Define Morality

SteveMinjares

"Defining Morality in a Reality with no Foundation"

It seems to me that morality's greatest enemy is the contradiction of thought. Our moral code becoming inferior when faced with a circumstantial paradox. To sustain our defined set of morals, we must perceive our reality around us by having a flexible state of mind. Be capable to think in multiple dimensions and acknowledge a paradox by its very nature, is to challenge "status quo". The status quo is what we believe to be morally righteousness as a "static state", never changing.

That is the illusion, the false belief that the rules of morality will never change.

The best example I can provide to identify moral code is the "Lolita Paradox" A man who falls in love with a girl who is underage and defining it morally wrong. The challenge is, did he recognize the various dimensions or variables that define this moral code. Like Time, Place, Age, Intension, Behavior and his Position (is it the Love of a Parent, Sibling, Friend or Lover the state that is being define) there are other various dimension that need to be recognize as well to be able to define the moral code correctly. Otherwise, your morality you established in your conscious mind becomes inferior or obsolete.

When one dimension or variable is not acknowledged or defined, we make assumptions to fill in the gaps to justify that moral code we created for ourselves. To provide relief from the paradoxical thought that burdens the mind. So, to truly be righteous you must become open minded enough to except that all dimensions and variables are in a superposition state.

To explain this other dimension of thought, “superposition” meaning they are in a state of both true and false at the same time. Until that state is witness, it cannot be confirmed nor denied. Leading to another paradox, once you stop witnessing a current state will it changed or remained constant?

You also must be open minded enough to introduce other dimensions or variables not considered at the time of conceptual thought and change your conclusion based on these new revelations.

This is an attempt to realize that what is morally righteous in one instance in time and place; will not be morally righteous in another instance in time and place. All based on these findings.

This is the reasoning of why we believe in God, a Supreme being and we as believers say have faith. The mental discipline that is required to achieve this understanding is impossible by mortal minds and cannot be achieve indefinitely. It is possible to achieve enlightenment through practices of mental discipline, but you must realize it is only sustainable for a moment or period-of-time. Hence, the word "Epiphany", only God can sustain that power and state of mind forever.

And those who try to justify God’s existence based on the pain and suffering of our current reality is a form of a loaded question. Through my perspective, answering such a question if an answer exists is just catering to the individual's ego desiring to be superior in a reality that cannot be control by human beings. So is simply easier to disavow God than live with the burden of a paradoxical thought and realizing you never had control.

Which bring me to another paradox, if God is such a perfect being, who exist without flaws from ego? Why would he cater to such arrogant questioning?

That is why in Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make you paths straight."

TheMadFool

It seems to me that morality's greatest enemy is the contradiction of thought. Our moral code becoming inferior when faced with a circumstantial paradox. To sustain our defined set of morals, we must perceive our reality around us by having a flexible state of mind. Be capable to think in multiple dimensions and acknowledge a paradox by its very nature, is to challenge "status quo". The status quo is what we believe to be morally righteousness as a "static state", never changing.

That is the illusion, the false belief that the rules of morality will never change. — SteveMinjares

Another paradox: The laws that govern the universe at the most basic level - physics - never changes (at least not up until now) i.e. exceptions to the laws of nature haven't been observed and so-called miracles are mostly hearsay and remain unverified and yet we, though we emerge out of the interaction of these immutable laws, experience exceptions like the ones your thesis that it's a "...false belief that the rules of morality will never change" depend on. How is it that a fixed set of inviolable laws all matter and energy operate under produces beings like us and an ideology like morality where no such fixed inviolable law can be discerned?

SteveMinjares

Physics is a matter of perspective in how energy is manipulated. This Universe we see is only one form of physics we know of and we can only conform or accept by what we can observe.

So to say Physics never change is conforming to it's Status quo to what we can witness.

