality is not an invention, there's the answer to your inquiry about not seeing where anyone suggested it was an invention. This is all in context of discussing morals."

Quoting you again:

"What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq."

When Inquirer brought up that morality was a social construct, you immediately jumped to denying that morality is a human invention. No one even suggested anything about the moral impulse being an invention before you did.

"We are not discussing, as you say, 'the relativity of morals'  we are discussing moral relativism."

Do you do you not see how even when you re-arrange words, the things you are speaking of are both contingent and continuous?

"What evidence ? I fully understand what Inq said, and I never disagreed with him when he said that. What we're debating is if morality is a social construct or not. My argument is how morality had to have been in place, all the way back to the first human being."

No one ever said anything to the contrary. That was my point.

"They don't govern what morality is simply by writing about it, or passing laws. Written guidelines will either be moral or not. All of the above have succeeded and failed at morality, regardless of what they've written."

The pre-WW2 fascist movements are a great example of how persuasiveness of a governing body combined with draconian social norms can rapidly establish new moral paradigms in conjunction with legislature. The morality of millions shifted with the narratives of demagogues, and those events reverberate to this day.

Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao come to mind as historical figures who transformed moral credence for countless individuals. Each of those persons had such a profound impact on the moral fiber of the nations they governed that bloody revolutions and wars resulted.

"You say that's [collective rape] a morally proper behavior in parts of the world. That's you. The very link you provided shows citizens protesting corrective rape. It doesn't take a genius to know this corrective rape is immoral."

It seems rather apparent that it is moral to many who engage in it, because it coincides with their strict Sharia & cultural creed. I can give you another example of how convoluted and subjective morality is. To this day, women in Saudia Arabia accused of adultery are buried into sandpits above their chest, and stones are whipped at them until they die. And to the Saudis, that is moral. I don't agree with what they do, and I think you don't like that either. But the thing is, that is their morality. Yours has no higher inherent value.

"Immorality degenerates a human being. Even those who claim not to feel, know the benefits of positive behavior compared to the opposite. Saying morality is different for each individual would equate to misdirection of the human race, and instability of our species if said beliefs were practiced."

Where did I say morality is different for each individual? I'll expand on this last bit at another point but I must get to work.

Tryptamine stated: source post

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq.

No one said (as far as I can remember) that humans invented morality. Rather (with rare exception), humans have an innate tendency to be moral. They assimilate their moral codes from those around them, or from ideologies. And some form their own moralities.

There are moralities of all sorts with different conceptions of ethical living. No moral code is inherently more "right" than any other, because there is no objective standard for "right" and "wrong." Moral relativism is simply a term for what I am describing.

I believe I was responding to a claim of morality being a social construct.

And there is an objective of right and wrong, as matters of perspective will not prevent a degenerate from ruin.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Charles Darwin, was a theist, and it's his theories "you have faith" in. They still never found the missing link, and they never will.

That's an "appeal to authority." Just because an authority has an opinion on something does not make that thing any more or less true...

I could have added the bold to that same paragraph I wrote.

Spatial Mind stated: source post

But it is intelligent.

So what's the deal with children being born with Down's Syndrome or anencephaly? Or genetic diseases? The human body seems rather balanced on a razor's edge for something so intelligently designed.

 

 Still takes an incredible amount of knowledge and ability to create all of what you've mentioned.

For what's been done, we have those too.  

I'll make this brief.

- Social Construct is invention. This is non debatable.

- The thread's title is moral relativism. The points I've made about it is that it's counterfeit morality. 

"What evidence ? I fully understand what Inq said, and I never disagreed with him when he said that. What we're debating is if morality is a social construct or not. My argument is how morality had to have been in place, all the way back to the first human being."

((No one ever said anything to the contrary. That was my point."))

Actually, you said something on the contrary, as you claimed it was evident that I did not understand Inq. That IS on the contrary Tryptamine.

.

.

(("The pre-WW2 fascist movements are a great example of how persuasiveness of a governing body combined with draconian social norms can rapidly establish new moral paradigms in conjunction with legislature. The morality of millions shifted with the narratives of demagogues, and those events reverberate to this day.

Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao come to mind as historical figures who transformed moral credence for countless individuals. Each of those persons had such a profound impact on the moral fiber of the nations they governed that bloody revolutions and wars resulted."))

Today most German's are ashamed of Hitler. For humanitarian reasons, it doesn't look good on them.

The Written law of man does not govern what is moral and what is not. If it became legal to rape others, that does not mean it is moral. If a nation commits genocide due to bigotry, that does not make it moral. No matter what side or what level man's law is written, it doesn't alter what is good and bad for our species.

.

.

.

