<p>So in essence there is no morality at all - only the law and one’s own choice.</p>
<p>To me, morals = PERSONAL code of conduct to help you decide what is right and wrong. They are formed from your own experiences and perception of those experiences.</p>
<p>One’s own choice is influenced by his/her morals.</p>
<p>But there’s no punishment for violating one’s own morals?</p>
<p>There must be some kind of punishment if you set certain boundaries for yourself in order to create those morals. If you’re religious, you may believe that you’ll pay for it in the afterlife. Maybe you’ll meet some immediate consequences if you cheat on a test and get caught. Maybe you’ll get away with it. Maybe you’ll feel bad and there’s your consequence.</p>
<p>People aren’t always punished for violating the law either. So why does it matter that someone should always get punished for violating their own morals?</p>
<p>TCBH, I’m really confused. What are you trying to argue?</p>
<p>I’m not trying to argue anything - just curious as to the workings of a completely morally relative society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But these are again just choices. And one can choose to do and think as they wish.</p>
<p>There is no should - only is.</p>
<p>I thought we already live in a morally relative society?</p>
<p>I can’t believe that we are actually comparing and contrasting murder with sex.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, some people would say that murder is wrong, whether the murderer believes so or not and that the murderer’s decision should come down to more than just a rational choice based on possibility of punishment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t either. In fact, I don’t believe we are.</p>
<p>li ter a lee</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, I’m back. The biggest reason I believe a soul MUST exist is the fact that people have choices. If a souls did not exist, then everything you did would be the natural result of chemical reactions in your brain, determined by the state your brain was in right before and determining the state it will be in right after. In fact, the everything that has ever happened in the universe was just the natural result of what happened right before.</p>
<p>But if that is true, how can we claim to know truth? If that theory is just the natural result of chemical reactions, and my theory is just the natural result of other chemical reactions, then why should either one be true?</p>
<p>Unless there is actually something outside of the natural laws, that can actually apply logic and CHOOSE the right choice, then all logic and proof is meaningless.</p>
<p>If we prove that no souls exist, then we will have proved that no proof exists. Which is nosense.</p>
<p>Therefore, the human mind at least must be capable of making choices independent of the state of the universe. I say at least because we have no way of knowing if animals have souls. It is possible that the things they do really are just the natural result of chemical reactions in their brains. But for people, there HAS to be something more, for there to be any sense at all to arguing about it.</p>
<p>How that something more works, I do not know. My guess (begin Wild Mass Guessing) is that the thing we call a “human” is actually two organisms, or rather one organism and one soul. I would say that the human animal is just like any other animal: it is made of molecules that form proteins and cells, organs and tissues. I would say that the soul, the actual person that is able to think and do right or wrong, is something outside the realm of natural matter. And I would say that the “point of contact” between the natural and the spiritual world is the human brain. How it works, I do not know, but somehow the soul is actually able to cause the molecules in the brain to act one way or another, regardless of their previous states. This is then transfered through nerves and muscles into actual actions.</p>
<p>Where the line between what is processed in the brain and what is decided by the soul lies I do not know. The human brain does appear to be the part that holds memories, and clearly many desires and psychological disorders are tied to the natural body. (end Wild Mass Guessing)</p>
<p>I do not know if this model is true, but, like the quantum mechanical model of the atom, it seems to explain the observed effects in the world. A few examples that make sense with this theory:</p>
<p>When a person’s brain is damaged, they often lose their ability to think to soeme degree, though their body continues to live. The impression I often get when talking Alzhemiers patients is that *they<a href=“or%20their%20soul,%20by%20this%20theory”>/i</a> are still there, but trapped and unable to get out. This makes sense with this theory: damage to their brain has made it hard for the soul to “connect”.</p>
<p>If you believe in christian theology (which I do), or for that matter many other religions, then you believe it is possible for a person to be “posessed” by another being. Which makes perfect sense, if you believe that the normal state for a human is a soul controlling a biological creature.</p>
<p>A lot of strange psychological phenomena, such as hypnosis, drunkeness, and even ouija boards, can be explained in terms of something interfering with the normal link between soul and body.</p>
<p>I hope that made sense, it’s kinda deep philosophy, and I’m no expert. But this is one humble souls perception of the universe, such as it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We don’t. Which is a VERY good thing.</p>
<p>we do. end of story.die</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do laws get formed? By people making moral judgments. If laws are to serve any purpose, that purpose is inherently a moral judgment. Definition of “order” is a moral judgment. Definition of “happiness” is a moral judgment. Laws are the forcing of a majority opinion (in a democracy) or a potentially minority opinion (in an authoritarian regime) over everyone, i.e. the imposition of a moral system over everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is claiming that. But laws are literally moral judgments. You really need to start reading posts carefully because you’re attacking a position literally no one has taken.</p>
<p>If the sense of morality doesn’t come from a supernatural power where does it come from?</p>
<p>A natural power, I guess.</p>
<p>What would that be?</p>
<p>Ourselves?</p>
<p>^ Then why does it have value? If value judgements come from ourselves, how can we judge the value of that statment?</p>
<p>You can’t?</p>
<p>I read something about this by John Stuart Mill. About how our own morals have no inherent value and there is no judgement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, utilitarianism. The philosophy that is either so specific that it’s totally arbitrary or that is so vague to encompass every moral system ever.</p>
<p>You still haven’t explained how you define “interests,” “order,” and “happiness.” I still don’t know why I don’t have the right to go around and kill people I don’t like or who are ugly or annoying, etc. </p>
<p>Why not? Because doing so would be a moral statement, which you have basically said has no value.</p>
<p>Morality without a higher power is nonexistent and therefore should be discarded completely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you don’t think morality can exist without a higher power? How is that possible? I don’t believe in any higher power, but that doesn’t mean I would walk outside and murder someone. Not to mention that - if you are a Christian - humans existed for 12,000 years before god spoke to people, and they had morals.</p>