Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:29 am
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:27 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 10:24 am
I think modern psychologists are aware that caring for what is other than self is a biological potential in and among all mammals, and developmental in its actual manifestations.
I don't believe in an ontic division between morals and facts. This non-belief implies that no blame attaches naturally to any human act, but that blame is a human reaction to the human need for social control. Humans are the only mammals that blame.
Morality is no more and no less objective than nature itself.
Belinda,
Indeed caring is a biological potential among all mammals and I would say life in general. When you say developmental in its manifestations, are you speaking of biological extensions into the outer world. Your second point I quite agree, but I don't think many here would agree. All the structures and systems of man made origin are certainly biological extension. If one believes that object/s are biologically dependent then the world as object certainly can at least speculatively be considered biologically dependent. As an energy form oneself, it is not difficult to imagine a complex relationship with all other forms of energies.
Popeye hello again!
When I say caring for what is not oneself is biological in its manifestations , and is psychologically developmental, I mean more than the subject's mental health I mean also how all subjects of experience react to their living and inanimate environment.
Some subjects' reactions to environment are at the least under -developed as in the case of Hitler and other sociopaths. Maybe there is something inherently missing from their brains .I wouldn't know.
My underlying belief is that nature is good .Evil is lack of natural good. In turn, lack of natural good is often caused by unreason or lack of balanced judgement, or sheer lack of knowledge.
Morality can never be entirely objective however nature as ordered system is the best candidate we have for moral objectivity.
Hi Belinda,
If one truly believes that subject and object are inseparable, then there is no absolute other, the significance of the Yin Yang symbol is just that, within the dark, there is a white spot, and within the white, there is a dark spot. The Upanishads, "Thou Art That." Psychological development can obviously be transformed through the perspective of a holistic worldview, which of course in not generally the case. With sociopaths and/or psychopaths not sure what the difference is, but with the psychopath it is a matter of a lack of normal function where normally there is cognitive reaction there is none in a certain area of the brain. Difficult to blame someone for something they cannot experience, as dangerous as psychopaths are, they are the most unfortunate of persons.
In a world where life lives upon life, symbolically the Uroboros, the snake consuming his own tail, the horror of it all is done in utter innocents. I recall Joseph Campbell saying, "There is really nothing happening, life is simply maintaining itself", be that as it may, it is life's harshest reality. We do seem to disagree here on the morality innate in nature unless you are speaking of behaviors which develop in communities of organisms. Quoting Heraclitus again, "To god all things are right and good, only to man somethings are and somethings are not." There is an innocents to those organisms trapped within instinctive patterns, cognitively not always realizing the brutality of it all. This can see even in early childhood in the early stages of human development. Whatever objective morality one might find in the world, it has to be subjective reactions in the forms of behaviors, structures and systems which have as their intent those subjective sensitivities. These sensitivities having meaning only to other creatures on a subjective level.