Morality without god

So then you are blind to what the word "Society" even means in the face of the fact, as the whole world of man is now one giant Global Village, so technologically interwoven with the tools and processes and the geographical distributions of resources and means, that it could never exist unless Law and Order where to maintain the system of things??????In your opinion, then, Civilization does not qualify as evidence that man is a Social Animal.You deny the implicit idea of the Social Contract.You do not see that man, in every case, has formed Seven Fundamental Basic Social Institutions by which each nation of peoples live together.These seven basic institutions are the social forces that require the contributing and observing of the agreements and rules set down by those seven Institutions.Fine.
You are always on the other side of the facts in your perspective.

quite a strawman there. And way off topic, especially with your bullshit 7 institutions claim you tried to sneak in there.Try responding without lying next time.

So then you are blind to what the word "Society" even means ...?

Things and species exist outside of those categories you listed. It would therefore be impossible for actual right and wrong to eixst, even if it is from those contexts onlyAny knowlegde different or superior to those you listed would automatically disqualify yours as an actual right or wrong, moral or immoralif you could diemonstrate a knowledge the likes of which could not be expanded upon of added to, then you could say you have an actual moralityThings exist outside of you, therefore it is an impossibilityLets try an a simple exercise. Lets say I help an elderly person accross the street. Someone watching says to themselves, well that was a nice thing he did.Or another person throws him down even before he gets accross the street. Is he moral or immoral. Which one is the correct behavoirBut then lets say Dawn is Holy (Moral) for participaticing in that act. Now you have created something that doesnt actually exist. Youve invented itNow lets say someone disagrees with your classification and estimation. Which one of you is right>Of course neither.I think you can see the difficulty in trying to find actual morality from a species only conceptDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Utter bullshit.Of course we invent morality and determine right and wrong, and as I have explained to you many times we do that through a process of building a consensus.I see no difficulty in how we create and evolve morality.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

I don't think it would be right to throw an elderly person onto the road, you don't either and neither does anyone reading thus thread. In fact I doubt you could find anyone not already categorised as insane to agree that it's a moral act.So how about we forget all your silly little games and accept that morality actually does exist - because we all know and agree what it is.You know, be normal.

I love simple exercises! Okay, got it. Irrelevant. What someone unrelated to the situation thinks has no bearing on whether or not the choice of action was good or bad. Understood. Don't know. You haven't provided enough information to make the judgement.In your first exercise, when you helped the elderly person across the street... did they want to be helped across the street? Were they thankful afterward, or resentful?In your second exercise, when another person throws the elderly man down before getting across the street... did they want to be thrown down? Where they thankful afterward, or resentful? The correct behaviour is the action taken when the elderly man was thankful afterward. The one who agrees with how the elderly man feels about the situation afterward.

---

Morality is not defined by some set of rules or instructions you can follow in order to "always be good."
Whether or not you did good or bad to someone is defined by those very same people who judge the actions after they've happened to them.You might be able to help the same person cross the street every day, and they thank you for it every day.
Then, one day you help them across, and they didn't want to be helped. That action was bad. You were trying to do good, and the previous days' street crossings were good... but this time, when they didn't want the help and you did anyway, that was bad.The point of morality isn't to be good all the time.
The point of morality is to try and be good as much as possible.
When you make a mistake, don't cry about it. Accept that you made a mistake, reflect on the situation and the new information available to you, and then try to make better decisions in the future. Maybe it's better to ask people if they want to cross the street before you help them. Maybe you just don't get to know the future before it happens.
Morality isn't simple or easy or clear.
Morality is about improvement, not absolute perfectionism.But it can be objectively identifiable, just ask the people you deal with if you've been treating them well or not. Or, just look for a smile or scowl, then you'll know if you're being good or bad to that person.Edited by Stile, : "The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!" - The vorpal blade sounds like a pansy

Again, this is part of your strawman.I know exactly what society means and what it doesn't.It does not mean that an individual must depend on a group for survival or that if that individual chooses to leave the group they will necessarily die.

Utterly amazing. I am sure you dont see any problem here.Take a closer look simpelton. Watch closely. The mere fact that I am disagreeing with you and we both exist in the same enviornment (time portal) should clue you into some very important factsIf there is a great number of people that disagree with your conclusions about what is right and wrong, moral or immoral, WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG?Of course the answer is no one, EinsteinYou are creating and evolving things that are imaginary, they dont really exists, you made them up to discribe matter in motion.Further the extended conclusions from that matter in motion are not valid conclusions because all anyone has to do is disagree with your conclusions or show contradictory behavior on your partDuh. This is not rocket science fellas

Already answered many times but I will repeat it again for you. The society, era, culture and State decide who is right or wrong, moral or immoral by building, evolving a consensus. There is absolutely no need for any single standard.Many folk might consider abortion or same sex marriage as immoral. For those folk the answer is really simple, live by what they consider moral and don't worry about what others consider moral.You're right, it ain't rocket science.

We do things dialectically, pitting one Thesis against an opposing Anti-thesis from which emerges the Synthesis of the next state of our being.Morality is a consequence of that experience which becomes part of our instinct for survival.
We see this in the ant where work has become personalized into a Worker ant.
Without this "moral" the species now millions of years old, would have become extinct.Over millennial of experience, man has been observing that he is his own if not only enemy.
He has been recognizing that he must stop the wars and tearing down of all the advancements man makes, forcing him to rebuild new Golden Ages, one after the next.This is why the Golden Rule has become a world-wide tenet known to all men, though not yet practiced universally.

It's not a philosophical question, it's a practical, pragmatic one. Morality is an emotion, like love and anger. Like you say, not rocket science - just less well understood.Still waiting for an example of this moral absolute...

It seems absolutely the case that a species does nothing that hurts its own chances at suvival because Survival is the Primary Instinct of all life.This would be the foundation for rules or morals that the species would require of every member.The argument would be simple.
Some Actions are immoral because hurt everyone if carried out in a large enough scale.
Kant basically said the same thing when he recognized the Categorical Imperative.The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics ...Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

And yet you claim that there is no standard? Curious.

Well no, that's not what I claim.I claim that there is no absolute standard.I claim that morality varies over time and between societies. Which means that at any one time and within any one community, people will know the rules - or the standards, if you prefer.