I disagree Fatesight; humans are most definitely animals. The only difference between us and animals is a forebrain structure- the one that allows thought and emotion to exist. However, the brain is NOT capable of producing morality out of thin air, so don't confuse the existence of a brain with the existence of various social taboos and the like. In addition, most mammals have a developed forebrain, and even birds (and some, but very few) reptiles have crude forebrain structures and are capable of thought. Dolphins actually have a more highly developed forebrain than humans, and may in fact have the capacity to be more intelligent (albeit instinctually driven) than humans. However, in animals other than dolphins and apes (and some lab rats) this thought is limited to environmental observation vital to survival, so don't believe that all animals are capable of humanlike, coherent thought. We share a hindbrain structure almost identical to reptiles (thus the nickname given to the hindbrain- the reptilian brain), and the hindbrain is where instincts and some movement (in alliance with the midbrain structures) take place. In short, humans ARE animals, and have very animalistic desires- the existence of morality is the work of early groups of people wishing for dominance (i.e, most modern and classical religions).
[Piratez]
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
Originally Posted by Fatesight
BUT: Humans are NOT animals. We possess a conscious part to our minds, unlike animals, who (as research has shown) mainly operate on instincts, having little or no conscience. Perhaps it's just me, but giving in to primal urges and degrading oneself to the level of animals just seems wrong. Mankind has been given the ability to think; so use it!
I'd like to see the link to that research. Seems like something from 1950's.
How can you say who is conscious if there are infinitely many degrees of consciousness? A cockroach may be conscious of itself, it's hunger, and the bread crumbs in front of it. It may not have a brain complex enough to take many other factors into consideration and calculate outcomes, but does it mean it's not conscious? I may be (hypothetically) conscious of many more factors than you, but i wouldn't separate you into "animal" category. Monkeys show love, and affection, "selflessness" and just about any other quality your human-centric mind can think of. They pick lice off each other like people provide service to each other. Anyhow, i digress, hydrotoxin beat me to it anyhow.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
- the existence of morality is the work of early groups of people wishing for dominance (i.e, most modern and classical religions).
Here i disagree. "Morality" has began to form when people realized that it's them against the world.
Whatever behavior promoted survival of their little tribe/village/town/city is what became moral, and the norm. Religions came when moral foundations were already there, and exploited them by assigning them to will of their god(s).
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 14, 2009 at 08:10 PM.
Originally Posted by Fatesight
What you call "emotional" would actually be the _instinctual_ side of a human being: "want to have power" = dominance instinct, "want for sex" = sexual instinct, "want to live" = survival instinct (you also mentioned love, which is not an instinct, but since you were talking about instincts, I assume you included it mistakenly). And agreed, there is a basic instinct to have sex, just as in the case of animals. BUT: Humans are NOT animals. We possess a conscious part to our minds, unlike animals, who (as research has shown) mainly operate on instincts, having little or no conscience. Perhaps it's just me, but giving in to primal urges and degrading oneself to the level of animals just seems wrong. Mankind has been given the ability to think; so use it!
Apparently you didn't read the entirety of my post. I put emotions next to instinct because they're natural, in contrast to rationale and morals. (FYI I'm using the Freudian model with the id, ego, and superego)
Here i disagree. "Morality" has began to form when people realized that it's them against the world.
Whatever behavior promoted survival of their little tribe/village/town/city is what became moral, and the norm. Religions came when moral foundations were already there, and exploited them by assigning them to will of their god(s).
And I disagree with you here too - the antique Greeks, for example, had a far different morality - which is to be seen first hand on their religion (gods are retarded simple-minded (in a certain way) beings who contest over power, instead of a "moral" god) and all of the "glorious" wars they had. With this morality (which stands in contrast to today's Judeo-christain morality) they managed to prosper. I think we can trace back the idea of today's morality to actions which were completely natural, via the want to power, but I'd prefer to let Nietzsche speak for me here, let me sum up his thesis of master-slave morality;
1)Man came to earth, made first villages/societies
2)Division of "strong" and "weak" - the strong ones came to power as leaders
3)Most of the weak ones wanted to be in power because of their instincts
4)The weak banded together and overthrew the strong
5)The weak created values in order to stop people from acting like the strong (http://academics.triton.edu/uc/nietzsche.html slave being the weak, master being the strong), the birth of morality
@Mapleleaf ; so I assume we can agree that people want to, via nature, to have as much sex as possible, and without our western understanding of sex it would be considered "good"?
Last edited by Deprived_OLD; Oct 14, 2009 at 10:52 PM.
tl;dr: deprived is spergin'
Originally Posted by Deprived
And I disagree with you here too - the antique Greeks, for example, had a far different morality - which is to be seen first hand on their religion (gods are retarded simple-minded (in a certain way) beings who contest over power, instead of a "moral" god) and all of the "glorious" wars they had. With this morality (which stands in contrast to today's Judeo-christain morality) they managed to prosper.
All the core concepts were the same. Like not to kill, steal, hurt, and so on (unless it's an enemy). Their society cleaned itself from murderers and others who wouldn't comply with the way it functioned. This is how it is today, and how it will always be. Of course Greek religion didn't have a monopoly on morality like Christianity did for so many centuries. There wasn't any one god who was sought to have superior moral standard and people worshiped to whoever appealed more to them.
I think we can trace back the idea of today's morality to actions which were completely natural, via the want to power, but I'd prefer to let Nietzsche speak for me here, let me sum up his thesis of master-slave morality;
1)Man came to earth, made first villages/societies
2)Division of "strong" and "weak" - the strong ones came to power as leaders
3)Most of the weak ones wanted to be in power because of their instincts
4)The weak banded together and overthrew the strong
5)The weak created values in order to stop people from acting like the strong (http://academics.triton.edu/uc/nietzsche.html slave being the weak, master being the strong), the birth of morality
Isn't this precisely what i attributed formation of morals to? Weak overthrowing the strong tyrant is all a part of formation of a stable society. This is what "works best" and "promotes growth and further development".
And you said religion, even though that's it's own separate thing. Religion (Judaic ones especially) did help to give credibility to morality, so it definitely played a role. But it didn't "create" morality.
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 14, 2009 at 10:54 PM.
Originally Posted by Odlov
Isn't this precisely what i attributed formation of morals to? Weak overthrowing the strong tyrant is all a part of formation of a stable society.
Well, yeah, but I went into a bit more detailed in order to refute Fatesight.
Originally Posted by Odlov
This is what "works best" and "promotes growth and further development".
There I wouldn't be so sure. The main disadvantage of such a morality is it basically refutes life, because the instinct to live is derived from the instinct to power - living entails more power than when you're dead - and since the Judea-christian morality refutes the want for power, it refutes, derived, the want to live - sort of nihilistic, as paradoxical it might sound - which can easily make the mind mad.
Originally Posted by Odlov
And you said religion, even though that's it's own separate thing. Religion (Judaic ones especially) did help to give credibility to morality, so it definitely played a role. But it didn't "create" morality.
Notice how I said religion second, perhaps "and as a direct consequence religion" would've been a better way to phrase it xd, you're right, I just phrased it badly.
tl;dr: deprived is spergin'
