Are morals or "natural senses of good and evil" just indoctrination and are they damaging humankind?

Question

If morals are the code in which we see good and evil, then without them, we would not catagorise anything as good or bad. It would just be. It is true to say that what is considered right to one person is considered wrong to another, morally, and societies or civilisations are made up on agreed moral codes.
When people say, "if we didn't have morals, the world would live in chaos" it is true to a certain extent but if we knew not what good or bad was, chaos would not be considered to be bad or good.

Are morals merely the same as religious belief, political standings and laws. Are they just something that was man-made to keep order in society to stop us from living freely. When I say freely. I mean like an animal who eats it's brother to stay alive. Free from judgement internally and externally. Is the "natural sense of good and bad" the most unatural thing we could do. Was Freud right. Is "civilisation" what make the human so destructive because we surpress our instincts?..

Please try to look at this without moral judgement and look at it logically. Please try to look at the world as a whole instead of by your own values or moral code. In cambodia,tribal men will drink his wife's menstruation and this is considered to be good. This is what I am saying. Good and bad are subjective. They are programs which are trained into us by our environment so we can survive in that particular environment. Try thinking outside of your environment...If you don't have a passport. Please don't answer this question.

Answer 1

Morals are not the same as religious beliefs, political standings or laws. Religious beliefs are chosen by those who wish to accept them. Political standings and laws are agreed upon by the society to preserve the rights of its citizenry. Morals are a SELF-ADOPTED code of conduct and do not necessarily depend upon any outside influences other than personal experiences.

It is not civilization that makes Humans so destructive. That part of our nature has been present since the age of Man began. A by-product of our mental abilities is a more developed proclivity for aggressive and Territorial behavior. The destructive aspect of our existence lies in our inventive ability to produce more and better ways of protecting our beliefs. But the underlying motivation is no different.

Answer 2

"If morals are the code in which we see good and evil,"

Morality gives us a code of values to guide our lives and is an objective necessity of our survival.

" then without them, we would not catagorise anything as good or bad. It would just be."

No, good and evil would still exist, we just would not explicitly be able to point to them as good and evil. They would not be defined. Killing children would still be evil. Stealing would still be wrong. Initiating force against others would still be evil.

"It is true to say that what is considered right to one person is considered wrong to another, morally, and societies or civilisations are made up on agreed moral codes. "

No. Morality is not subjective. Why do we need morality? Because we have CHOICE. And the choices you make will be good for life, or bad for life. That is what morality is based on and why it is objective. It's not good in one society to kill all male babies and evil in another. It's not good to steal in one society and wrong in another. Bottom line...f you choose to live you have to make moral choices.

"When people say, "if we didn't have morals, the world would live in chaos" it is true to a certain extent but if we knew not what good or bad was, chaos would not be considered to be bad or good."

Wrong. Do you think chaos is good for human life? I can tell you objectively that it is not.

"Are morals merely the same as religious belief, political standings and laws."

No. Religion can dictate what they claim is morality and you can decide if you think it is correct. Some of it is. Some of it is not.

Bottom line, the purpose of morality is to teach you to enjoy yourself and live....not suffer and die. Look at the moral code of countries where suffering and death is the norm and look at their code of values.

Answer 3

I think Freud is wrong here. Morals should be common to most people in an area or country. They should make sense and have justification to support them.
We live in very complex times made so by politicians and other selfish individuals. The stock market is killing us because expected rate of returns have become unrealistic. People are penalized for the truth. We are reaping what we are sowing. We need to be wiser and be honest.
We need morals to guide us and everyone. Everyone needs to be on the same page. Majority should rule here. But you always have certain individuals that always have to circumvent the process or morals. They go as far as possible. It's part of the American culture, unfortunately. Of course the exact costs aren't known but I'm sure they can be estimated pretty well. I'm sure it's pretty extensive though.

Answer 4

Can you imagine the family dog at home, up on the couch where she is not suppose to be, pondering such thoughts?

When a dog kills the neighbors dog, we do not consider that as being evil. When a human kills his neighbor we consider it as an act of evil.

The difference is we are aware of our actions and what is accepted in society. Morals are not limited to religious teachings as most secular people are moral within the societies morays.

I guess what hangs me up about your questions is the term "natural sense" because if it is a natural sense then it is part of our matrix and not a function of society. Thus I would say that it was this natural sense that allowed us to work together as groups to form societies.

Separating morals from religion, my inclination is to say that "morals" are not indoctrination, and it is not harmful to society.

When you start speaking of religions, then you have conflicts from one society sub group versus another.

Fido down, bad girl.

To the additional info: While there are practices specific to a region, overall morality is pretty much the same from culture to culture. Killing within the tribe is considered murder, while killing someone from a foreign tribe might be an act of getting supper on the table. Stealing from within the tribe is unacceptable, etc.

Answer 5

If you believe that an animalized mankind is the freest form of existence, then it stands to reason that abandoning morality in entirety is sensible. Of course, that's a rather peculiar (but not uncommon) sentiment as morality does as much to protect freedom (e.g. a moral person won't kill or steal from you). The hedonistic idea that mankind's personal freedoms without regard to morality is deeply flawed from both a philosophical and pragmatic viewpoint.

Answer 6

Depends on the political system. Small tribal groups decide by consensus. Larger groups decide according to the will of the tribal chief: in still larger groups such as temple-states there is a balance between the political power of the King and that of the Preistly classes. Democracy is a further development, but except in the case of referrenda, decisions are still made by a political class - the only difference being that they are ultimately held accountable to the people through elections.

Answer 7

brother dan

it is really great to see such an awakened person on the net. you are among the first one who realized the outsider nature of the morals. morals are those values which a society upholds for its minimum internal friction. it has nothing to do with your goodness or badness. it is merely indicative that your behaviour is conforming to a particular code of conduct prescribed by that society.

it is possible that one and the same conduct may be highly appreciated in one society while deprecated in the other one.

your internal awakening is totally independent of your "moral conformity" in the society.

you may read more in my articles at my website

http://www.lightinlife.com/index.php

at url

http://www.lightinlife.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=45

i pursuade you to go through these articles

Answer 8

"I mean like an animal who eats it's brother to stay alive. "

If this is your example of the good to be gained from living without morals, I think you've answered your own question.