- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Nope, but without intelligence you cannot develop a moral code. Intellect does not guarantee morality, but you cannot have morality without it.
Now that's an interesting question, depending on how much you want to dig in to it. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but here's the other side of that debate.
If one isn't aware that they are acting immorally, are they actually guilty of anything? Throughout legal history (not just in our nation, but around the world) that answer has been "no," and I believe the concept is called "mens rea."
Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Put another way, can an animal be immoral? No, animals are blameless of all moral wrongdoing because they're not aware that anything they do is wrong.
Therefore, intelligence is not needed for morality. Intelligence simply imposes a higher burden of morality on us. Since we are aware of right and wrong, we are obligated to do what is right.
One can say that without concept of morality, one cannot be nor can be a moral creature. It takes the intelligence to know the difference for it to mean anything at all. An animal is neither moral nor immoral; it is amoral.
What? To be genuinely moral you must question authority least the authority you are following is not moral. Gosh, that happens all the time.Well, you can if you never question authority, and there are people who do live that way.
I find your bigoted view of Atheists rude and obnoxiousness. Non-religious people are not robots, we have feelings and morals just like any other human. Your entire assertion is ass backwards primitively archaic and unintelligent in vain of 18th century European people treating other people as savages.That's right. Continuing that line of thought, it follows then that the more intelligent or learned one is, the more they are aware of what is right and what is wrong. The more intelligent one is, the higher the moral burden one bears.
Yet, seeing the difference between right and wrong doesn't imply that they will choose to do what is right.
There is a choice involved as well. How do you define that?
What? To be genuinely moral you must question authority least the authority you are following is not moral. Gosh, that happens all the time.
Not really. Morality is adherence to a set of moral beliefs and principles. There are people who do live a moral life by not questioning the basis for those moral principles. People like this will typically be found in religious institutions, where the guidance of the church and/or the religion is adequate proof to them that morality is important.
Others (like myself) are compelled to question and challenge those moral principles, and arrive at an answer as to their validity by questioning, experience, and observation of the results.
They are both moral people, but with different learning methods and different means to acquiring knowledge.
Thanks for making yourself very clear. And we clearly disagree. (When I thought about this more I realized that the process I use to understand the world is the same as I use in design engineering.) The people you describe as being moral that are followers as you describe are at risk of following leadership into amoral behavior; history if full of examples. So if followers were following leadership and behaving morally; but, then screwed up and followed leadership into amoral behavior, my POV is that they were never moral in the first place.Not really. Morality is adherence to a set of moral beliefs and principles. There are people who do live a moral life by not questioning the basis for those moral principles. People like this will typically be found in religious institutions, where the guidance of the church and/or the religion is adequate proof to them that morality is important. Others (like myself) are compelled to question and challenge those moral principles, and arrive at an answer as to their validity by questioning, experience, and observation of the results.
They are both moral people, but with different learning methods and different means to acquiring knowledge.
Thanks for making yourself very clear. And we clearly disagree. (When I thought about this more I realized that the process I use to understand the world is the same as I use in design engineering.) The people you describe as being moral that are followers as you describe are at risk of following leadership into amoral behavior; history if full of examples. So if followers were following leadership and behaving morally; but, then screwed up and followed leadership into amoral behavior, my POV is that they were never moral in the first place.
I find your bigoted view of Atheists rude and obnoxiousness. Non-religious people are not robots, we have feelings and morals just like any other human. Your entire assertion is ass backwards primitively archaic and unintelligent in vain of 18th century European people treating other people as savages.
Again our countries forefathers were correct in building an Representative Democracy to curb the bigoted majority.
41 to 3 that our posters would vote for an athiest president.
This tells us how irrelevant our Christian Right really is. And how a small minority can make a big, huge noise.
Ever heard of these fellas?
S.E. Cupp would make a great president, and she is an athiest, but she understands that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
41 to 3 that our posters would vote for an athiest president.
This tells us how irrelevant our Christian Right really is. And how a small minority can make a big, huge noise.
You have clarified our difference, thanks. I think a persons morality is predictive quality, will his actions in the future properly extrapolate from the lessons he has learned, even if they don't exactly fit, be moral. With some people you can reasonably predict that their future actions will be moral as well there are others where it is easy to predict that some of their future actions will not be moral. I'm sorry that precise predictions are not possible; and this happens all the time, and we are surprised.They are at risk, no doubt, but the difference lies in the actions of said individual. Morality can clearly be seen by the actions of the individual, and by the way they live their lives. Being at risk does not mean that one will become immoral.
How do you know they are not fake religious?
That's right. Continuing that line of thought, it follows then that the more intelligent or learned one is, the more they are aware of what is right and what is wrong. The more intelligent one is, the higher the moral burden one bears.
Yet, seeing the difference between right and wrong doesn't imply that they will choose to do what is right.
There is a choice involved as well. How do you define that?
41 to 3 that our posters would vote for an athiest president.
This tells us how irrelevant our Christian Right really is. And how a small minority can make a big, huge noise.
The choice is to act morally or immorally. No animal has that choice, as they are amoral. Just because one is smart enough to understand good from evil doesn't mean that they'll choose good over evil. Some people are just dicks. But without that intellect in the first place, it can be argued that morality in general doesn't exist. Morality requires empathy and intelligence. Without those, you cannot be a moral (or immoral) creature.
I agree with you; the smarter one gets, the more awareness one has of the inherent morality/immorality of his choices. The question is, what defining characteristic makes some people choose to do the right thing, and others choose to do the wrong thing?
Its called freewill. Homo sapiens existed long before the bible existed. If humans needed the bible in order to decide what is moral and what is not then mankind would have vanished long before the bible was even written. Plus many other cultures exist that are not Christian and do not have any different morals than anyone else. Humans in reality are not amoral until they learn the teachings of an religion. Sure there may be cultural differences between western civilization and other civilizations but the root morals of mankind are universal. And the belief that only believers in a god are moral is primitive and naive at best.I agree with you; the smarter one gets, the more awareness one has of the inherent morality/immorality of his choices. The question is, what defining characteristic makes some people choose to do the right thing, and others choose to do the wrong thing?
I'm going to guess it's the result of whether they were raised to be respectful toward other people's needs/suffering/differences or whether they were raised to be gigantic douchebags.
So does a 50 year old still hear mom and dad's voice in the back of his head?
No, cultural conditioning doesn't work that way at all. Different cultures and socioeconomic manifestations have been shown to radically shape one's worldview or ethical standpoints, along with one's social behavior. Religion is just one example.So does a 50 year old still hear mom and dad's voice in the back of his head?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?