Why Be Moral?

[Nick_A]

I'm sorry to persist, but this does not tell me what an "emotion" is. You don't even really say how they're "acquired." You talk about "reactions" instead.

We have three methods of receiving impressions from the external world: sensing, emotions, and thought. Our senses give us experience, our thoughts allow us to compare impressions, and our emotions determine if we like or dislike them. Emotions are defined by our ability to like or dislike an impression

Normally they are confused. For example a person will say they feel cold when they really mean they sense cold. The ability to sense (to experience) cold is not the same as the ability to feel cold (like or dislike)

Feelings are a universal quality of emotions. A dog may have intense loyal love for its owner but doesn’t love other dogs. A human being has the evolutionary potential to experience the love of life itself beyond personal love. Universal love is a higher quality than personal love. This is not to say anything is wrong with personal love but only to indicate an evolutionary potential for what I know of as conscious love

Yet if I asked you to explain noesis in Christianity, satori in Buddhism, the law of the included middle in science or what Simone described as the third dimension of thought it, it cannot register.

Actually, I can. But it's called "the Law of the Excluded Middle," and it's from Aristotle.

Anyone who experiences the difference between the law of the excluded middle and the law if the included already knows a great deal since to genuinely feel, to be moved by it, means they have experienced the third direction of thought. Rather than going into detail, if you are curious I’ll leave a link to explain it. You may see how feelings relate to emotions through quality.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c3.php

First of ll I’m not a Gnostic. You could call me a Platonic Christian. It has become obvious to me how much of what Plato and Plotinus introduced are also within Christianity before it devolved into the many facets of secular Christendom

How is a person who never has never gone beyond dualism receive the purity of a conscious influence which contains the included middle without losing its meaning through interpretation? This is what a master can give their student. It has to be experienced. As the song goes: “I once was blind but now I see.”

Do you think the Apostles followed Jesus because of giving good speeches? No, he transmitted a mystery to their inner life that temporarily awakened them

[pilgrim1917]

Greetings, I think your question is significant in a discussion of morals. Those promoting a life based on morals can gain strength for their argument when the question is answered well. Those against a moral life can devise "good reasons" to abandon morals. Both sides of the argument have many possible answers. Personally, I believe that life is eternal and that I will be judged on the moral content of all the actions I took or failed to take.

If one believes there are eternal consequences depending on observing some moral code or principles, that would be a reason for being moral. It is obviously yours. I appreciate the frank answer.

Thank you.

Whether there are such consequences or not is another question, not for this discussion.

I think so too.

I will point out that the question is not about rejecting or being against moral principles, but whether one should observe moral principles whether they believe in them or not, and if they should, why they should. Not everyone will have your answer, of course.

I would say that, speaking for myself, my actions must follow my beliefs; so if I believe my moral assumptions are sound, I must commit to act on them. The reason is, because I will be judged on the integrity of my actions based on a given set of moral principles. It goes back to that.

[zoey]

Just loved the discussion!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I would say that, speaking for myself, my actions must follow my beliefs; so if I believe my moral assumptions are sound, I must commit to act on them. The reason is, because I will be judged on the integrity of my actions based on a given set of moral principles. It goes back to that.

Your above is very personal but it is not morality-proper.

Morality-proper is independent from religion, theism and politics [laws, justice, etc.].
Those involved in religions, politics and other human activities are influenced by their inherent moral propensity, but whatever seem 'moral' within these activities may jive with but they are not related morality-proper specifically.

What is morality-proper is driven by an inherent moral function within ALL humans, but unfortunately is not very active in the majority of people.
An active and matured moral function will drive human actions that are spontaneous and they will align with the core flow of ensuring the well being of the individual which will contribute to that of humanity.

so if I believe my moral assumptions are sound, I must commit to act on them.

Anyone can believe their 'moral' assumptions are sound, but
how do one know these assumptions are actually related to 'morality-proper' and
how do one justified they are sound?

[pilgrim1917]

so if I believe my moral assumptions are sound, I must commit to act on them.

Anyone can believe their 'moral' assumptions are sound, but
how do one know these assumptions are actually related to 'morality-proper' and
how do one justified they are sound?

Good question. So I will give you my best answer. I don't come to possess my moral beliefs through philosophy or the intellect. My morals come from my religious beliefs, which are Christian in origin. How do I know they are sound? Because the source is sound.

[Veritas Aequitas]

so if I believe my moral assumptions are sound, I must commit to act on them.

Anyone can believe their 'moral' assumptions are sound, but
how do one know these assumptions are actually related to 'morality-proper' and
how do one justified they are sound?

Good question. So I will give you my best answer. I don't come to possess my moral beliefs through philosophy or the intellect. My morals come from my religious beliefs, which are Christian in origin. How do I know they are sound? Because the source is sound.

I believe the Christianity Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is most optimal for the present [not the future] circumstances given the present psychological state of the majority of people.

