Free will is the review of moral constructs. Morality is a constructed framework of dealing with a changing reality. A way of keeping one safe in a dangerous world. Because the world is free, this framework is subject to change. Judgement changes with new contexts, content.
We are here to experience the good and the bad of reality, leaving other conscious beings to be free to do the same is the most important aspect of morality. Second aspect is to ponder and experience on the difference between good and evil.
Robert, I watched almost all your episodes of closer to truth. It is a matter of great pleasure for me that almost all the episodes that you published has the same content that I think about life and the cosmos. So I am very thankful that you resolve my queries about the quest for finding out the real truth.❤❤❤ Coming to the question of free will,I also watched all your episodes. I will be pleased if you also know about my views about free will. I think before getting into the truth behind whether free will exist or not we need to ponder a little about the double slit experiment. This experiment reveals that the real world exist as what the observer sees. An observer is a connection between the physical and the metaphysical. Our physical body is divided into various parts of every part has a free will of its own that is controlled by the brain and the heart. The metaphysical lies,according to the upanishads, (old Indian texts), inside our hearts. We do not know what a metaphysical being is but we do know that it is an abstract physical entity. I do not know much about the abstract physical entity but I do know that this coordination between the metaphysical being and the physical being gives rise to our consciousness but we cannot say that it is US or we or it is our fee will.we respond to the external world which is a Quantum fraction of dimensions. The meta physical being makes decisions and thus those decisions are obeyed by the physical being ( our brain and other body parts), so we do not make decisions in our physical mind but obey the decisions made by the metaphysical being. Because the real world is determined already by the physical world, the metaphysical mind makes the decisions but how it makes the decision we do not know but it is not in our control but it is partially a coordination of the metaphysical and the real physical being. So the free will that we think is not the physical being but the real free will comes from underneath the metaphysical being. As we do not make decisions, it is infact the meta physical being that does, the real world which a dimensional entity fragments into those dimensions that we chose....we choose the dimensions and by we means..... combination of metaphysical desicions and physical obedience. ❤❤❤
Free will is already a misjudgment by humans of the human condition as it is. Morality is inherently relative and subjective. There is no inherently moral or immoral actions. If the universe is indifferent and amoral, then so are we. As Wheatley said in this video, you are still responsible for your actions despite not having free will. It’s that simple. If we all recognize that we are byproducts of past experiences, genetics, evolution, etc., then we can also recognize the undesirable traits or actions that we may manifest or that may manifest from us unconsciously, because of those aforementioned variables. If a murderer knows he enjoys murder, despite not having control over it or knowing why, he is responsible for the acts of murder he commits.
It may not be possible for a finite being such as a human to know exactly to what extent they have free will. In such a case, it would seem morality can best be achieved by simply trying to guide peoples behavior in the way that seems to promote human well-being or morality.
Our Creator created us with free will so that instead of being like robots, we can choose for ourselves. We use this gift many times each day, which adds to our enjoyment of life. Our Creator also gave us the gift of a conscience which can be trained to be a reliable guide by applying his high standards of morality. He tells us very clearly in the Bible what is right and what is wrong in his eyes and we are free to choose to listen to his advice or reject it. As our Creator, he knows what makes us truly happy and so he appeals to us saying: “I am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One guiding you in the way you should walk. If only you would pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river”. (Isaiah 48:17, 18)
God knows the future, so he knows all of our decisions before we do. This means we are powerless to change it, and free will is just a delusion. Your path to heaven or hell has already been determined, and you are helpless to change it.
@@sandradixon6205 You: “…..God gave us gift…enjoyment of life…”……lots of good things… Me/ Reality: For thousands of years (and even today), poor farm children has been working under the hot sun in the Farm-fields….they get thirsty, drink stream water… …get Intestinal- Parasites (tapeworms/Giardia/ or worse)….get crippled or death….. …poor farm parents don’t have money (nor medical facilities)… so they let the kids suffer and/or die… … still needing farm-hand….the parents just have replacement child… Why would a all powerful, all knowing, all merciful God, allow such “unnecessary suffering”….for millions..? …and don’t be so Naive as to say children shouldn’t drink stream water….We are taking about places and before electricity/ running water….. Fact is God can Not explain Human-Intestinal- Parasites…..but Evolution (aka no god) can…!