(( "But the thing is, that is their morality. Yours has no higher inherent value". ))

That is revengeful one sided and sexist in my opinion. What they practice is also moral relativism which again, is counterfeit morality.

As for the real morality. It has unlimited amounts of value compared to that because forgiveness is included. All human beings develop from trial and error, sometimes we do bad things, face consequences then we move away from it, in many cases to become better.

To become monstrous is immoral, first degree murder does not equate to justice. In the year 2016 they still do this, and from the time they've been doing it, their judgement has done more damage, and it doesn't work cause they still do it.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" and if anyone were to be judged by the an all knowing ultimate consciousness, they would get blown away, because no is without sin, for those women stoned to death, it's irony.

There are great people in this world, who would have been stoned to death if there were those kind of laws imposed on them. But they lived on to make the world what it is today. Not a good or bad thing, though we like our technology and some of the things these people invented.

Real morality is more valuable for the sake of what we are, and how we are, this is more valuable than some laws that have been imposed to serve as ultimate revenge.

That is fear mongering, and fear mongering is immoral, and regardless if you believe in limited life, or eternal life, living in fear is not a good way to live, cause it'll psychologically break you down into someone's bitch, and you won't be able to explore the true potentials of the self.

"I believe I was responding to a claim of morality being a social construct."

Yes, the specific statement you were responding to was: "I disagree. Morality is a social construct." This was within the context of discussing the relativity of morals; it was not tangential.

It was evident that you misunderstood Inquirer's point of view when you responded to him saying, "What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq." He had explained himself previously when he said: "I don't believe we're born with a static, absolutist set of morals but I do think the vast majority of people agree on morals when painted in broad strokes. We're all humans after all, and we all would like to keep living and avoid pain."

Did you really mean to say that you don't believe that governments, religious institutions, cults, think tanks, shamans, etc. do not create moral templates? Surely you have met a devout Muslim in your life as well as an Orthodox Jew. Have you ever heard of "corrective rape"? That is a morally proper behavior in parts of the world. So is ritual human sacrifice. Can you see how morality is structured by society and ergo is a social construct? Morality is an instinct, but it does not take shape in a vacuum.

"And there is an objective of right and wrong, as matters of perspective will not prevent a degenerate from ruin."

This does not explain how there is objective "right and wrong." You just say that perspective won't stop a degenerate from ruin. A car with a cut break line doesn't have operating breaks. What's your point?

"Still takes an incredible amount of knowledge and ability to create all of what you've mentioned.

For what's been done, we have those too."

As someone who has taken biology courses at a pretty good university, I can appreciate the complexity of life. I don't see at which point over the last 6 billion years that an "intelligent guide" was necessary to bring any of this to fruition. Nor do I claim to be omniscient and know the nature of the universe. So this is not worth arguing, really.

How empty does your life need to be in order to write thousands of symbols on trivial pseudo-intellectual matters like this?

Tryptamine stated: source post

"I believe I was responding to a claim of morality being a social construct."

Yes, the specific statement you were responding to was: "I disagree. Morality is a social construct." This was within the context of discussing the relativity of morals; it was not tangential.

Again, Morality is not an invention, there's the answer to your inquiry about not seeing where anyone suggested it was an invention. This is all in context of discussing morals.

We are not discussing, as you say, "the relativity of morals"  we are discussing moral relativism. 

It was evident that you misunderstood Inquirer's point of view when you responded to him saying, "What we call morality in any language or expression, is NOT a human invention. Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq." He had explained himself previously when he said: "I don't believe we're born with a static, absolutist set of morals but I do think the vast majority of people agree on morals when painted in broad strokes. We're all humans after all, and we all would like to keep living and avoid pain."

What evidence ? I fully understand what Inq said, and I never disagreed with him when he said that. What we're debating is if morality is a social construct or not. My argument is how morality had to have been in place, all the way back to the first human being.

Did you really mean to say that you don't believe that governments, religious institutions, cults, think tanks, shamans, etc. do not create moral templates?

They don't govern what morality is simply by writing about it, or passing laws. Written guidelines will either be moral or not. All of the above have succeeded and failed at morality, regardless of what they've written.

US constitution I think is moral, due to the fact the amendments are comprised of qualities that are in the peoples best interests. It's ashamed the US constitution is constantly under threat by the very government that swore to protect it.

 Surely you have met a devout Muslim in your life as well as an Orthodox Jew. Or do you believe all religions in all of their tenets are true (which would be absurd, as they contradict in many ways)? Have you ever heard of "corrective rape"? That is a morally proper behavior in parts of the world. So is ritual human sacrifice. Can you see how morality is structured by society and ergo is a social construct? Morality is an instinct, but it does not take shape in a vacuum.

