I believe that self-preservation is based on fear.
So... that would make both you and Hobbs correct.
2007-03-06 12:42:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by joyfulpaints 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
no way.
As a child develops, they start to see the difference between right and wrong as being more grey than absolute.
A 4 year old is much more likely to tell you stealing is wrong in any circumstance than a 9 year old that can think a little more. The 9 year old could come up with "well, what if they're stealing bread, because it's the only way their family can eat?" Then stealing could be justified.
A high schooler these days (about 60% of the 30 people I asked) said that stealing was ok as long as it's not from them -- clearly not a fear based motiviation, just straight up greed, or gain in social status.
Peer pressure comes on hardest in the teen years, when people choose friends over parents. That pressure could be rationalized as the preservation of social status, and thereby the preservation of themselves.
Good deeds have no fear-based morality to those that believe there is nothing after life. Good deeds could have self preservation based motivation if they're keeping an image, or get the emotional boost from being altruistic.
2007-03-06 20:45:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by brothergoosetg 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I cannot see how the source of ethics and morality were based on preservation? Or is preservation the same thing as fear. Saving ones kind.
I like yours better. Of course, your ethics/morality are by fear. You don't want to do wrong and be thrown out of the cave. So, you behave in a proper human way.
2007-03-10 16:34:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by missellie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
So you agree with Hobbs then? Self-preservation....think about that. Self-preserving from what? Death, pain, destruction, other wise known as things to fear. So, morality is sourced partly from fear. But do you really think anything in life is as cut and dry as, "the source of all ethics/morality is fear"? Factors abound which make up our morals and ethics.
2007-03-06 20:43:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is based on violence and that is of the Judgment. The Judgment is negative and the Will is positive. When the Judgment is mistaken in identity for the Will, consciousness becomes infinitely destructive and cyclical revenge becomes a social norm.
"An example from ancient times is that men formed communities first as a means of combating the fear of being taken by someone else."
I think the formation of the social Idea for freedom is more ancient or older than war. Revenge, unlike inter tribal or international war is infinite and only limited when there is an intervening force, a disinterested third, someone else outside the conflict but within the community or tribe. Law and law enforce became of this intervention and conflict resolution is determinant for its culture, morality. But the notions for belief came from the particular physical differences of their land and events therein and their reactions and uses of it.
2007-03-06 22:16:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Psyengine 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't agree, for that to be true than any action fueled from fear would be moral, correct? Therefore, if I'm scared of you just because you are bigger than I am, then I could kill you out of fear and still be morally correct, and I don't believe that murder is moral except in the case of self preservation, which is why Hobbs' theory works better.
2007-03-06 20:45:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Alma M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't believe that the source of ethics/morality is fear. Ethical behavior stems from an essential respect for all living beings, and a willingness to accommodate diversity.
Men formed communities for survival (merging of varied skills, a variety of potential mates), not just to avoid being overtaken, and I'm not sure what that has to do with ethics.
2007-03-06 20:49:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Alex 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Read the book of Job. That tells the true root of ethics/morality.
2007-03-06 22:21:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bama sweetie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