Answer from Perplexity AI : The relationship between free will and morality is a complex and long-debated issue in philosophy. Here are some key points about how free will and moral responsibility are connected: ## Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism The core debate centers around whether free will is compatible with determinism: - **Compatibilists** argue that free will is compatible with determinism. They believe we can have free will and moral responsibility even in a deterministic universe. - **Incompatibilists** argue that free will is incompatible with determinism. They believe true free will requires the ability to have done otherwise in an identical situation. ## Arguments for Free Will as Necessary for Moral Responsibility Many philosophers argue that free will is required for genuine moral responsibility: - If our actions are entirely determined by prior causes, how can we be truly responsible for them? - Moral praise and blame seem to require that people could have chosen differently. - Punishment may only be justified if people have free will and could have done otherwise. ## Compatibilist Views on Free Will and Morality Compatibilists offer various arguments for how we can have moral responsibility even in a deterministic universe: - Free will can be defined as the ability to act according to one's own motivations and character, rather than external constraints. - What matters for moral responsibility is whether we identify with our actions, not their ultimate causes. - Our practices of holding people morally responsible can be justified on consequentialist grounds, regardless of metaphysical free will. ## Challenges to Libertarian Free Will Some argue that libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise in an identical situation) faces issues: - It may reduce our actions to mere chance or randomness. - It's unclear how such a free will could be compatible with our scientific understanding of the world. ## Alternative Views Some philosophers propose alternative frameworks: - **Semicompatibilism**: Moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, even if free will in the fullest sense is not. - **Hard incompatibilism**: Free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, so we lack moral responsibility. ## Practical Implications The free will debate has significant implications for: - Criminal justice and punishment - How we assign praise and blame - Our understanding of human agency and autonomy In conclusion, while there is no consensus, most contemporary philosophers believe some coherent notion of free will and moral responsibility can be preserved, even if it differs from common intuitions. The debate continues to evolve as our scientific understanding of human decision-making advances. Sources [1] Free Will - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ [2] Compatibilist Libertarianism: Advantages and Challenges ... www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/krt-2021-0035/html?lang=en [3] Compatibilism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ [4] Compatibilism - Free will and moral responsibility - Britannica www.britannica.com/topic/free-will-and-moral-responsibility/Compatibilism [5] Free Will and Moral Responsibility - 1000-Word Philosophy 1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/06/02/free-will-and-moral-responsibility/ [6] Free will and moral responsibility | Definition, Theories, & Facts www.britannica.com/topic/free-will-and-moral-responsibility [7] The notion of free will and its ethical relevance for decision-making ... bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0371-0 [8] Is Morality Open to the Free Will Skeptic? jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/1817
This is such an intelligent conversation. Religious folks will dismiss moral subjectivity in favor of their immutable holy books versions of morality, but the reality is that even those holy books have gone through several reformations. What people see as the "final copy" is often just a link in the causal chain of subjective changes.
Universal morality depends on universal agreements, which we don't have. A necrophiliac would find the dead deer scenario to be well within acceptable behavior. Eating a dog would have zero emotional effect on several cultures. On and on. Morality is a local construct to help keep our particular societies functioning. Nothing is "bad" until it proves to be detrimental to a group. As for freewill, it seems to me we have two choices. One is that we have freewill and we think and create and do, and don't do all based on our desires. Or, we don't have freewill, and nature was bound to paint the Mona Lisa and write the song, YMCA, which I'll never forgive it for. I'm not claiming to know which is correct, btw.
Even though there might not be anything wrong with a subsequent payoff in kind for doing something * when you haven't taken someone for their life's savings, you may not be left with much scope alternatively. * The right, or power, to question and ability, or authority, to answer are dual-complementary?
It's not really clear what those who believe in freewill really mean by "free" when they talk about "freewill". Free from what exactly? And how exactly is the will free from that?
People with lesions to the ventromedial PFC lose the capacity to make moral decisions. It’s notably profound in frontotemporal lobar degeneration, when previously law-abiding people become habitual offenders.
Interesting, she closes with, “I don’t believe in ‘conscious free will’.” -- No? then you and Lawrence wasted 8 minutes of my life to hear you describe neurology findings with zero relevance to ‘the question’. Thank you very much, don’t call us, we’ll call you.., (you can leave now) ….