The same goes with morality and reality. It is only define or real if you can observe it.

javi2541997

The same goes with morality and reality. It is only define or real if you can observe it. — SteveMinjares

But then you also say:

And those who try to justify God’s existence based on the pain and suffering of our current reality is a form of a loaded question. Through my perspective, answering such a question if an answer exists is just catering to the individual's ego desiring to be superior in a reality that cannot be control by human beings. — SteveMinjares

This is the paradox about the debate. How can you say morality, reality, and physics only exists if we can observe it but then you believe in God so blindness? It is quite contradictory. You would believe or not of how Cosmos works with their laws from a empirical perspective saying it is only define or real if you can observe it.
How can we observe God? Why do you believe in it if you are not observing it?

SteveMinjares

I believe in God by having Faith in myself and in humanity. By there ability to do Good. We the people are proof of his existence.

You see is not enough to have faith in God, you have to have faith in his creation, Human kind.

He made us in his image so by that logic we are inherently good by his grace.

Is doubt in our own abilities that cause people to do evil.

You see there is no evil, no devil, and no hell the only battle we are fighting is the lie, the illusion.

javi2541997

He made us in his image so by that logic we are inherently good by his grace. — SteveMinjares

Which image? We never seen that. So this is contradictory again when you wrote previously:

It is only define or real if you can observe it. — SteveMinjares

We cannot define God’s grace and image if we never observed it.

SteveMinjares

To add to this, walking by faith is to believe without observing.

To observe is to cater to our arrogance and desires to dictate and control.

God made us already believing in him before you were conceived. So why do you need to witness what you already know.

And to deny him is to admit you want absolute control because you do not trust.

SteveMinjares

The purpose of contradiction and paradox is to reveal the nature of your status quo, to understand that Faith is a motivator to evolve.

And paradox is to show you that you became stagnant in your ways. That if you conform to your own perspective of status quo you can not grow and evolve into God’s image

javi2541997

you can not grow and evolve into God’s image — SteveMinjares

What if I don’t want to. It is not a human task evolve to God’s image

SteveMinjares

The Prodigal Son...

The parent can give the child advice on how to live but can’t force it on them. The parent knows better but the child is insistent on there ways.

So the parent allows them to learn on there own. This is the light, that is the way. A parent longing to guide the child but does not dictate them so he is patient and waits for there return.

And when they do a great celebration awaits for you.

Banno

↪SteveMinjares

The question remains: ought we do as god commands?

Your rambling OP does not even begin to address this.

SteveMinjares

The question has already been answered, it came from your heart. If you have the need to ask again, then you are struggling with your own doubt.

Banno

↪SteveMinjares

So you agree with me that morality proceeds from "the heart" as you call it, and not from god.

All good, then.

SteveMinjares

Saying it didn't come from God is foolish.

Is like asking what came first ”the Chicken or the Egg”?

Outlander

"Defining Morality in a Reality with no Foundation" — SteveMinjares

There is a foundation. Imagine you when you were six years old. If I punished you, spanked you, or otherwise made you feel bad, you knew it was undesirable, warranted or not. We all have the foundation of morality inside us from birth. Even now as an adult, you know what causes pain, suffering, discomfort, or irritation. Don't act like it's some obscure concept that is up for debate.

Banno

↪Outlander

Fear of punishment as morality.

Morality starts when you decide to look outside your own comfort, to think about how you should treat others. Doing something because you fear pain is not acting ethically.

iIt's not the start of the game; it's not even putting the pieces on the table.

Banno

Is like asking what came first ”the Chicken or the Egg”? — SteveMinjares

The egg. Fish laid eggs long before there were chickens.

SO does "it" come form god or from the heart? And can you decide not to do as god bids?

SteveMinjares

The point of saying this is to reveal the nature of the question. And the nature of the question is that anyone who asks, doesn't desire truth but conformity.

That is why God never reveal's himself. He knows that human kind intentions are driven by arrogance and only want to defend what they perceive as a foundation.

To see God you have to admit that there is no foundation and everything in existence and the mind is dynamic.

What ever standard that dictates your thought process has to always be dismissed as inferior or obsolete.

Is like saying "Geppetto must remain anonymous so Pinocchio may live." Another dimensional way of thinking.

But understand, I am not here to convert but to introduce another way of thinking. By saying when you dismiss God you make yourself stagnant in how you produce thought and discover truth.

I can write an entire essay about the question on "Is God real?" but to answer that question you have to acknowledge various dimension of the mind and reality. Which can lead to another question "Is human kind cognitively capable to perceive God in his true form?"

