Quote:
Originally Posted by NotConvinced  There are also mental benefits, emotional benefits, and inherently the benefits of others that result from my actions.
Where are these morals constructed from? I'm having trouble understanding if you mean "where they're historically constructed from on a global scale" or "where in my personal history are they constructed from." Please clarify. |
I mean how do you even get a basis for what you say are your morals?
It seems to me that you're espousing a relative morality based upon what you *feel* to be right. However, what I'm asking you is: where does that feeling come from? Because the answer to that is crucial.
If it's just genetics, then how is any other relative morality "better" than another? Why cannot I just say stealing all your money is relatively "good and moral" for me? If I did, and you subscribed to a personally-defined morality, then you couldn't argue with me and remain intellectually honest.
If it's socially-defined, then you've basically just said the Holocaust was "good and right" because it was morally correct for that specific society. If you claim then that it was evil, you're saying your society's morals say it's wrong - and who is to say that your society's morals are better than another?
I'm stating that without some form of absolute morality - inherent good and evil not defined by humanity or social constructs - then nothing is "good" and nothing is "evil". Nothing is right or wrong. And you escalate into chaos pretty quickly.
I don't think people function that way - look inside yourself and you'll find you don't. If you look at your actions, you'll have to admit you act according to a principle of goodness that is outside of yourself, and not necessary relegated to even your own society.