Comments by "Deus Ex Homeboy" (@DeusExHomeboy) on "We don't need God or religion to know right from wrong | Michael Shermer | Big Think" video.
-
That is the herd morality. Where humans abandon truth, and instead, for comfort's sake, end up creating a morality that serves their own herd, rather than the morality that is aligned with reality, one that shows them how wrong they are. Like how in most human societies it is acceptable to eat an animal simply for taste, but ironically, you can suffer prosecution if you kill the animal publicly and slowly. And there are special exceptions to the animals that society uses to please itself without eating them, like dogs and cats. Of course, there are also societies that enjoy eating cats and dogs, like in South East Asian regions.
11
-
DarxPhil, I just have to tell you that you are mixing "subjective interpretations of morality" with "morality". The reason why nobody can say "Morals are individualistic" is because ANYTHING arising from this universe, like animals and their capacity to suffer, will all follow the universe's laws. And because they all follow the same rules, they all have an objective state, which can be interpreted Subjectively, but that doesn't change the objective truth of it. In a theoretical sense, there is ONE certain state of arranging every sentient organism's lives as to remove all suffering and maximize pleasure. And ONE certain state of arranging everything to cause the greatest amount of misery. These both potentials fall on the opposite ends of The "MORAL SPECTRUM". Every act done by sentient organisms toward other sentient organisms is a part of this spectrum, and either leans towards moral, or immoral behavior. You might, or your whole society, or even specie might subjectively create their own standards based on what suits them, but that does not change the REALITY of suffering and the existential states and potentials of other sentient organisms.
Everything that can suffer falls within the sphere of moral good or bad. Inanimate objects do not, unless they can indirectly be used to cause suffering to a sentient organism.
Basically morality applies to everything that can suffer, and you can look at it in any way you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Just how a rapist is always a rapist no matter how many people say otherwise, even if the whole human population says otherwise, the facts do not change. In the same way, the murder of another sentient organism is still murder, no matter how many societies enjoy committing it on a daily basis and pat each other on the back for it.
1
-
1