There's a disgusting soup of objective and subjective, of moral and ethical. Without understanding difference between one and another there's a hell and high water all in one.
Typical philosophical side-stepping of the issue. When you can't get to the heart of the question, find some detail to re-define. She didn't discuss free will at all, except to say that she didn't believe in it. Without explanation or examination.
OM goodness, she copped out at the end. "We are responsible for our actions, but I don't believe in a conscious free will." That is literally walking the fence. Ok. Not literally. But, u know what I mean. Let me give this a go. All three scenarios were "wrong." The third was wrong because it was theft. The second was wrong because it was assault. The first is a little trickier, but check this out. People who have some of the worst psychological problems in the world demonstrate this type of behavior. It is unnatural. If found, the individual should be directed to a place they can receive help.
"What's immoral is relatively subjective in some sense" (6 min. mark). What is immoral is totally subjective. The problem with having a strong sense of morality is the brittle emotional base that it requires. One husband discovers that his wife is cheating on him and he falls apart, even though he knows that the divorce rate is fifty percent. Another husband discovers that his wife is cheating on him, and he just laughs knowing human nature. The highly moral person is emotionally fragile compared to the person who thinks that nothing is good or bad, only thinking makes it so. And we certainly have free will about what we consider good or bad. If I choose, I can be offended by everything, or by nothing. Becoming mature is to go from being a paranoid schizophrenic to being a psychopath. Emotional pain occurs, when delusion meets reality. The person with a accurate sense of reality hardly ever experiences emotional pain.
"Harmful to others" seems like a sufficiently objective basis for a claim of immorality. In practice, there's no compelling reason to use the loaded term "immoral" if what really is meant is "harmful." And regardless of whether someone believes in "free will," it makes sense for society to deter harmful behaviors by holding perps accountable (unless there's a better way to deter). Wheatley's three categories of immorality aren't as cleanly separable as she claims they are. She says cheating on taxes is an example of dishonesty that causes no harm, but it's pretty clear that cheating harms society by defunding government programs or increasing the public debt... especially if many people cheat. Also, there have been cases where people haven't paid taxes and have been publicly open/honest about it (to make a political point). The dead deer might not disgust everyone, since disgust is so subjective. And since disgust is subjective, people could be disgusted by the violent behavior in her second example -- the example that's supposed to be harmful but not disgusting -- and could be disgusted by tax cheats in the third example. Kuhn should not have cut the video so short. Wheatley said morality is an "iffy" concept for people who don't believe in free will, and it's a good bet that she went on to say more, to make her point less vague.
Disgusting? When you don't do something often enough. Cannibalism is disgusting, unless you're a member of the Donner Party, or those Uruguayan soccer players, stuck in the freezing mountains with nothing to eat. Dishonest? What is it called when the bank cheats you? Business. Harmful? Simple: That which weakens us.
@@haydenwalton2766 yes. While it could be immoral to be harmful, immortality seems to be about the relation between the Subject and the Other. If Harm is included, why then not also include 'being good'. 'Harm' seems to be one of many expressions of 'morality'. But not part of the definition.
what is moral (generally accepted code of conduct) in one culture or situation might be considered immoral in a different one... an example is the cannibalism practiced by a survival group when they were wrecked on top of a remote mountainous region...
Free Will is fallacies when unpredictable consciousness keep out how figure out random reality. It emerges morality is inconsistency with random reality . Senseless.
Free will is the review of moral constructs. Morality is a constructed framework of dealing with a changing reality. A way of keeping one safe in a dangerous world.
Because the world is free, this framework is subject to change. Judgement changes with new contexts, content.
We live in an imperfect world ...ruled by emotions
We are here to experience the good and the bad of reality, leaving other conscious beings to be free to do the same is the most important aspect of morality. Second aspect is to ponder and experience on the difference between good and evil.
Robert, I watched almost all your episodes of closer to truth. It is a matter of great pleasure for me that almost all the episodes that you published has the same content that I think about life and the cosmos. So I am very thankful that you resolve my queries about the quest for finding out the real truth.❤❤❤
Coming to the question of free will,I also watched all your episodes. I will be pleased if you also know about my views about free will.
