Letter to an Innocent Man

[Acriku]

Blind ourselves with morals? We make our morals through development of our minds, we don't blind ourselves with them. But say we did, what is the harm of blind morality that aids society and the individuals within it?

[emprworm]

lol, you don't make your morals Acriku, any more than you made the neurons in your brain.

[Acriku]

So you believe that morality is always there, during development of everything else?

[emprworm]

perhaps....what I meant to say was that you dont just suddenly one day "invent" your morality. whether or not you have morality at birth and then slowly become aware of it, or your morality develops...i dont know. But I most certainly do not believe that one day, as an amoral being, you suddenly sit down and say to yourself "ok, I'm going to invent my morality today"

[Acriku]

Oh of course not, but developing it over time is what I meant. Haven't had this one before? ;)

[emprworm]

it may develop over time, but you do not control it

[Acriku]

So now we are going into predetermined morality? That's a bit odd.

[emprworm]

yes we are. and no, its not odd at all.

moral behavior in children is as predictable as the orbit of the earth around the sun

[Acriku]

Perhaps because morality hasn't been fully developed? As we get to the adult age, our morality differs from others around us, or can be the same as others around us, it branches off along or together or in groups.

[emprworm]

morality is always fundamentally the same. self first, others second. subtle differences may occur due to personal convictions/conclusions, but the fundamental principle will always be there.

self first, others second.

that is human morality. baby...child...adult.

all humans, accross all time periods, accross all cultures.

predictable

testable (shall I punch you in the face to test it?)

repeatable.

observable

this meets the criteria of science...far more so than evolution

[Acriku]

Tell that to the people who sacrifice themselves to save the life of another, knowing the saved person or anyone else would never know who saved him. I believe that was gryphon's sig for a while, about what a true hero was. Was there some hidden motivation in there, some reward they hoped to get? If you were in the military, you would recognize the feeling of self-sacrifice, the feeling that in battle, you would give your life for anyone else in your squad, in a second. My grandfather told me this feeling, and I hope I can feel it when I go into the military.

[emprworm]

i acknowledge self-sacrifice. it is a conscious decision and there is always an inner-battle that the person must wage. no person I have ever read that has put themselves in danger has not admitted that there were inner instincts to overcome.

You always have the ability to go against your impulses. But the impulse to flee the burning building will be there. THe action to run inside and save someone will require you to consciously supress that impulse to save yourself.

[Acriku]

And what about when the "inner war" against impulses is too long to save the person? A single second of hesitation would kill the person, certainly that predicament has happened before, and the hero did not make a conscious decision to save that person. Like in battle, a fragmentation grenade is dropped in your trench, you immediately jump on it to save your squad. There was no war, no impulse-fighting. And how do you people who have self-sacrificed themselves admit that there is an inner war, if they are currently sprouting daises?

[emprworm]

There was no war, no impulse-fighting

there always is. i was in the military Acriku. That inner war is fought by everyone....long before they actually see battle.

those who dive into combat and sacrifice themselves have already fought that long, awful inner-war. Many people leave the military because they cannot overcome that inner-war.

The inner-war for military sacrifice begins the moment you enter service. By the time you reach the battle field, you have already overcome many of those impulses to flee.

[Acriku]

Well lookie-here Emprworm declaring what others think, and go through, my, wasn't that what he stood up against in a different thread? ;)

[emprworm]

I am only going by what I have heard and know from others. I was in the mlitary. Were you? Do you know of anyone who has put themselves in harms way in the military that did not go through an inner-war during their training to become a soldier?

Every single person who trained with me went through an inner-war. That is the whole purpose of basic training. Some lose the inner battle...they are weeded out.

[Acriku]

Ok, so at some point in their lives they went through an inner-war about going to battle, correct? Well that doesn't necessarily mean they intend to sacrifice their lives. They could very well think they will make it out alive, that the enemy is easy to beat, that this will over in 10 days, where no war has to take place.

[emprworm]

all soldiers are trained specifically to mentally prepare to give their lives for their comarades. Of course, when that time comes, some might not be able to. But others already made up their minds when they were trained too. Without that training, they would have to overcome their impulses to self-preserve with a consious decision.

[Acriku]

So there is no possibility for someone to not have to go through those inner-wars?

[emprworm]

how could there be?

Are you saying there is a person who has no impulse to flee from a burning building and has not gone through any inner-struggle prior to such a point?

I suppose there could be, but such a person would be mentally impaired. But I guess its possible, albeit not normal.

but i dont think there is any evidence of human behavior such as this. do you know of any? and human behavior is well documented.

[IxianMace]

People ultimately care about themselves, and only themselves above all others, in their hearts, IMHO. There may be a rare minority that would willingly die for a loved one, but mostly people couldn't care less if someone died, unless it was someone they knew. If someone doesn't know you, or is not related to you in any way, then you don't mean anything to them, your death does not affect them to a large degree, emotionally. Of course, people may feel sorrow/sympathy/compassion when someone dies, but life goes on, as the cliche goes, and people just get on with their lives. You have to move on some time, don't you?

We all have to be responsible for ourselves. This does not mean that we should shunt everyone else, and be greedy and selfish, but having said that, people can't shed a thousand tears for every single person on the Earth that dies, for whatever reason. I guess everyone is just trying to get by. Compassion or no compassion, death is just taken more casually now. What is living, must die someday. I don't think that lots of people thought that the death of the falling man was 'nothing' and that his life was 'worthless'. It's just that if you compare the death of one person, is the same as the death of another. Why should the death of one person take more importance than the death of another? We're all human. We're all special, and ordinary at the same time (if you get the meaning).

[Acriku]

My guess is that the fact that we put ourselves above anyone else deep down is from our primitive urges to survive.

[emprworm]

and the fact that humans have an ability to suppress our more powerful instincts (impulses) and act on less powerful impuluses is evidence for ID.

[Acriku]

I don't see how it is, I see it as evidence for evolution. It is the urge to survive, a common trait in most, if not all, animals, and suggests we have common ancestry with animals that had the same urges to survive. But this is way offtopic ;)

[Anathema]

and the fact that humans have an ability to suppress our more powerful instincts (impulses) and act on less powerful impuluses is evidence for ID.

You're saying that nothing intelligent can come from something unintelligent?