Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BluRayHiDef t1_ivfd1yv wrote

Humans are naturally amoral. There is no such thing as objective morality, which is why everyone struggles to be moral.

Morality is a contrived set of standards that is meant to suppress human nature in order to get humans to be civilized; civilizations cannot function when their citizens are amoral. Hence, morality is pragmatism rather than a natural set of standards.

The damage that so-called immoral behavior causes to humans is ultimately caused by civilization itself.

For example, if there were no civilization, then there'd be no visual media and therefore no pornography; hence, one wouldn't have to struggle with porn addiction and suffer the mental health effects of it.

Another example is gluttony. In a natural environment rather than a civilized one, food is not abundant and is not readily available; hence, there is no opportunity to be gluttonous.

Morality is nothing more than a means of countering the negative effects that civilizations induce in humans.

Civilizations create an overabundance of opportunities, which is unnatural and which no species is naturally equipped to handle. Nature does not do this; nature's limitations induce balance in the species that live within it.

This logic applies to medicine as well. People who would not survive in a natural environment are able to survive in civilizations due to medicine, whether that be surgical procedures or prescription medication. The irony of this is that such people are subsequently able to reproduce, thereby creating subsequent generations of people who are dependent on medicine. Hence, civilizations then have to come up with means of supporting the increasingly burdensome need of medicine, such as publicly funded medical insurance or at least affordable medical insurance - which is a major political issue.

1

DirtyOldPanties t1_ivfqa94 wrote

> Morality is a contrived set of standards that is meant to suppress human nature in order to get humans to be civilized

So you're saying Morality isn't necessary for a human being? That the only reason Morality was ever put forth was for an ulterior motive by it's professors to "get humans to be civilized"? What do you think morality is? Would a line survivor on an island not need morality?

1

BluRayHiDef t1_ivfwvww wrote

In the wild, the moral standards of civilizations would not exist because the overabundances and temptations of civilizations would not exist. So, no, a human being does not need the moral standards of civilizations to survive outside of civilizations.

1

DirtyOldPanties t1_ivgb970 wrote

I'm not talking about "moral standards of civilizations". I'm asking whether an individual alone needs moral standards at all - not specifically the standards of civilizations you refer to.

1

BluRayHiDef t1_ivgbiln wrote

Humans are animals and animals' main function is survival, which does not require morals. Hence, a human being does not need morals.

1

DirtyOldPanties t1_ivgei7s wrote

How do animals facilitate their survival? How does a human facilitate their survival? Why bother using the animal as a primary? Animals don't wear clothes, humans are animals, therefore humans don't need clothes?

Also doesn't this fall into a naturalistic fallacy? Just because man can act for their survival doesn't mean they explicitly should. As opposed to an animal which lacks the means to merely sit around, wallow in filth and choose to stagnate and die.

1

BluRayHiDef t1_ivgglic wrote

All strawman arguments and whataboutisms. You have no actual counterarguments.

1

DirtyOldPanties t1_ivgylv9 wrote

Distinguishing man from animal isn't a strawman but that's kinda funny.

1

Hobbyfilosofen t1_ivkq6m8 wrote

Amorality is certainly possible for individuals, by which I mean a lack of concern or interest for moral reasoning and discourse.

I am amoral and do not have any morality. I do not view the world through a lens of good and evil, moral right and wrong, moral fairness and non-legal justice. Nor do I think of virtues and vices in a moral sense, but only if the actions and traits are instrumental to what the individual cares about herself.

When deciding what to do, I think of my desires, values and interests, and with no reference to what is morally good and right. There is no deeper or categorical "ought" in my decision-making and so I avoid the naturalistic fallacy. I take a pragmatic approach to language and simply find that hypothetical reasoning is useful to express my inner motivations.

When possible I try to use non-moral language when talking with other people, but morality is so commonplace that I often have to pretend to have moral beliefs. Moreover, my amorality becomes confirmed by the fact that the difference between my own and other people's way of thinking of—and motivating—our values and actions are drastically different from eachother.

1

incorrectphilosopher t1_ivwzgke wrote

So, if it became legal to kill anyone on Purge day, you would not believe it to be an injustice, since you "do not believe in non-legal justice"? I think there are limits to everything, and I think I understand why you have run from natural morality, but it's in the name. It's *natural* morality. People have, for thousands of years, believed in good and evil, moral right and wrong, moral fairness and non-legal justice. Just saying you don't believe in those terms will not convince me: I think you do believe in them, you just don't think you do. You don't have to have a religion to believe in right and wrong.

I think you believe in your rights, for instance. You would find it unjust--morally wrong--if you were reported by Redditors and banned by Reddit for what you said, since you believe in your right to speak in the public forum.

Maybe you would tell yourself instead that they had the right to do those things. Perhaps you need stronger examples. Let's say you had someone steal $10,000 from you and then brag about it online. They had every paper trail you can imagine, their own family testified to the effect, and they even admitted it in court. The jury goes to deliberate, and come out with a not guilty verdict. Would you not find that unjust? What word would you use to describe, not the feelings you have as a result of the situation, but the wrongness you know happened in court?

Courts are fallible, and the empires they are built on rise and fall. But what remains throughout the centuries is human morality, no matter whether people deny it or not.

1

Prestigious_Plant706 t1_ivtxv32 wrote

I think you might be able to find some good opposition to this idea in Kant's Categorical Imperative. I learned it a while ago but I can try to summarize it. Basically, when looking for moral laws or "rules" he says that you should never act in a way that you wouldn't wish to become a universal law. When you look at it that way, some moral standards come about naturally in my opinion. For example, we shouldn't kill each other because in a world where killing was morally allowed, we as humans wouldn't be able to flourish. There were times in the past when this was the case; when we killed anyone who was opposed to us and brute power became the law of the land. I don't think that kind of world, however "natural", is better or more virtuous. There definitely are some immoral opportunities that are possible uniquely because of civilization but the same applies to the "natural world" and animals.

1