The nature of Mind

However ... is there are better, more moral, or otherwise more perferrable way?

Being brought up, cared for, and taught by one's parents is only natural; is it not?

Certainly our parents will have prejudices and fallacies, and will unknowingly make an attempt to teach their children those prejudices and fallacies whether it is intentional or merely a product of ignorance.

So ... is there a better way? If so ... what could be better?

 

I agree as long as you include God in my society. High Society- good mag for kids.

 

Yes, we are all conditioned by our parents and the wider society. but what interests me is how did this process get going? I mean in historical terms.

It might seem that at some point, early humans must have had the first 'moral' ideas or impulses. These then would have gradually become common property, and eventually were codified in the laws of the first civilizations.

Either this 'moral culture' for want of a better term must have evolved based purely on the experiences and reflections of humans, in line with some percieved need, or it was somehow 'revealed from above' as the various religions teach, and as members of early civilizations thought.

If the first of these is true - that morality is wholly man-made, then I think it must have it's basis in physical laws, or at least physical realities.It is probably completely based on the dualities of physical life such as pain/pleasure and so on.

 

Hikaru

To educate the parents.
To make the parents
FIT TO RAISE CHILDREN

That means you will not see 'well' educated human beings for quite some time.

Occam

 

Kharakov

You can have any god you want in OUR society.
Its only religious societies that kill you for believing in the wrong god.

Occam

 

Black Bill

Yes morality does have it's basis in physical reality
Just like everything else.

Morality is a way of interacting with others.
Pain/pleasure we can have without others.

It is EGO that is the core of morality.

Occam

 

Thank God there is only one God so I can't worship the wrong one. Make's things a lot easier. Religions highlight certain ways of worshiping God, and although they are right for the followers, and can be right for you as well, love will teach you better ways of worshipping God than simple rituals.

A religious society can only kill you if God allows it, so if it happens, it's good.

 

Kharakov

So the inquisition was a good thing?

Occam

 

Hiroshima?
Agent Orange?
Serial Killers?
The Tuskogee Syphillus experiment
The Holocaust?

If it is true that for something to happen at all, it has to be a good thing, then all of the above were good.
I don't get it, but maybe its true.... ?

 

Maybe I am thinking about ethics, and maybe I am wrong, but, I see ethics as a choice. It may be biased by environmental factors, parents, peers, the media, etc, but finally must be our own individual conclusion. I wondered about the interacting with others point. I could act unethically, in my view, with no one there, and I am not sure I act ethically as a way of interacting with others, cuz then why do I go to such lengths to strain such interactions?
I thought the ID was the core of morality, according to psychology...not sure though.
In my view, it is neither.
Ya gotta have heart.

 

People need to struggle to survive and after they accumalate some provisions, they want to protect them. So it is in their interests to agree with others that they won´t take their neighbors´cow if their neighbor won´t take their cow. Also, if their field of corn is ripe, they will harvest it with the help of their neighbor and do likewise when their neighbors' field is ripe. So began society, laws, and morals. Acting in a virtuous manner has self as the object, giving us a pleasurable feeling because it has the approbation of society and it is in our own interest so that society continues to function.

 

So Donald Trump and Mother Teresa are products of this process? I choke trying to say Mother Teresa has self as the object, though I know that some people think it is true.
If she is selfcentered, then the whole egotism, selfish, greedy concept is out the window, imho.
To me, Mother Teresa gave her life for love of others, putting herself at their service, and never being selfish, never doing it for herself, never doing it to get some pleasurable feeling, or in her own interest, she did it for God and for the destitute souls who needed her. God bless that Saint.

 

Ah - that would seem to depend on one's definition of the word 'ego'.

And there's the question of 'self harming'. Is that 'immoral'?

Interesting that this thread has moved entirely away from 'the nature of mind' and seems to have turned into 'the nature of morality' -

 

Did you learn that it is wrong to force someone into a belief system by observing it? The inquisition is one of those things that taught us what not to do by example. It is a living example of the evils that God has caused to teach man judgement.

I saw a little bit of Oprah the other day and she was talking to the Nanny. What the Nanny says applies here as well: If you do not discipline children they will not learn to care for others. If a church (or a child) does not think that they can do any wrong, they will go through life doing wrong as often as they do good.

 

Your assumption is not without some truth, but I know that it is not true for all children. Some are caring and loving from inside, and they remain so even if you beat the pulp out of them their whole childhood.
Others you could give all your best parenting to, and they still rebel, to the puzzlement of all around.
I don't see it as puzzling, but just proof that we are not just a cpu in a robot.
We have heart and soul.

 

I feel that the people who respond to violence with violence have their own special kind of soul, one that can be treated as gently as someone who responds gently to violence. Some people might feel love in violence, a comradery that is deep inside them that those who espouse pacifism do not understand. Misunderstood violence leads to pacifism, understanding leads to love of the bringer of violence. Not all violence is bad.

 

Just want to comment on this. For the most part, I'm a pacifist, but I think it's important to show that you can still be a pacifist and understand that love of violence feeling. Even though I wouldn't SERIOUSLY attack someone unless they were attacking me or I had a REALLY good reason, my friend and I are constantly beating the crap out of eachother using wooden swords (we take kendo lessons at university here, so we practice versus eachother), or roughousing, kind of like how you'd picture two wild bear cubs when they're "playing" with eachother; just kind of beating the crap out of eachother every now and again. I think you can be a pacifist and still feel that "playing" side of violence, while completely abolishing the serious side from your heart, and never getting the tendency to cause intentional harm to someone.

 

the origin of morals had self as their object but as society developed, its' perpetuation became equally important. There are many advantages to helping people out and society approves of those whose motive is not self, probably more so. I did not say that Mother Teresa did such things to get a pleasurable feeling, only that doing them gives a pleasure. I expect she likes helping the poor and there is probably something within her self that moves her to do such things.

 

It's important to recognize this within yourself so that you can see it in others.