Are we just dismissing him because is just a form of convenience because we refuse to acknowledge our own cognitive limitation to witness such a Supreme being?

Banno

↪SteveMinjares

Meh. There is nothing of value in what you have written.

SteveMinjares

↪Outlander

we cannot define something that keeps changing. Trying to reason a universal moral code is impossible. Moral code needs to be perceived as dynamic to have meaning.

And if the intention remain unverified the moral code becomes obscured.

If the father spanks the child, is the culture condoning the act?

What is the reason for the spanking, is it justified or overreacted?

Is the spanking justifiable in the future?

Is impossible to define ever dimensional reason to defend the moral code that is composed?

That is why I say we live with no foundation, everything changes.

And the only foundation I can perceive is Faith.

TheMadFool

Physics is a matter of perspective in how energy is manipulated. This Universe we see is only one form of physics we know of and we can only conform or accept by what we can observe.

So to say Physics never change is conforming to it's Status quo to what we can witness.

The same goes with morality and reality. It is only define or real if you can observe it. — SteveMinjares

I'm only surprised by the fact that a system (all matter and energy) governed by immutable laws gives rise to another subsystem (us and our morality) that doesn't seem to be so.

counterpunch

↪SteveMinjares

Morality is fundamentally a sense; like humour or aesthetics. It was drilled into the human organism by evolution in the context of the hunter gatherer tribe. Chimpanzees have morality of sorts - they share food and groom each other, and remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly in future.

Insofar as we can assume human evolution was similar, the evidence suggests morality is a pre-intellectual sensitivity to moral implication, advantageous to the individual within the tribe, and advantageous to the tribe composed of moral individuals, in competition with other organisms.

The attempt to explicitly define morality, only begins after the occurrence of intellectual intelligence in human beings; and only became objectively codified, and attributed to God, when hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups - and needed an external authority for moral laws in society.

SteveMinjares

sense; like humour or aesthetics. It was drilled into the human organism by evolution in the context of the hunter gatherer tribe. — counterpunch

I do agree that morality is a form of aesthetics. But to say it solely comes from evolution just seems to me an incomplete answer.

Is like saying an AI came to be without a Developer.

You need to acknowledge the Developer and the source code to explain where the AI came from not just the programming language.

In other words evolution is the programming language that created us. The next question is who used this language to create the AI? Which is us.

Faith is my way to sum up all the questions and acknowledgments at the same time.

counterpunch

↪SteveMinjares

I do agree that morality is a form of aesthetics. — SteveMinjares

I didn't say that morality is a form of aesthetics.

I said morality is a sense - like aesthetics is a sense, or like humour is a sense. The human individual is imbued with a moral sense; a sensitivity to moral implication, as a consequence of evolution.

Morality is fundamentally a sense; like humour or aesthetics. It was drilled into the human organism by evolution in the context of the hunter gatherer tribe. Chimpanzees have morality of sorts - they share food and groom each other, and remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly in future.

Insofar as we can assume human evolution was similar, the evidence suggests morality is a pre-intellectual sensitivity to moral implication, advantageous to the individual within the tribe, and advantageous to the tribe composed of moral individuals, in competition with other organisms.

The attempt to explicitly define morality, only begins after the occurrence of intellectual intelligence in human beings; and only became objectively codified, and attributed to God, when hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups - and needed an external authority for moral laws in society. — counterpunch

SteveMinjares

what I am saying morality is not just a higher function of intelligence but also a state of intuition.

And to attempt to label morality to conform to a culture or standard. Can lead to abusing and/or oppressing another society that is different to there own.

Morality is only as good as what society deems it to be.

Reason for that is people believe it's a structure set of rules to follow.

is not, that is why I say it's dynamic.

Morality Is half aesthetic, half external input received and past recollection.

How you receive the external input and how your aesthetic reacts or interpret will compile the moral code.

The moral code will be define by how it makes you feel.

In turn morality is nothing more than a reflection of your true intentions.

Saying morality is a form of higher intelligence is only stating half truth but not the whole.

Define Morality

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions