Amoral to moral?

1. 86

   Lymondposted 13 years ago

   Is it possible for an amoral community to develop morals without an outside influence? By amoral I mean completely without any knowledge of morals and by outside influence I mean an active force outside their community, i.e. not a mountain or a tree or generally inanimate object. This is a long running argument I'd be interest in a fresh perspective on. The question of whether completely amoral people would have a community has largely been ignored for the greater question...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Home Girlposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, only these are going to be amoral morals! Only insiders will think that they are perfectly ...moral. Outsiders will think that those morals are  bunch of crap.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      dutchman1951posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      yes it is. Look at the Indian Tribes, old tribes. They new nothing of the word but by survival and need to unite to survive, they developed a culture that worked, a defining of implied behavior to be in the tribe.
      
      it was moral as they developed it, not as moral defined in modern deffinition. we all learn psychologicaly how to be a memeber, to fit in.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      A thought excercise like this needs parameters.  You have to define what "having morals" means, otherwise you'll have a hodge-podge of reponses that completely explain why this "is an ongoing conversation."
      
      However, on a generic level, if you are just asking if a society can exist with no rules or behavioral constraints, where rape, murder and larceny are all perpetrated by every individual because practicing social behaviors of any kind would constitute a social (hence SOCIety) construct, then, No, a society cannot exist. 
      
      At some point the biggest, strongest/smartest person will win, and all the others will be dead.  They must be dead, because the strongest cannot enslave them: they will kill each other or be forced to unite against said victor, therefore starting a "society."  The victor can also not take a mate (willing or otherwise) as there would be no one to care for the young as doing so would represent a social behavior, so the child (and prospects for a society) would die.  Furthermore, the mate/slave must and would kill the victor or escape at the first chance possible, as any form of willing/resigned acquiesence would represent the foundation of a society as well.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, you mean the neocons? No.

      replyreport
   5. 49

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Muhammad changed an immoral savage Bedoin community into a Moral community by Revelation of Word (Quran) of the Creator-God Allah YHWH.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Not to difficult to do actually, when you're dealing with illiterate people.

         replyreport
         1. 49

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That is what the OP asked; tell him that it is so easy.

            replyreport
      2. 78

         Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         The only difference between their being "savage" and their being "moral" is their having relinquished their existing beliefs for the new ones.
         
         It is typical of empire building cultures to relegate belief systems different from their own as "savage."  It is cultural arrogance.  "Obviously anyone who doesn't believe as WE do is a savage." 
         
         The fact that someone is able to persuade or compel someone else into adopting a new social system does not mean that there was NOT a society there before.  It just means that the aggressive culture was able to change the unprepared one.  All you have done with this example is show that you see Islam as an arrogant force of cultural domination and reveal the prejudice underpinning your world view.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            RFoxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, just take a look at Australian history for a perfect example of this.

            replyreport
            1. 49

               paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Please quote some part from the Autalian history. I don't know much of it.

               replyreport
         2. 49

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I don't agree with you. Muhammad did it with his personal example and convincing others with brilliant arguments.

            replyreport
   6. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Sure.
      Because all humans have a thing called a conscience that kicks in at some point.

      replyreport
2. 72

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Your OP is strange.
   
   Morals are tied to actions. What harms or doesn't harm. Making the right or wrong.
   
   Emotions are amoral. Reactionary/instinctive feelings, which cannot be right or wrong.
   
   Therefore, your OP is talking about an amoral community, which is lead directly by emotions and not rationality or sanity, would not have the ability to create a systematic set or morals. And, if they did manage to accomplish the task, the community would die off trying to live by them.
   
   I wrote a hub on morals, for those who needed a definition for understanding.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Home Girlposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      USSR lasted almost 75 years. it was totally amoral society based on assumed assumptions and make-beliefs. People inside killed each other for crazy ideas and morals of that society.  People from outside knew nothing. Well, it could not last forever. An apple had a worm inside...

      replyreport
3. 81

   earnestshubposted 13 years ago

   Well said shades. It may have helped if the OP had understood the question he asked.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Shadesbreathposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah.  Thought games are fun, but by the very nature of the abstraction the boundaries of the game have to be established for any insight to come of it.  Otherwise it's just an exercise in free-writing. Which is fine, but doesn't belong in a philosphy thread, in my opinion.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Lymondposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I was trying to condense two years of off and on discussions with a friend on this subject into a question without overly complicating it.
      
      An amoral person would have no concept of right and wrong at all, not even to be able to come up with the concept of right and wrong.
      
      My friend argues that if this is the case, where did human morals come from in the first place? We exist a as a community, for the most part we understand our values of right and wrong, even if we choose to ignore them. From there he argues that if an amoral person cannot concieve of right and wrong, there must have been an outside influence to say this is something that is wrong and this is something that is right. From there to an intelligent being, whether thats god or the aliens :-)
      
      Perhaps you can help develope the question I'm trying to get across...

      replyreport
4. 60

   TMMasonposted 13 years ago

   America is a country which has leapt into the trans-valuation of morals, and swims in the decadence and decay wrought by such an action. We are a nihilistic people, full of abominations and abhorance to anything Godly.
   
   It is a shame... we were a great nation, once.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      A very nice positive outlook on America.

      replyreport