However the Christian F/S of Morality is not thorough, complete and it is immutable thus cannot adapt to changes when the psychological states of the average person improves.
While there are good moral principles within the Christian morality system, there are also negative elements, perhaps relevant at certain times, but since the holy text from God is immutable, they cannot be changed.
Examples are the condoning of slavery in the Bible and other negative that hinder the progress of humanity, e.g. pro-creationism.

Whilst the Christian F/S of Morality is relative efficient for the present, the grounding of it was established by humans at a certain time, i.e. 2000 years ago and NOT from a real GOD.

I have proven God is impossible to exists as real.

• God is an impossibility to be real
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Thus there is a need for a more thorough Secular Framework and System of Morality that has completeness and is efficient and can adapt to changes for the greater good.

[pilgrim1917]

Thus there is a need for a more thorough Secular Framework and System of Morality that has completeness and is efficient and can adapt to changes for the greater good.

I respect that, but consider this, from the New Testament:
"Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the same yesterday, today and forever." Hebrews 13:8, International Standard Version.

Jesus was able to look forward in time. He remarked to his apostle Thomas following his Resurrection, "Is it because you've seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet have believed!" John 20:29, ISV. This shows that Jesus' vision of the human race encompassed all time, that is, past, present and future. Therefore, with that ability to see our future, He was able to craft his teachings so they would be understood in any age, at any time period, including today, tomorrow and into the future. My viewpoint is that since that is the case there is no need for another framework and system of morality. Jesus' teachings will never be outdated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thus there is a need for a more thorough Secular Framework and System of Morality that has completeness and is efficient and can adapt to changes for the greater good.

I respect that, but consider this, from the New Testament:
"Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the same yesterday, today and forever." Hebrews 13:8, International Standard Version.

Jesus was able to look forward in time. He remarked to his apostle Thomas following his Resurrection, "Is it because you've seen me that you have believed? How blessed are those who have never seen me and yet have believed!" John 20:29, ISV. This shows that Jesus' vision of the human race encompassed all time, that is, past, present and future. Therefore, with that ability to see our future, He was able to craft his teachings so they would be understood in any age, at any time period, including today, tomorrow and into the future. My viewpoint is that since that is the case there is no need for another framework and system of morality. Jesus' teachings will never be outdated.

I believe the Perfect-Jesus is a good Moral Exemplar.
But there is no proof that such a real Perfect-Jesus existed in reality.
In any case, perfection is a good idea to adopt, but it cannot be real in reality.

The point is, whilst the Christian model of Morality is a relative good one, it is not a thorough and complete one.
In addition it is immutable and thus stuck with some stains of negative elements which cannot be changed at all.
Also the Christian model of morality need to be enforced by a threat of hell and reward of a promise of heaven which both cannot be justified to be true at all.

The secular model will be structured like the Christian model but all the rigidity of immutability will be removed and only moral facts that are justified as True Facts will be adopted as standard to steer and guide moral agents naturally without threat of hell nor enforcements.

I wrote this in another thread;

• Morality-proper is not about pointing to someone that his act is morally wrong and punishing the person for that act. That is fire-fighting and too late.
  Enforcing, pointing and punishments are also related to the legislature, policing and the judiciary which is politics.
  Politics and religions are independent from morality-proper.
  
  Morality-proper is about establishing an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics where justified true moral facts are used a standards to GUIDE and steer individuals to higher progressive moral competence.
  
  This is not about enforcement but finding effective strategies and methods to enable the individuals to voluntarily adopt fool proof self-development programs and practices to improve their own internal moral competence progressively towards higher levels.
  
  In this case, the moral agent will act spontaneously where his actions will automatically align with the justified moral facts and the greater good. If mistakes are made, then the self-control system will automatically made the necessary corrections within his own self.
  
  What I proposed is not for the present generation but will only be effective in the future since self-development takes time to be productive.

I also wrote;

• If you review the average humans since half a million years ago, the human brain has undergone extensive brain modifications, so it is not something very new or scary.
  

  DNA evidence drawn from comparisons of different human genomes, as well as those of close cousins like Neanderthals and Denisovans, put the split between the three groups at at least 400,000 years ago. So it’s possible that H. sapiens is over half a million years old.
  https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... rst-appear

  The moral function of the human brain is johnny-come-lately and had only been recently active and unfolding in the average human brain/mind relative to human evolution.
  Note the contrast on how the average human has changed their moral attitude to chattel slavery, wars, and other evils since 50,000 years ago or know history to now.
  
  Thus our task is to zoom into the details of this inherent moral function and understand its mechanism so that we can expedite its competence and efficiency via fool proof methods and practices.
  
  I am optimistic of what I proposed because this project, i.e. https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project is already progressing and advancing together with other knowledge and technologies.

[pilgrim1917]

I am optimistic of what I proposed because this project, i.e. https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project is already progressing and advancing together with other knowledge and technologies.

Very well, I have no problem with that. Best wishes on that endeavor and God bless you.