: 推 celestial09:you are referring to religious manipulation. 10/28 09:3 : → celestial09:however, even believers have independent thoughts 10/28 09:3 : → celestial09:they won't just blindly follow it. 10/28 09:3 : → celestial09:even in religious institutions they have 10/28 09:3 : → celestial09:controversies amoung several topis + ideas 10/28 09:3 : 推 celestial09:a deep believer who turely insists his/her way of 10/28 09:4 : → celestial09:life, will not look down on others. 10/28 09:4 : → celestial09:they might be horrified by your saying murderer 10/28 09:4 : → celestial09:has no guilt or Hitler is affluent and adorable 10/28 09:4 : → celestial09:but they will never kill you like Hitler do. 10/28 09:4 Not necessarily do I refer to religious manipulation because I think that Cultural Morality is also very oppressive. A lot of Taiwanese are very hard headed about various things. Today when I was getting out of my Uni some woman gave me this pamphlet that was saying how dangerous Tibetan Buddhism is and how "immoral" they were for worshipping sex. I personally think there is nothing wrong with worshipping sex but a lot of Taiwanese (females) think that "lust" is immoral, because it's a cultural value. Women are always being pressured by other women to reject sexual desire etc. It's also society thing, but the level of severity on how strongly people insist on a particular value depends on the Culture. Taiwanese people in majority don't believe in religion or at least they aren't very zealous about the morals taught by their religion, so no I am not merely referring to religious values. Also, I don't think all believers are blind but as I've stated before, these believers disagree with one another because they have different personal standards and personal values/beliefs. If so, why even bother to follow an archaic "universal morality" or try to interpret a historic scripture to fit their current values if what they follow is actually their personal belief? Do we really need to define our personal belief through ancient scripture and force others to completely agree with us or understand us? Believers who aren't blind already see what they want to see but what they want to see originated from their personal preference and personal values, not the actual "univeral morality" thing. Some modern Christians have great philosophies, but those are always the ones who follow their own personal beliefs and not what someone else taught them. Thus, values are discovered and adopted by oneself, they are personal and therefore a set moral value is now no longer needed and only limiting. It is better to say those moral concepts are there for "reference" but not as an absolute truth. : After struggling for thousands of years from mere survival : to evolve into a more formal society, : morality seemingly exceeds it's "sophisticated Ape" nature. : The frontal cortex maturely developed, and our brain began to think about : metaphysical concepts, beyond mere survival. : Human evolution should be pushed forward, not backwardly tracing to : the ancient hunter-gatherer society. The babarian nature does not make us : any good. It is only good for ONESELF. I agree with this, I think that human values should evolve and are evolving. Barbarians aren't necessarily backwards but their basic problem is the same with blind believers--they don't think much about their personal values. I also believe that it is precisely because humans have the ability to override their DNA survival instincts, it is time that we can follow our personal standards now. The concept of morality is no longer needed, what we humans should do is follow our inner values and don't try forcing them onto others or arguing with others that oneself is correct. People don't change. You can't change people--they can only change themselves. So why bother preaching absolutism? We judge based on our personal moral beliefs and not a set moral belief, so in essence there should not be a set moral belief to mislead people into thinking those are absolute and inflexible. Most people end up agreeing along the same line anyway, but they don't agree on everything to the exact same extent. However, it is always nice to see different views or express our own thoughts if we like sharing them. Of course, I don't think that all religious moral values are wrong or mistaken or bad or whatever. I agree with some Buddhism views even though at the same time I don't REALLY agree because my personal values contradict with Buddhism values. I find many values reasonable. I just deny the origin and the absolute truth those religions claim their values to have. Since I am 1% agnostic, I don't deny the existence of a god. I also think that people are free to believe and feel spiritually connected to their god, I think that religion has a certain amount of positive impact on the society, that some values makes the world a more tolerant place to live in. However, I think that an individual him/herself is the ultimate key, and so should we encourage finding one's own personal values instead of insisting that one value is absolute? If we insist an absolute value, and absolute right and wrong, that is the system of morality. I thus question if we need to continue enforcing the concept of morality or strive to develop a way to help people discover their inner values. People already by default have their own inner values, which is why they are now able to choose what they want to believe in, and if their beliefs resonate with a group of people they often join that group. If so, then the concept of absolute morality is now obsolete and actually a step backwards in the development of human society. Times are changing, and continual obstinance on archaic values will only create meaningless conflicts out of intolerance. There will be people who suffer because they are taught something they don't agree with and they are confused eternally unless they overcome the system. As for Hitler, Mao, and all those people...well, I'll talk about them some other day. They are more difficult to discuss about and today I'm not in the mood to talk about them. They're intolerant and since humans are programmed to recognize what is best for their survival, the legacy of those mass murderers are not passed down. What is passed down is always something that would improve the general survival, and if a general survival chance is increased, that means that the personal survival chance is increased. On the matter of guilt, I think guilt is the partial result of a forced morality teaching. Is it really wrong? Sometimes it isn't in a different system of moral teachings. Let's say Person A is brough up under moral system A, and person B is brought up under Moral System B. Moral System B does not consider action X to be wrong, but Moral System A views action X as immoral. Therefore, Person A will feel guilt when A does X, but Person B will not feel guilt if B does the exact same thing. However, the guilt A feels is real, even though B might feel nothing. Let's just say A wants to do X but feels guilty doing X. Maybe action X really isn't harmful but Moral System A views it so. -- --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.168.239.82