At 11/19/09 05:15 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote:
I like the way you think! Shame is I do not have second doubt over the potential for the human race. Yet my claim is that the biblical origins of moral fibre were woven together by the fear of Satan himself.
The human species is not grounded by fear. The moral concept of fear is what I wanted to illustrate, and how fear is a factor that .
May I add that fear kept the Jews in line. Yet the principle of harm, is dictated by fear. People want to go to heaven because they fear the prospect of Hell.
Furthermore, "all emotional factors are rather minimal"? I beg to differ.
This is a list of emotions against their opposites. I would applaud you if you can build a moral judgement, without using a single one of these.
Joy - Sadness
Trust - Disgust
Fear - Anger
Surprise - Anticipation
Sadness - Joy
Disgust - Trust
Anger - Fear
Anticipation - Surprise
Optimism - Disappointment
Love - Remorse
Submission - Contempt
Awe - Aggressiveness
Disappointment - Optimism
No matter how hard I try, I only find myself being able to turn an emotional concept (moral) into a mechanical concept (systematic).
Without emotional factors, or toleration, there would not be a subsequent motivation for life-affirming decision to take place.
Explain how is it that I pursue my qualifications for example, I read hard, and I study hard, because I for one want to make something of my life, I want to make something of my life because I want to earn a nice living, I want to earn a nice living because I want to have more money to spend, I want more money to spend because I want to make the most out of life, I want the unrestricted most out of life because in the long term I want to ensure happiness in my future life; often a result of success.
Those who do not read hard, and do not study hard, to the fullest limitations of their own will (for instance being that they have full, ultimately unrestricted access to the time and resources to do the studying), may not contemplate the consequential implications which take place because of it, otherwise they would be more inclined to do the studying, out of the prospect of failure; if a man was limited in the decision of learning, or furthering himself for whatever reason, he would be autonomous, and in a mode of powerlessness. The implications which conflict his happiness would not be his fault.
If we balance the two, and appease each side of the statement, we may conclude that people who simply consider the consequences of not being fully committed to their studies, yet are aware of the very same consequences, are already ensured a certain happiness within the confines of education, because these types of people are in a mode of comfort within their academics.
Violating these terms and conditions would mean that a man is content with his academical studies, yet does not further himself in his own learning, being unrestricted in this learning, because he chooses not too. Therefore he is in a mode of happiness, and considers the prospect of failure, and is fully aware of it's consequences.
That man is tolerant to his lack of education, he accepts it, there is thus no motivation to further his own learning, and as far as he may see it there is no need because of toleration.
I justify that all moral decisions are based off an emotive principle, and if not are based on the emotive principles of another man, through the use of toleration.
If I hated (anger) gay people, I could choose to, based on what I morally see as right and wrong, isolate myself from them entirely, and be intolerant. Whereas I could also be tolerant, and simply put up with their ideals and beliefs.
Either way I am making a concious decision based on my emotions, which define what I see as right or wrong.
