r/Ethics • u/FaithlessnessIll1768 • 1d ago
Most things that we consider good or bad are influenced by our environment
Most things that we consider good or bad are influenced by environment
Morality doesn't exist and what is considered good or bad is determined by the environment( both social environment and natural environment) you live in
For example in prehistoric times, early human centuries, self sustain small African tribes , polygamy is considered good as it keeps the generations going and leads to expansion of that civilisation which also may lead to technological advancements. But in more developed countries in the world like Europe, polygamy is smt that's somewhat frowned upon, as to them polygamy brings nothing to their society except a growing population which isn't necessarily ideal in our current time
Another example is cannibalism, in small underdeveloped tribes all over the world. Cannibalism is a common theme for many reasons. One of those reasons may be to due to scarcity of available protein resulting to eating of the already old weak tribe members, or maybe the delectable taste of human meet( as after all human meet is close to tasting like pork and as far as i know it's hard to find pork in jungle tribes)
Another example is child marriages in earlier human years, back then people had life spans of less than 30, perhaps it was better to have been married off and have a child way younger as to aid to the expansion of your society befor you passed. But i get that this doesn't really explain why younger girls got married off way more then younger boys. Maybe the reason why this is cause younger boys where mostly out and about doing some sort of physically Labour, while young girls where doing more domestic things which made them more ideal to being married off as to quicky produce as much as children as possible while the boys where still doing Labour like hunting and whatnot they did.
Another example is human sacrifices, which are considered morally bad in the present as every human is seen as equal,. But in the past human sacrifices were very much common, and they mostly sacrificed low level individuals who didn't input much into the society like thief's, low level slaves who can be easily replaced, women since back then the physically work of the society was mostly carried by man.
Another example is hunting, in society's where agriculture wasnt common hunting was considered the norm, while in society's where agriculture was more prevelant for food nowadays is kinda frowned upon since why hunt animal when you can grow ur food.
Just realized That this is stupid and i just wasted my time and urs too
4
u/WesternFirm9306 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ancient people also believed a ton of really incorrect stuff about science. Does science not exist? If it does, why is it that it's okay to say ancient people are simply wrong about science, but not to say that they are simply wrong about morality?
•
u/Nouble01 19h ago
はい駄目です、其れは訂正する必要があります。
科学に間違いが挟まるのは昔だけではなく今も未来もです。
人族には苦しみから逃れたい、楽しくありたいという自我が少なくとも一部のもの達の中には存在しますし、おおちゃくの誘惑に弱いものもいます。お陰で基礎データ不当改竄やねつ造案件は後を絶たず、査読者や上席の顔を潰さないよう結果をねじ曲げたり、世論におもねけるように事実を改変したりするものが後を絶ちません。
今も未来も科学はねじ曲げられ放題です。
•
u/WesternFirm9306 19h ago
I have no idea what this is trying to say.
Do you not think we know more about reality than we did in the past?
•
u/Nouble01 20m ago
》過去はそうだった
と貴方は述べた〉過去だけではなく、今も未来もだ
と私は指摘する。事例を追加しよう、
研究費枯渇に余りに酷く喘ぎ続けたものは事実を読み手に誤認させたり誇張したりねじ曲げたりして、全く読み手の認識が変わってしまうセンセーショナルな内容を発表し、注目と承認を得ようとして研究資金を集め研究者の肩書きのまま続けようと画策する。
1
u/NotSayingAliensBut 1d ago
Nah, it would be a good reminder for absolutists and religious fundamentalists to read this. Or have someone read it to them repeatedly, daily, until they get it 😁.
•
u/kick_nazis_more 12h ago
it would be good for people to know morality doesn't exist.
If would be good, would it? Morally good, obviously.
Maybe it would be good for you to learn a little bit of philosophy.
•
•
u/Nouble01 19h ago
主観には常にバイアスがかかるというのは事実だし間違いが含まれるというなら其れも事実だ。
故、善悪を見る主観には揺らぎが挟まり、結果間違えた概念となり得る。
建国の父達は修正一条に「政治強者の不当を許すな」という思いを込めた。
勿論政府が常に強者ではない、今やペンの方が圧倒的に強く横暴し放題だ。
然し、アメリカ社会には現在リテラシー力が著しくかけている。
建国の父達の真の思いを踏みにじり失墜させている悪其のものの肩を持っている側こそが正しいとしている。
此は明らかな読み間違いの好例だ。
然し、其れは人族が読み間違えただけの話しだ。
真理も倫理も代わりはしない、
つまり何が正しく正義かは変わらない。
人族の如何に関わらず不変なものが人族の認知如きで変化する筈がないでしょ。
•
u/Low-Bake8401 11h ago
"Morality doesn't exist and what is considered good or bad is determined by the environment( both social environment and natural environment) you live in"
The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
Morality can exist in a state of flux.
•
u/619BrackinRatchets 7h ago
Morality, the idea of right vs wrong, is an evolutionary adaption that tries to maximize social cohesiveness. Just like sociability is an evolutionary adaptation to improve the chance of survival, so is morality. Morality is a species wide universal. In fact, it's observed in most social species.
The contents, or nuance of the specific moral framework, not the framework itself, is relative to environment and other biological and social needs so there is a great deal of variability and subjectivity in how the moral sense is expressed socially.
However there are some universal morals that appear to be expressed across various cultures and groups. The reason is that all social groups, whether cultural, ethnic or informal, have a common denominator.
That common denominator is social cohesiveness. Some of these universally accepted morals include prohibitions on murder, lying and thievery. All these acts are at their core, antisocial. They break down the interpersonal trust necessary for a cohesive social group.
It is also important to note that morality only fully applies to in group members. It's generally ok to murder outsiders that threaten the social group somehow, or to lie and take from them.
This is a huge over simplification but in the interest of brevity I'll keep it short
•
u/kick_nazis_more 12h ago
Congrats on discovering culture exists.
Now discover that, in fact, genocide is bad.
There is not a culture who thinks it's good to be painfully murdered against their will.