Do morals even matter anymore?

[Siro]

You have to think on a different plane of existence to be able to say yes to that. But all the giants out there did... Hawkins, Newton, the Wright brothers, Einstein. They all embraced three words that form a great truth.

Wrong is subjective.

Why put words in other people's mouths? Einstein's relativity relates to frames of reference. Newton was a hardcore Christian, and would never have said that morality is relative. Defend your own opinion using your own logic. No need to appeal to authority.

It's a code generally instilled from parents from a set morality and it's up to that individual to accept or deny specifics in that code. "Personal feeling" don't really enter the equation. Morality exists to keep the social structure intact. Sounds like it's rational to me, no matter what constructs are used. A lot of the moral code from Christianity is a remnant of living conditions when the moral code of the Hebrews. Those descending from that code have kept a lot of that overseeing code in place and has become more of a traditional thing. George Carlin in his famous 10 commandments bit deconstructed this code quite well.

This is all good. But if something is "rational" then it isn't subjective or culturally bound. The laws of motion are the laws of motion. A culture that creates its own laws of motion will never get rockets into space, regardless of how many objections they have to Newtonian mechanics (unless they create a more explanatory theory, aka Einstein). Similarly, if morals are objective, then it isn't up to the individual to accept or reject them according to his or her whims. If our objective is the well-being of all people (or whatever), then a moral standard either advances that goal or it doesn't. Cultural sentiment notwithstanding.

 

[Zulu]

I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

Sooooo what about asexual organisms??????

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

This definition also isnt satisfactory-- think of plants, and the possibility of plants to hybridize, and mate with eachother-- and have those offspring able to reproduce as well. Would their hybridized offpsring be considered a new species? Are they themselves the same species seeing as they can mate with eachother? From face value they can't be, because their chromosome numbers are all unique; it's just that plants possess a unique ability to tolerate added chromosomes after hybridization, whereas animals like mules cannot.

So your definition (like many other definitions that try to pin down 'species') lacks widespread accuracy.

 

[♪alt13]

This definition also isnt satisfactory-- think of plants, and the possibility of plants to hybridize, and mate with eachother-- and have those offspring able to reproduce as well. Would their hybridized offpsring be considered a new species? Are they themselves the same species seeing as they can mate with eachother? From face value they can't be, because their chromosome numbers are all unique; it's just that plants possess a unique ability to tolerate added chromosomes after hybridization, whereas animals like mules cannot.

So your definition (like many other definitions that try to pin down 'species') lacks widespread accuracy.

I totally see your point but nonetheless we need definitions in order to catalog things. I am %100 fine with separate definitions for plants animals fungi they are sufficiently different(Kingdoms) that it makes sense to catalog them differently.

 

[Harambe]

Why put words in other people's mouths? Einstein's relativity relates to frames of reference. Newton was a hardcore Christian, and would never have said that morality is relative. Defend your own opinion using your own logic. No need to appeal to authority.

Don't think linearly about this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If these people can jump start their respective fields by delving into an area many thought as wrong morally, why not follow their path with morals and jump start humanity a few hundred years in another direction?

That's not to say forget all of them. Just re-evaluate a few to see if we can find a new frontier.

 

[Siro]

Don't think linearly about this. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If these people can jump start their respective fields by delving into an area many thought as wrong morally, why not follow their path with morals and jump start humanity a few hundred years in another direction?

That's not to say forget all of them. Just re-evaluate a few to see if we can find a new frontier.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Can you be more clear?

 

[Harambe]

I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Can you be more clear?

In their own respective fields, these people saw something that others didn't. Others that often spent their entire lives thinking about, but not adding up usually because they thought within the walls.

Why can't that same concept of looking where others wouldn't/couldn't/didn't look to find something amazing apply to morals?

I'm sure as heck not smart enough to figure anything useful out. Perhaps reshape how the world looks down on cloning humans.. or genetic manipulation.

 

[♪alt13]

Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche
If you haven't read it I recommend it. I am not going to speak on morals because I don't want to make an *** of myself. Hit me back in 30 yrs.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sooooo what about asexual organisms??????

Don't most 15 year olds have those all the time?







Oh, orgaNisms. Gotcha.

 

[One Brow]

Morally wrong, morally right mean nothing. Should we all drop our morals (some have more then others) and become Neanderthals again.

Neanderthals had morals. Pretty much all primates have them.

 

[One Brow]

I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

Interfertility is not always a yes/no proposition. Sometimes populations can be 60%, or 30%, or 5% interfertile. There are even ring species, where populations can't breed with each other, but can both breed with a third population (the ring can also be longer).

The notion of "species" is an arbitrary distinction placed upon groups of populations for human convenience. However, the populations so described have no interest in our convenience.

 

[Dr. Jones]

keep reading the thread title like this.