I think before getting into the truth behind whether free will exist or not we need to ponder a little about the double slit experiment. This experiment reveals that the real world exist as what the observer sees. An observer is a connection between the physical and the metaphysical. Our physical body is divided into various parts of every part has a free will of its own that is controlled by the brain and the heart. The metaphysical lies,according to the upanishads, (old Indian texts), inside our hearts. We do not know what a metaphysical being is but we do know that it is an abstract physical entity. I do not know much about the abstract physical entity but I do know that this coordination between the metaphysical being and the physical being gives rise to our consciousness but we cannot say that it is US or we or it is our fee will.we respond to the external world which is a Quantum fraction of dimensions. The meta physical being makes decisions and thus those decisions are obeyed by the physical being ( our brain and other body parts), so we do not make decisions in our physical mind but obey the decisions made by the metaphysical being. Because the real world is determined already by the physical world, the metaphysical mind makes the decisions but how it makes the decision we do not know but it is not in our control but it is partially a coordination of the metaphysical and the real physical being. So the free will that we think is not the physical being but the real free will comes from underneath the metaphysical being.
As we do not make decisions, it is infact the meta physical being that does, the real world which a dimensional entity fragments into those dimensions that we chose....we choose the dimensions and by we means..... combination of metaphysical desicions and physical obedience.
❤❤❤
Free will is already a misjudgment by humans of the human condition as it is. Morality is inherently relative and subjective. There is no inherently moral or immoral actions. If the universe is indifferent and amoral, then so are we.
As Wheatley said in this video, you are still responsible for your actions despite not having free will. It’s that simple. If we all recognize that we are byproducts of past experiences, genetics, evolution, etc., then we can also recognize the undesirable traits or actions that we may manifest or that may manifest from us unconsciously, because of those aforementioned variables.
If a murderer knows he enjoys murder, despite not having control over it or knowing why, he is responsible for the acts of murder he commits.
Judging someone’s act as immoral likely involves very different neural pathways than actually doing or considering an act which one considers immoral.
It may not be possible for a finite being such as a human to know exactly to what extent they have free will. In such a case, it would seem morality can best be achieved by simply trying to guide peoples behavior in the way that seems to promote human well-being or morality.
Morality:
Reducing or eliminating unnecessary suffering while promoting health and well-being.
Would that be by free will or by choice or by some other method such as mindfulness?
Good luck defining health and well being
🙏
Our Creator created us with free will so that instead of being like robots, we can choose for ourselves. We use this gift many times each day, which adds to our enjoyment of life. Our Creator also gave us the gift of a conscience which can be trained to be a reliable guide by applying his high standards of morality. He tells us very clearly in the Bible what is right and what is wrong in his eyes and we are free to choose to listen to his advice or reject it. As our Creator, he knows what makes us truly happy and so he appeals to us saying: “I am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One guiding you in the way you should walk. If only you would pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river”. (Isaiah 48:17, 18)
Then How do you explain God and “Human-intestinal-Parasites”…?
Total nonsense based on no evidence whatsoever.
God knows the future, so he knows all of our decisions before we do. This means we are powerless to change it, and free will is just a delusion. Your path to heaven or hell has already been determined, and you are helpless to change it.
@@jimliu2560 I don't understand your question. Could you clarify what you mean?
@@sandradixon6205
You: “…..God gave us gift…enjoyment of life…”……lots of good things…
Me/ Reality: For thousands of years (and even today), poor farm children has been working under the hot sun in the Farm-fields….they get thirsty, drink stream water…
…get Intestinal- Parasites (tapeworms/Giardia/ or worse)….get crippled or death…..
…poor farm parents don’t have money (nor medical facilities)… so they let the kids suffer and/or die…
… still needing farm-hand….the parents just have replacement child…
Why would a all powerful, all knowing, all merciful God, allow such “unnecessary suffering”….for millions..?
…and don’t be so Naive as to say children shouldn’t drink stream water….We are taking about places and before electricity/ running water…..
Fact is God can Not explain Human-Intestinal- Parasites…..but Evolution (aka no god) can…!
Could've cut to the chase by announcing that she doesn't believe in free will at the beginning 🤔
lol right
This lady is confused. She's not addressing the question.
Answer from Perplexity AI : The relationship between free will and morality is a complex and long-debated issue in philosophy. Here are some key points about how free will and moral responsibility are connected:
## Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism
The core debate centers around whether free will is compatible with determinism:
- **Compatibilists** argue that free will is compatible with determinism. They believe we can have free will and moral responsibility even in a deterministic universe.
