Where Does Morality Come From?

What is right and wrong? Is there such a thing? I wonder if I'm doing the right thing all the time. But should I really? If there are no right or wrong, maybe we could just be at peace. But then what should I really be doing if  there is no right or wrong. If there's nothing wrong I could do... If everything is just neutral, then should we do things randomly?

Some may make the argument that this only applies to moral arguments, that people will inherently understand what they should do in any given moment through biological and social imperatives alone. But, these impulses are just humanist in nature and has no rational justification for them. It is not a moral question they say, so we shouldn't moralize them. Well, if there is no firm roots implanted, whose to say the next person that comes along and dominate the sphere can't change everything? If you say that they can in accordance to necessities or consent, then you'd still have no bases to say right or wrong for deviants in the current political landscape. They can simply say that we've not caught up to their reasoning and someday we will see their side of the story.

If you'd entertain the endeavor to look for true theory of everything of morality, we may be able to achieve the true moral basis through regarding Nietzsche's comments on the parochial nature of philosophers, Freud's pragmatic description of the psyche, Jung's revelation of the self and the archetypes. We may be able to look for the basis for Morality in the least objectionable pragmatic observation of biologic behavior that eventually produces human flourishing without the unnecessary creation of human suffering or fulfillment of man's psychopathic spirit. Through the scientific endeavor we also can see man's natural tendencies. This prevents the assumption that we are not ignorant to the varieties of man and the reality that man's level of analysis is both individual and group. Through the philosophical approach we may be able to come towards the prescription for the human condition. Maybe all of these approaches will someday fruit true moral basis. This is just the layout of the layout. The fever dreams of a true map. I'm nowhere close to it, but...

Consider this an idea to ponder.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Am I Ready? - Looking Through The Problem with The Concept of The Unconscious Mind

Am I ready to live alone? Am I ready to be married? Am I ready to have a child? Am I ready to go on to live the next chapter of my life? These are common questions we all have. Its an interesting one.   What is ready? I've heard some understand readiness as the mastery of the situation such that entails knowing how to handle every variable possible. That is not exactly what they said, but that's the heart of it. This to me seems inhumane. Man is fallible and imperfect. If this is the standard, if this is your understanding, the question becomes inane since one may never reach this stage, just to be able to progress in life. I've also heard many versions of this assertion: "You won't understand unless you've gone through it" or "Nothing prepares you for what it actually takes". So, my question is how can you really answer the readiness question with "Yes, I am ready" and to not lie? If we were to assume these assertions, mainly from the ...
Read more

How to Invalidate Revelationist Religion?

How would one go about proving that all revelation is invalid or illogical. There should be only 3 main points that one should contend with and validate or invalidate. These points should be proven or solved in order of hierarchy, meaning if you can disprove the first question there's no need to go on to third. But, if you disprove the third question, your claim of invalidation needs to go up 1 level back to the second question. So, here's my idea of it: 1. Question of God's existence. Of course if God doesn't exist, then revelation makes no sense. The cosmological argument isn't really debatable though in my opinion. Anything infinite just seem like a cop out, so no infinite regression. Also what is physical can't be the only form there is since there is such a thing as metaphysics, which I don't think is the fruit of physics, so no universe as necessary existence. What do you think? 2. Question of whether God is personal or impersonal (Spinozan). If it mak...
Read more

Am I Enough? - Looking Through The Problem with The Concept on Identity or The Self

Am I enough? What should I do to change? Should I change at all? If I change, who or even what am I? All interesting questions. Who am I? What am I? I don't believe we can understand ourselves until we define our borders and limitations. Who we are should start at who we are not. If I were to understand who I'm not, I would first assert that I'm not him or her. That seems simple enough. What is harder though is who I am in myself. Who is my person outside of my body or the man in the mirror? What is my Self? The Self, understood by Carl Jung, is the sum of the conscious, unconscious, and all possible iterations of the personality of man. Every person is in a state of change. Man in his infancy is not the same as his 20 year-old self, though he is still him and not one of his brothers. We can still be different than other people. But, we do change in a few elements within our possible personality make-up. This should create the necessary personality functions to accommodate ...
Read more