Second Question

[AlP]

My escape from nihilism hinges on the fact that I do not live detached from my humanity and my society. I accept that I am vulnerable to the moral ideas that society creates around me and compels me to follow. I take some consolation from realizing that I can change morality, primarily for myself and but also for society as a whole.

Interesting.
The acceptance of the moral ideas created by our society is what makes one "non-nihilists?" Forgive me if I have your statement wrong. But even by cooperating doesnt mean that you believe in a such thing as morals. The ideas you are made to follow... wouldnt they be laws? And laws are followed by everyone for the greater good. But then again I suppose most laws are formed from some kind of moral standpoint. bah i just confused myself again  

I for one do not believe in the existence of morals. That would be reification error. From that point of view, you could describe me as a nihilist. There have been some serious philosophical attempts to make morals exist. See Hegel and idealism. The whole project was effectively demolished by the likes of Marx.

I think that what morality is, is a system of rules that evolves with a society. It is ideas that we learn from each other as we live in a society. The rules change as the society changes. People change the rules. Authorities like churches change the rules. The rules are distinct from legal law. I will also note that legal law has no more logical force than morality. It simply has harsher consequences.

I think physiology and psychology come into play by giving us the apparatus to be fooled by this illusion and actually believe that we are compelled to follow the rules. It's actually really useful. It seems to allow a level of cooperation unprecedented in any other animal.

Which brings us back on topic =).

So getting back to the escape from nihilism, realizing that morals do not exist is not particularly profound. To me, the mistake is having believed that one behaves morally because of the existence of morals in the first place. The idea that morals exist is just part of the prevailing morality with influences going all the way back to Plato. The reason we feel compelled to follow the rules is just because of how our brains are wired, not because morals exist. Nihilism escaped.

The acceptance that I am vulnerable to the moral ideas that society creates around me and compels me to follow almost sounds like an atheists journey. Lol. I dunno it just reminded me of how I felt the first time I admitted to not believing in a god.

Yeah it's interesting. I think religion created nihilism by insisting that we  only do good because morals exist. That implies that if morals do not exist then we have no reason to act morally. Fortunately it doesn't mean that. It just means that we have broken free. We are left not with the problem of nihilism but the problem of a harrowing freedom.

[John_Silver]

One thing I would like to point out which may not have been that clear in my first response:  I do not believe there is any such thing as "inherent morality."  There do seem to be instinctive tendencies which serve as a sort of framework. These tendencies are built upon culturally and seem to be  the basis for what we understand as morality, but I think that without a cultural component, they do not qualify as morality.

Ok. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

Well, it's interesting that you bring wolves into this discussion.  They are in fact, social creatures, and "altruistic" wolf behavior has been observed and well documented.  A sample comparison:  When the offspring of a tigress reach a certain age, she mercilessly chases them out of her territory.  From that point on, they are on their own.

Understood. So if we, for whatever evolutionary purpose, would have found ourselves within that specific framework (humans operating as tigers) do you believe we would exist to the extent we presently do? Or should we have fallen to the fate of the pterodactyl?  

I understand that you would prefer to keep your threads from developing into debates.  However, there's a blurry line between earnest discussion and outright debate.  As long as it remains civil, I don't think straying into a more contentious dialog is a bad thing.

I have no problem with that at all. It's when discussion takes a nasty turn (and both sides have gone to that extreme) that that discussion then descends into Abbadon. I can't imagine these threads would go that far. And I am thankful for that.

You're contribution to the content here is a refreshing change from some of the more dogmatic and antagonistic theists who visit this site.  Every once in a while, people such as yourself stop by, and I think I can safely presume to speak for pretty much all the members here when I say that your presence is very welcome.

Thank you very much, my friend. (Or, toda raba, haveri, and why you should ever want to know that is beyond me...I'm just feeling anxious for my upcoming trip, I suppose).  
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

 

...If I were raised in a society or even family that did the exact opposite of what most would call moral, would I inherit immorality?

I think that you and I are more or less in agreement regarding the existence of such a thing as "inherent morality," G-Roll. I understand that you were addressing John Silver's post more than mine, but I'm going to go ahead and expound on my view, using your questions as my basis:

In my opinion, if you were to grow up in such a situation, you might feel an occasional twinge, but you would be fairly comfortable behaving in an "immoral" manner.  As you pointed out, there are examples for instance, in the cannibal tribes of New Guinea and other areas.  And though they seem to be more folklore than fact there are the stories of Christie Cleek and Sawney Bean from Scotland.  Once again, in my view, there is really no such thing as an "inherent morality," so much as an inherited instinctive tendency which favors behavior that has the potential of being formed into morality by the society one is born into. I think that a great flexibility in adapting to circumstances is part of the reason we've been so successful as a species, and that also probably explains why our instincts are not nearly so powerful as those found in other species.

But mainly my question is, (if it were possible) if I was raised by wolves and had no contact with humans, would I act like a wolf or would some kind of human morality prevent me from doing... naughty wolf things...

I think that you would quite happily "act like a wolf" in such a case.  What sort of "naughty wolf things" do wolves get up to after all?  They hunt to survive, as our own ancestors did.  Nothing particularly naughty about that.[/quote]

[Justme]

I never understood, why people make such a fuss about how morality came into existence. When the evolution of lifeforms came to the point, where animals began to take care for their offspring, "kindlyness" was introduced in nature. It was instinct alone of course and pretty basic, but we already can call that altruism or moral behavior I think. And then it evolved from there, just like everything else in enlivened nature.

I'm in no way an expert, it just seems to be obvious.

In case you don't already know the lecture, titled 'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009, I would like to draw your attention to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=D62809AD452EDB98. (And also it's part of a whole serial of great stuff, as you will see.)

[John_Silver]

Justme:

Thank you for that link. I'll have a look at it this evening. I think I may still be muddling up terminology for my lack of exposure to non-theism. I am going to post a third question which will address this. Thanks, again.

John
www.30shekels.com