- **Incompatibilists** argue that free will is incompatible with determinism. They believe true free will requires the ability to have done otherwise in an identical situation.
## Arguments for Free Will as Necessary for Moral Responsibility
Many philosophers argue that free will is required for genuine moral responsibility:
- If our actions are entirely determined by prior causes, how can we be truly responsible for them?
- Moral praise and blame seem to require that people could have chosen differently.
- Punishment may only be justified if people have free will and could have done otherwise.
## Compatibilist Views on Free Will and Morality
Compatibilists offer various arguments for how we can have moral responsibility even in a deterministic universe:
- Free will can be defined as the ability to act according to one's own motivations and character, rather than external constraints.
- What matters for moral responsibility is whether we identify with our actions, not their ultimate causes.
- Our practices of holding people morally responsible can be justified on consequentialist grounds, regardless of metaphysical free will.
## Challenges to Libertarian Free Will
Some argue that libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise in an identical situation) faces issues:
- It may reduce our actions to mere chance or randomness.
- It's unclear how such a free will could be compatible with our scientific understanding of the world.
## Alternative Views
Some philosophers propose alternative frameworks:
- **Semicompatibilism**: Moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, even if free will in the fullest sense is not.
- **Hard incompatibilism**: Free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, so we lack moral responsibility.
## Practical Implications
The free will debate has significant implications for:
- Criminal justice and punishment
- How we assign praise and blame
- Our understanding of human agency and autonomy
In conclusion, while there is no consensus, most contemporary philosophers believe some coherent notion of free will and moral responsibility can be preserved, even if it differs from common intuitions. The debate continues to evolve as our scientific understanding of human decision-making advances.
Sources
[1] Free Will - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
[2] Compatibilist Libertarianism: Advantages and Challenges ... www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/krt-2021-0035/html?lang=en
[3] Compatibilism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
[4] Compatibilism - Free will and moral responsibility - Britannica www.britannica.com/topic/free-will-and-moral-responsibility/Compatibilism
[5] Free Will and Moral Responsibility - 1000-Word Philosophy 1000wordphilosophy.com/2014/06/02/free-will-and-moral-responsibility/
[6] Free will and moral responsibility | Definition, Theories, & Facts www.britannica.com/topic/free-will-and-moral-responsibility
[7] The notion of free will and its ethical relevance for decision-making ... bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0371-0
[8] Is Morality Open to the Free Will Skeptic? jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/1817
There is no free will. There. Fixed it.
@@markb3786 of course not. Your answer proves it.
This is such an intelligent conversation. Religious folks will dismiss moral subjectivity in favor of their immutable holy books versions of morality, but the reality is that even those holy books have gone through several reformations. What people see as the "final copy" is often just a link in the causal chain of subjective changes.
Universal morality depends on universal agreements, which we don't have. A necrophiliac would find the dead deer scenario to be well within acceptable behavior. Eating a dog would have zero emotional effect on several cultures. On and on. Morality is a local construct to help keep our particular societies functioning. Nothing is "bad" until it proves to be detrimental to a group.
As for freewill, it seems to me we have two choices. One is that we have freewill and we think and create and do, and don't do all based on our desires. Or, we don't have freewill, and nature was bound to paint the Mona Lisa and write the song, YMCA, which I'll never forgive it for. I'm not claiming to know which is correct, btw.
Even though there might not be anything wrong with a subsequent payoff in kind for doing something * when you haven't taken someone for their life's savings, you may not be left with much scope alternatively.
* The right, or power, to question and ability, or authority, to answer are dual-complementary?
It's not really clear what those who believe in freewill really mean by "free" when they talk about "freewill". Free from what exactly? And how exactly is the will free from that?
People with lesions to the ventromedial PFC lose the capacity to make moral decisions. It’s notably profound in frontotemporal lobar degeneration, when previously law-abiding people become habitual offenders.
Interesting, she closes with, “I don’t believe in ‘conscious free will’.” -- No? then you and Lawrence wasted 8 minutes of my life to hear you describe neurology findings with zero relevance to ‘the question’. Thank you very much, don’t call us, we’ll call you.., (you can leave now) ….
