can morality coexist with materialism? Watch

Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by sollythewise)
what you're saying comes down to that morality is enlightened self interest. agree?
I guess so, at least morals in their most brash form. Empathy, as one theory goes, is a result of mirror neurons, and empathy is central to morals, so I expect you could say that morals are natural and it is therefore logical to expect people to ascribe to at least negative-action morals (i.e. not killing someone else).

Also, in terms of reciprocity, there's no option but to be a part of morals and subscribing morals on another is justified because it's pretty certain that, when it comes to it, the person who doesn't want to follow morals would want to not be murdered, or would expect to have their life saved if possible.
0
reply
Nepene
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
I first read it as "can morality coexist with masturbation?" Oops.
0
reply
sollythewise
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#23
(Original post by j.alexanderh)
No, I was talking from a subjective ethical standpoint.



I don't know why you care what I say. You asked the question, so I assume that you are interested in an answer.



It isn't an assumption. It's a provisional definition of 'good morals' based on human empathy.



It's not decided on random whims.



Nothing. That isn't important. Once again, you seem to be trying to force me to take the stance that things are only real at the most fundamental level, which is plainly false. When you look at an animal, it is at the same time a collection of molecules and a living thing. Saying 'it's just a bunch of molecules' is not true. Similarly, the fact that consciousness and human empathy are emergent properties do not make them less real.
what else is real apart from fundamental particles and forces?

when i said that i shouldn't care what you say, i meant that i shouldn't be bound by your personal feelings as to how i should behave.
0
reply
sollythewise
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
I guess so, at least morals in their most brash form. Empathy, as one theory goes, is a result of mirror neurons, and empathy is central to morals, so I expect you could say that morals are natural and it is therefore logical to expect people to ascribe to at least negative-action morals (i.e. not killing someone else).

Also, in terms of reciprocity, there's no option but to be a part of morals and subscribing morals on another is justified because it's pretty certain that, when it comes to it, the person who doesn't want to follow morals would want to not be murdered, or would expect to have their life saved if possible.
if we accept that morality is simply a survival technique, or enlightened self-interest, then there can be no idea of a moral imperative. just because something may cause me to live a longer or better life, doesn't mean i have any obligation to do it.

also, if i am in a situation where i will live more happily and longer by being immoral, it would be justified. for example, dictators who suppress, torture and kill innocent people are not being immoral unless they are threatened with revolution. otherwise, they are behaving in their best interests and therefore justified.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (44)
37.29%
No - but I will (4)
3.39%
No - I don't want to (5)
4.24%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (65)
55.08%

Watched Threads

View All