Poll: Do we believe things, just because we're told to?
- Thread starter Ago Iterum
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It truly is a mix of both. This is pretty much touching on the whole idea of the "Blank Slate", that humans are either born with all of their thoughts and values pre-programmed or completely impressionable by the world around them.
Empathy is a quality that we start out with, one that defines how we are in the beginning, and exactly how much we're willing to give to others on our behalf. But that initial perspective, whatever it may be, can be further shaped by a person's surroundings and interactions with the world. Part of why some people are as messed up as they are is really less a matter of society and more a matter of mental instability.
We shouldn't get empathy and morals confused with widely-accepted opinion, though. The two do tend to get mixed up quite often. Knowing when and how to help someone and the values of life is not the same thing as the opinion towards those who don't act according to the norms of society. "It is not good to take another life unless absolutely necessary" is an empathetic trait that most of mankind and even some animals share. "Furries are unnatural freaks and must be burned" is a general opinion. Or, for a better and more encompassing example, "Anything that doesn't comply with the norms of humanity is evil." The real trick of life is to divide the two and let go of the opinions. The world would be a much better place if we went back to empathy over opinion. In my opinion, at least.
Empathy is a quality that we start out with, one that defines how we are in the beginning, and exactly how much we're willing to give to others on our behalf. But that initial perspective, whatever it may be, can be further shaped by a person's surroundings and interactions with the world. Part of why some people are as messed up as they are is really less a matter of society and more a matter of mental instability.
We shouldn't get empathy and morals confused with widely-accepted opinion, though. The two do tend to get mixed up quite often. Knowing when and how to help someone and the values of life is not the same thing as the opinion towards those who don't act according to the norms of society. "It is not good to take another life unless absolutely necessary" is an empathetic trait that most of mankind and even some animals share. "Furries are unnatural freaks and must be burned" is a general opinion. Or, for a better and more encompassing example, "Anything that doesn't comply with the norms of humanity is evil." The real trick of life is to divide the two and let go of the opinions. The world would be a much better place if we went back to empathy over opinion. In my opinion, at least.
I get pissed off by that no it all "I'm right and no matter what you say you're wrong" attitude as well, it seriously pisses me off (ironically it pops up all the times on internet forums).Ago Iterum said:
If you want to get your friend to shut up quiz him about his fondness for the awesome-est of Japanese porn known as lolicon. I mean, if he's into kiddie-porn I can understand taking this stance, it's not like any kids were ever actually hurt, right? He should have the right to spank it to drawings of preteens without being judged if he wants to, right?
He'll start backing off if you start agreeing with his right to take in kiddie porn.
But, if you want to do the whole debate thing:
I would suggest your friend just contradicted himself, by saying that our moral "decisions" are governed by an internal mechanism of empathy he basically just said that crimes such as pedophilia and murder are wrong, not because we are told that they are wrong by others or society at large but because we have internal psychological mechanisms that make us as socialized human beings malfunction if we engage in these crimes (i.e. feel depressed / guilty)
add to that committing these crimes (pedophilia for instance) results in harmful socialization and physical damage to these individuals that ultimately causes larger societal malfunctioning making these crimes empirically wrong. Socializing may be driven by what the majority says and does, but there is a reason that these concepts of right and wrong have evolved.
But this is all so much talking crap, to respond to the crap that was served up. If I was in this conversation, I would give the point that a large number of people believe things just because they are told to.
How many Christians scream that homosexuals are going to hell, when you come back with examples of the truly charitable and kind homosexual you know and the fact that Jesus died for our sins and the idea of a benevolent and forgiving god, don't care, mom & dad say.
How many atheists "don't believe in god" because one of their friends at school read on the internet how there is no proof of god and thinks adults are assholes for trying to force their beliefs on their kids?
My opinion, fucking five year old girls and cutting them into easily disposable bits afterward is abhorrent and distasteful and contrary to natural human interaction, and no one has, in fact, ever actually told me that.
It depends on the "morals" in question.
If an action directly harms another person, the idea of it being "wrong" has arrived through natural selection in humans.
If the action is, say, having more than one wife, having sex in public, or not believing in God, then it's opinion.
If an action directly harms another person, the idea of it being "wrong" has arrived through natural selection in humans.
If the action is, say, having more than one wife, having sex in public, or not believing in God, then it's opinion.
I will say that human beings, if you believe in Evolution, are highly evolved animals and thusly have instincts that would normally keep them from harming other human beings in a general context.
That said, this topic is rather pointless to debate, because anyone actually thinking opinion wouldn't post here on fear of being flamed.
That said, this topic is rather pointless to debate, because anyone actually thinking opinion wouldn't post here on fear of being flamed.
Id say more but I'm one of those people who has little to no empathy for most serious crimes and i consider pedophilia one of the most serious.
This may be considered heartless but I can acknowledge someone may have a disorder that makes them want to abuse children, but I would still shed no tears if they were hung for their crimes.
This may be considered heartless but I can acknowledge someone may have a disorder that makes them want to abuse children, but I would still shed no tears if they were hung for their crimes.
My head hurts reading through all of this...
To me, it's all dependent on individual humans. Some humans lack any sense of compassion or empathy towards others (of if they do have it, they ignore it), so morals have little consequence to them. However, others behave according to other outside forces other than just their inner person. Religion, authority, society and other various factors are there to tell us we are wrong.
I personally believe that people have "primal" morals, if you'll forgive the less than beautiful term. Even if I threw away my religion, my societal norms and everything that had been taught to me, I doubt that I would want to kill anyone. That may just be me, however, so it's not conclusive. Like I stated before, I think it's individually based, because we can't control the attitudes and beliefs of those around us. Not to mention those that suffer from mental illnesses, which can afflict morals or other similar aspects.
The sad truth of the situation is that some people just don't care if they hurt others to gain what they desire, and sometimes morals just get pushed to the wayside.
To me, it's all dependent on individual humans. Some humans lack any sense of compassion or empathy towards others (of if they do have it, they ignore it), so morals have little consequence to them. However, others behave according to other outside forces other than just their inner person. Religion, authority, society and other various factors are there to tell us we are wrong.
I personally believe that people have "primal" morals, if you'll forgive the less than beautiful term. Even if I threw away my religion, my societal norms and everything that had been taught to me, I doubt that I would want to kill anyone. That may just be me, however, so it's not conclusive. Like I stated before, I think it's individually based, because we can't control the attitudes and beliefs of those around us. Not to mention those that suffer from mental illnesses, which can afflict morals or other similar aspects.
The sad truth of the situation is that some people just don't care if they hurt others to gain what they desire, and sometimes morals just get pushed to the wayside.
Then you missed the part with "but often younger than that", it's often much younger than that. At about 1 year of age.Ago Iterum said:
I could probably have phrased it better. Apologies.
And Joe, yeah, babies can tell when people are upset. But they only care about how it would affect them. If someone is upset, they won't give the baby love, food, hugs, etc. That's the only reason it's bad that people are upset.
It's still a sidenote though. I just felt I had to respond, feel free to PM me for sources, more information or want to discuss it further or whatever.
The opinion of morals is made up of opinion, but with the backup of social empathy. For every viewpoint there'll be conflicting sides that no doubt both have support and reasoning for their side. However, society's morals as a whole are based on averages of social opinion. For example, the reason pedophilia is opposed by society as a whole is because of an overwhelming degree of opposition from several personal opinions. That said, there's some humans unwilling to listen to empathy, and base their moral system purely on their own opinions, no matter how opposed they are.
I have no empathy for people and no conscience, in fact the only thing that keeps me from taking anything I want is the fear of punishment. If I knew I could get away with murder I would do it. But I don't think its empathy or morals that keep people in check its fear of reprisal.
Opinion.
Empathy does come into it, but not as prominent of a role. If you were raised in a society where physical strength was all that mattered, where murder was encouraged as a means to improve status or physical gain, and you were the strongest person by far, you would not be against murder or violence, would you?
Empathy does come into it, but not as prominent of a role. If you were raised in a society where physical strength was all that mattered, where murder was encouraged as a means to improve status or physical gain, and you were the strongest person by far, you would not be against murder or violence, would you?
Morals are more based on upbringing and empathy than anything else, mostly because, if you look at the world, most people have similar morals, such as, say, no killing, be nice when you can, etc. When so many people share a common view, people who grew up with wildly varying religions, educations, and cultures, there has to be a common link.
If it's fear of reprisal that keeps people in check, why do people make the rules in the first place?george144 said:
To keep society from falling apart I guess a kind of self preservation instinct in peopleygetoff said:
"Every man's way is right in his own eyes" -Some place in the Bible.
I think that about covers it. Nobody likes to think what they are doing is "wrong." I think the bigger morality question comes down to whether a person believes morals are absolutes or rules subject to change, i.e. "Is killing always bad, or only sometimes?"
Pedophilia, like cannibalism, is considered repugnant in today's society, but it obviously hasn't been that way forever. Girls in ancient times used to be wed as early as 12. I can't cite my source, but it seems like the Greeks or Romans used to do that... I forget. Obviously WE would consider that pedophilia, but they didn't. There were also Indian tribes (Native American, if you prefer) who practiced cannibalism. They probably didn't think it was wrong, either.
So the question here is whether ancient cultures were barbaric and wrong, or simply different from our own, with different beliefs. I'm not trying to say either response is good, just attempting to look at this from every angle.
For myself, I think morality is an absolute... Except for when that doesn't suit me. At least I'm honest.
I think that about covers it. Nobody likes to think what they are doing is "wrong." I think the bigger morality question comes down to whether a person believes morals are absolutes or rules subject to change, i.e. "Is killing always bad, or only sometimes?"
Pedophilia, like cannibalism, is considered repugnant in today's society, but it obviously hasn't been that way forever. Girls in ancient times used to be wed as early as 12. I can't cite my source, but it seems like the Greeks or Romans used to do that... I forget. Obviously WE would consider that pedophilia, but they didn't. There were also Indian tribes (Native American, if you prefer) who practiced cannibalism. They probably didn't think it was wrong, either.
So the question here is whether ancient cultures were barbaric and wrong, or simply different from our own, with different beliefs. I'm not trying to say either response is good, just attempting to look at this from every angle.
For myself, I think morality is an absolute... Except for when that doesn't suit me. At least I'm honest.
Both sides are partially right, people will generally believe what they are taught, but what they are taught is (for the most part) derived off of our sense of empathy. He IS correct in that not all morals are universally correct, but MOST of them are.Ago Iterum said:
P.S.
Did he actually say something along the lines of: "Murder is totally chill brah, dunt be a hater and be all like jailin' them all that be capin' them all?" (I live in California, we speak like this)
I'd have to hear his side of the argument before I declare you the winner-for-life