You say that's a morally proper behavior in parts of the world. That's you. The very link you provided shows citizens protesting corrective rape. It doesn't take a genius to know this corrective rape is immoral. 

Because it's passed into law, doesn't make it moral. Man doesn't create what's moral and what isn't, and they never have.

"And there is an objective of right and wrong, as matters of perspective will not prevent a degenerate from ruin."

This does not explain how there is objective "right and wrong." You just say that perspective won't stop a degenerate from ruin. A car with a cut break line doesn't have operating breaks. What's your point?

There is an explanation there. You just don't want to admit it and compare it to an inanimate tool.

Immorality degenerates a human being. Even those who claim not to feel, know the benefits of positive behavior compared to the opposite. Saying morality is different for each individual would equate to misdirection of the human race, and instability of our species if said beliefs were practiced. 

The civilization that places no value in moral law will see protest by the masses before it's collapse. The objective of what's right, is functionality.

"Still takes an incredible amount of knowledge and ability to create all of what you've mentioned.

For what's been done, we have those too."

As someone who has taken biology courses at a pretty good university, I can appreciate the complexity of life. I don't see at which point over the last 6 billion years that an "intelligent guide" was necessary to bring any of this to fruition. Nor do I claim to be omniscient and know the nature of the universe. So this is not worth arguing, really.

In University they would teach how the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, while the Universe would be 14 billion, ( in our neck of the woods anyway, distance and time violation )

If you want to believe it was nothing that created the complexity of the human body, from all the functions and complexities of it, equipped with a super computer inside our heads, that's up to you.

I find it to be irrational for anything like us or any living thing to evolve as we are, unguided.

It so happens that the brain is hooked up to a system for us to detect sound, while sound exists. This and the staggering amount of conveniences before us is believe to be coincidence. It so happens that we're well designed too. Better than anything we've ever done to date. 

"If morality as you say "develops from an instinct" then the instinct is the developer of morality, therefor it is not man made, nor is morality a social construct."

Humans have a "moral instinct." This moral instinct expresses itself by extrapolating what is proper behavior for the self, while simultaneously adding emotional connotations to convention to reinforce those behaviors. This is a matter that has been thoroughly dissected by neuroscience.

"Social Construct is invention. This is non debatable."

"In the domain of social constructionist thought, a social construct is an idea or notion that appears to be natural and obvious to people who accept it but may or may not represent reality, so it remains largely [my italics—in the case of morality, instincts are at play as well] an invention or artifice of a given society." (Source)

It makes perfect sense to me that morality is a social construct driven by instinct, although I can see this being rendered incomprehensible when processed by a mind that genuinely thinks it understands "the objective truth."

"Actually, you said something on the contrary, as you claimed it was evident that I did not understand Inq. That IS on the contrary Tryptamine."

The issue is that you were speaking of the moral instinct itself, evinced by when you said, "Even dogs have a sense of morality Inq." There is a difference between the moral instinct and morality. One develops into the other.

"As for the real morality. It has unlimited amounts of value compared to that because forgiveness is included. All human beings develop from trial and error, sometimes we do bad things, face consequences then we move away from it, in many cases to become better."

You have yet to prove how your morality is the objectively "correct" one.

"The Written law of man does not govern what is moral and what is not. If it became legal to rape others, that does not mean it is moral. If a nation commits genocide due to bigotry, that does not make it moral. No matter what side or what level man's law is written, it doesn't alter what is good and bad for our species."

When a vast majority of a nation is told and convinced it is "right" to burn "degenerate" books, and it is "right," to have an ethnic cleansing...Then they do these things of their own volition because they see them as "right," that is changing morality. Many Nazi guards at concentration camps felt they were doing no wrong. They believed they were executing subhumans, and that it was the morally right thing to do for the German people.

Tryptamine stated: source post

"It's as i said. Social construct is an invention. Despite the text you've inserted, your source indicates that social construct remains largely an invention. The illusion of social constructs appearing natural, is the simple fact people understand them."

Yes, largely an invention. Morality develops from an instinct. This instinct causes men to create moral constructs. When you look at the constructs themselves, they cannot be explained entirely by social conditioning...Biology shows us that both altruism and selfishness are normal—and often carefully genetically balanced—tendencies in social animals. Men create and live by morals. Again, no one had suggested that the moral impulse was invented by man, as you presumed others were, when you said "even dogs have morality."

There is no divide between man and nature. If morality as you say "develops from an instinct" then the instinct is the developer of morality, therefor it is not man made, nor is morality a social construct. The ethics behind the social construct can be a moral one, but the construct utilizes morality as a theme.