There's a disgusting soup of objective and subjective, of moral and ethical. Without understanding difference between one and another there's a hell and high water all in one.
Typical philosophical side-stepping of the issue. When you can't get to the heart of the question, find some detail to re-define.
She didn't discuss free will at all, except to say that she didn't believe in it. Without explanation or examination.
Exactly.
human choices with God free will sovereignty for divine central authority unity are moral?
OM goodness, she copped out at the end. "We are responsible for our actions, but I don't believe in a conscious free will."
That is literally walking the fence. Ok. Not literally. But, u know what I mean.
Let me give this a go. All three scenarios were "wrong."
The third was wrong because it was theft.
The second was wrong because it was assault.
The first is a little trickier, but check this out. People who have some of the worst psychological problems in the world demonstrate this type of behavior. It is unnatural. If found, the individual should be directed to a place they can receive help.
Chic fil A Rob 😂😅😅😅😂
"What's immoral is relatively subjective in some sense" (6 min. mark). What is immoral is totally subjective. The problem with having a strong sense of morality is the brittle emotional base that it requires. One husband discovers that his wife is cheating on him and he falls apart, even though he knows that the divorce rate is fifty percent. Another husband discovers that his wife is cheating on him, and he just laughs knowing human nature. The highly moral person is emotionally fragile compared to the person who thinks that nothing is good or bad, only thinking makes it so. And we certainly have free will about what we consider good or bad. If I choose, I can be offended by everything, or by nothing. Becoming mature is to go from being a paranoid schizophrenic to being a psychopath. Emotional pain occurs, when delusion meets reality. The person with a accurate sense of reality hardly ever experiences emotional pain.
Interesting.... Good. Nice. You have teared down all the morality papers.
@@sujok-acupuncture9246 you're welcome.
Objective morality or subjective?
Morality is subjective. Ethics is objective
Hot & Smart 🥳
I'll give you hot.
This comment was disgusting but neither dishonest nor harmful.
@@DefaultModeNetwork lol, ur mind is a bit sick.
"Harmful to others" seems like a sufficiently objective basis for a claim of immorality. In practice, there's no compelling reason to use the loaded term "immoral" if what really is meant is "harmful." And regardless of whether someone believes in "free will," it makes sense for society to deter harmful behaviors by holding perps accountable (unless there's a better way to deter).
Wheatley's three categories of immorality aren't as cleanly separable as she claims they are. She says cheating on taxes is an example of dishonesty that causes no harm, but it's pretty clear that cheating harms society by defunding government programs or increasing the public debt... especially if many people cheat. Also, there have been cases where people haven't paid taxes and have been publicly open/honest about it (to make a political point). The dead deer might not disgust everyone, since disgust is so subjective. And since disgust is subjective, people could be disgusted by the violent behavior in her second example -- the example that's supposed to be harmful but not disgusting -- and could be disgusted by tax cheats in the third example.
Kuhn should not have cut the video so short. Wheatley said morality is an "iffy" concept for people who don't believe in free will, and it's a good bet that she went on to say more, to make her point less vague.
Disgusting? When you don't do something often enough. Cannibalism is disgusting, unless you're a member of the Donner Party, or those Uruguayan soccer players, stuck in the freezing mountains with nothing to eat. Dishonest? What is it called when the bank cheats you? Business. Harmful? Simple: That which weakens us.
I don't see why Disgust and Harm should be included in morality..
no harm in a description of morality ?
@@haydenwalton2766 yes. While it could be immoral to be harmful, immortality seems to be about the relation between the Subject and the Other. If Harm is included, why then not also include 'being good'. 'Harm' seems to be one of many expressions of 'morality'. But not part of the definition.
Thalia is hot!
what is moral (generally accepted code of conduct) in one culture or situation might be considered immoral in a different one... an example is the cannibalism practiced by a survival group when they were wrecked on top of a remote mountainous region...
I remember seeing that film a long time ago. Plane crash, right. I guess when pushed to the brink, survival takes priority and leads.
@@S3RAVA3LMthat's right S3R... that was a real life story...
There is no Absolute morality……everything is dependent on the situation….
👍❤️👍❤️
Free Will is fallacies when unpredictable consciousness keep out how figure out random reality. It emerges morality is inconsistency with random reality . Senseless.
I think eating the body of Christ is disgusting and should be banned