Human Morality, does right and wrong even exist?

I completely agree, right and wrong do not truly exist.

I've always thought it is incredibly stupid when someone calls another person immoral. Just because their moral beliefs do not agree with yours, does not mean they do not have morals.

 

While I agree that right and wrong doesn't exist in the big picture, it is very much a part of the human psyche. Even the worst of sociopaths will take measures to help authorities put a stop to their endeavors. It comes from a sense that they know they are wrong. Those of us that break laws in a way that we know is not wrong have no inclination to assist the authorities in stopping us.

I think more valuable than coming to agreement with everyone would be the ability to peacefully disagree. I don't believe that the conflict in the world comes from disagreement, rather from fear.

We would be in a much more peaceful world if we all took the time to empathize with each other, that is to put our selves in the place of someone else and try to relate with why they do the things that they do. That isn't to say that we agree with their actions, just to have some understanding with which to began peaceful discourse.

Surely, we must be approaching the time when war is no more. We are getting closer and closer to a global community with the introduction of the internet. Few of us do not know people outside of our own countries anymore with whom we've bonded thanks to this unifying force. This is very different than as little as twenty years ago when I knew no one from abroad. I remain optimistic that in time our fear of each other will subside leaving room for intellectual rationalizations over our differences and an ability to respectfully disagree with each other.

Peace

 

Influences decide right and wrong on an individual level. As groups we have shared cultural beliefs which decide what is to be considered moral, right or wrong. As a culture there seems to be decidedly moral and immoral distinctions.

Who decided these distinctions? Has it come from past generations? Do we have the ability to live our ways without such influence?

It seems that such distinctions are ever evolving and continuing to be changed and defined. What was immoral and wrong even five years ago may not be so in present times. What was right and pious will always change and be influenced by popular definition. Take job descriptions as an example, there are set descriptions of what is right and wrong in order to be considered and employed. The ability to be truly one's self in our personal privacy is completely uninhibited, to be true to one's self in public is an active process. This is hard to understand for me.

How can we be free if we live by our beliefs? Why do we allow our behavior to be influenced?

We must take the active process being true to our individual self in public and use it as opportunity to create change. We are free. We are as free as believe we are. The mentality to limit freedom based on community guidelines is an all too common mistake. We can decide what is right and wrong in our minds, but to place these expectations on to another free human is take away individuality.

Human Morality exists in our minds.
Human morality exists on paper.
Human morality exists to maintain what we know to be right and wrong.

Human morality doesn't exist to be exercised over a culture or society. Human morality doesn't exist to influence others activities.
Human morality doesn't exist to be anything but completely individual

 

Alot of what we consider right and wrong isnt necessarily unique to humans, its evolutionary

You can pick almost any animal and they will exhibit some sort of "morality"
When something threatens an animals children or own life that animal is going to become aggressive.
There was some type of monkey/primate (or perhaps many types) that will discipline members of their group if a single member takes too much food.
There tends to be an alpha of a group which sets rules for the group, thats just necessity. There needs to be a leader to set morals because it sets the behavior code of the rest of the animals.

There is no absolute right or wrong (since there is no absolute being to set the distinction) but there is an evolutionary tendency to do whats best for the species, and this often means setting rules that limit our behaviors/thoughts

Most things that are right and wrong we do believe on an individual level, and when theres a drastic majority we turn those ideals into laws.
Thats also why when we hear of somebody with drastically different views of morality we are shocked (pedophiles, serial killers)

In fact i believe that amorality would be solely a human thing to try and achieve simply because you must consiously do away with all influences to shed yourself of morals.

 

Yes! Behaviors, right and wrong, are much more simplistic than attempting to be moral or amoral. Morality, in the first place, is a complex acheivement right? It shows the ability to learn and think and then practice. Amorality would, then, be the greatest human power that could exhibited. The ability to think, act, and speak in a manner completely unique and uninfluenced by any other human?

 

Although I'm only 19, I'd have to say I prescribe most to this viewpoint of positivity. This moment has never come before, and certainly it will never come again. We must strive to make the most of our situation.

 

Yes, definitely a similar, if not identical debate as to whether "good" and "evil" exist. I have been trying to explain to so many people that the concept of good and evil are subjective.

I find, mostly, that those who have had terrible experiences with one particular individual are the most likely to believe that "evil", in particular, absolutely exists. My thinking is, of course there are those who might be considered undesirable human beings, but it's more than likely that that person has been, simply, incredibly misguided.

If there absolutely HAD to be an "evil", i'd say those who are considered to be so, and are fully AWARE of their habits and their wrong-doings, and have zero percent will to change who they are and what they do, would be it. Even a 1% will to want to change should remove somebody from the category of what we consider "evil".

 

Sounds like a fairly grounded understanding. I can agree with that.

 

Exactly why it's important to join human rights organizations and work to relieve our society of prejudice surrounding race, gender, sexual orientation and disability!

 

They definitely can raise awareness. And take practical action. Definitely we need more practical and applied knowledge in this increasingly complex world.