And dogs do have a sense of morality. Foul play makes them nervous, and they are known to sometimes intervene when they're disturbed by negativity.

The reason why the word I've emphasized the word "largely" is because, especially in the case of morality, other factors are at play. Primarily, the moral instinct. The instinct flourishes into a manifold of forms, all of which are inescapable from social constructs. No one has claimed that man "invented morality."

You say morality is a social construct.... You gather social constructs are largely an invention. You also say no one has claimed that man invented morality.

Believe it or not, I understand you more. Those 3 claims oppose one another.

"It's instinct > social construct. Why undermine the source that driven the product to manifestation ?"

How have I undermined it?

You deny the instinct of being the creator of morality by crediting social construct to be what morality is. Though now you're saying the instinct inspires the construct which then creates morality. By that logic, there is no morality without social construct, which would make it an invention, but you also claim no one said morality is an invention.

It should tell you something when I see you contradicting yourself before you realize it.

"What social constructs produce is only ideological which can serve any master, that is good or bad, or even fictional, or set rules for some game etc. . Morality on the other hand, in itself is not a rule we can simply edit, due to "the principle of causality."

Morality suffers from all the criticism you have about social constructs. Which makes perfect sense, as morality is, after all, a social construct.

To be honest, morality suffers when you claim it to be based on a belief system. Like when you insinuate what the neo nazi's did is a type their morality and because they believed it was right it was genuinely moral. Not to us, but to them. Today the Germans are incredibly embarrassed by that history, but it's not that the old morality magically converted itself to immorality like you think it did. Their reason for doing so was for the sake of supremacy.

"European Christians once started killing cats, because they believed they were evil. Because they believed what they were doing was moral never made it so, due to the fact there was no actual good coming of it. They ended up with a rat infestation before they stopped killing cats, but that's another story."

That would be an example of morality causing problems for its own practitioners.

Incorrect. It's an example of immorality causing problems.

Define the difference between, as you say, "The moral instinct, and morality"

The moral instinct is an innate drive. It impels social animals to live harmoniously with those who they affiliate with. Its range can extend beyond the spectrum of average in/out group mechanics as demonstrated by forms of altruism and selfishness. Morality is the set of beliefs and emotions corresponding to how the moral drive processes environment. It manifests itself in countless shapes across the world.

The negative doesn't become positive just because someone believes it is. What's good for a being, never changes nor does morality make transformations to suit others, it's us that conforms to what's moral.

Morality is to be understood, we do not ( I hate this word but we don't ) "overstand" morality. If we did, then things like drinking and smoking wouldn't be an immoral thing to do to ourselves and it probably wouldn't kill us if we had such power to edit the nature of cause and effect. The correctional rape and nazi genocide are bad examples, because there is backlash and protest in the name of morality.

"So i have to prove that no one is perfect, and how everyone makes mistakes and it's how we actually are ?"

We are all perfectly as we must be. You could be nothing more in this very moment than what you are. I thought I was the pessimist...

You seem to have forgotten that you asked me to prove true morality to be the objectively correct one. What more do I need to prove ? There is only 1 morality and as we are is considered. Treating women like shit and stoning them, raping people, genocide. Immoral regardless of what they think.

"I also have to prove how immorality obstructs progress and derails environments ?"

I am sure there are many philosophies that stand diametric to your own, with volumes of arguments better than "no one is perfect." But you haven't really fleshed out exactly what "immorality" is to you. Knowing you, I'd wager that utilitarianism, consumerism, pragmatism, hedonism, forms of existentialism, and Machiavelliansim all stand in contrast to your beliefs.

Oh you know me now. Okay.

"Regardless if what they believed, they were ACTUALLY practicing the destruction of their own species. That is degenerate behavior."

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. It's still an opinion that it's "degenerate behavior." The point is that morals are relative. Your mind cannot seem to wrap around the fact that all morals are relative to one-another, and none have primacy. We simply live by the ideals we find most suitable.

Protest in Africa over the correctional rape, is a fact. Germans being ashamed of their Nazi history, is also a fact. Humans killing humans IS being self destructive of it's own species, and it's a fact. It all being degenerative behavior is a fact. Morality being about the good of us all, is what it is, and it's not modified by delusions of what should be.

What social constructs produce is only ideological which can serve any master, that is good or bad, or even fictional, or set rules for some game etc. . Morality on the other hand, in itself is not a rule we can simply edit, due to "the principle of causality."

You can, but can you live with it? Morality is based on Guilt. Which may or may not exist to a greater or lesser extent. 

Perhaps it may be learned through loss? 

Of cause and correlation, the effect is not necessarily the sole phenomena due to multiple unknown variables.