Where is the moral?

According to Webster's dictionary is "moral" is defined as follows: of, relating to, or dealing with the principles and rules of conduct right or the distinction between right and wrong. To simplify things, the moral is, that this "wrong" or "right." We live by this transparent power in individuals and in society as a whole day and its been denied, but have you ever wondered where they came from and are an absolute universal truth which is that there is a fundaMental intrinsicwe all follow? Or the morality relative, depending on the time and culture? I want to open shed light on this subject by my discoveries, new ways of thinking. First of all I would like to understand what brings morality and I am assuming that everyone has some kind of understanding is known, morality exists because our reactions, we would never say .. "It's not fAir", "that is not right" or "this is not right." Our answers will help us to identifywhat is justice. We would never believe is that the attacks of 9 / 11 "wrong" and were the Holocaust was "evil." "Good," "bad," "right" wrong "and" right "are descriptive words in relation to morality. Without morality there is no basis for human rights. Even without morality there is no way to measure the difference . When We analyze the behavior of Hitler and Gandhi, we are with morality. Without them, stateMents like "Racism is wrong," "Murder is bad", "Child Abusepoor "would not have objective meaning, and it would be a matter of opinion as" chocolate tastes better than vanilla. "In fact, Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers really thought morality given by the American Declaration of Independence" We hold these truths to be self-evident. "If morals do not exist then he would not apologize for the breach of them. So we can see from these arguments that morality exists.

Withthus established, I would continue to the next with a discussion of the first theme, where morality is derived. Some evolutionists claim that morality is a product because of the development. To steer the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next by mutation, migration or horizontal gene transfer. The moral, which determines what is right or wrong, as I said earlier, it is necessary in order to benefit the species. WithoutThe moral of the road would not have survived, because the harmful and destructive activities to end. In other words, as humans, we have the morale to be good to each other for the simple reason of survival. This seems like a more legitimate, others to be corrected? I accept something as we take a look at this more. First of all, evolutionists are materialistic sense that there are all the material, such as atoms and molecules. If this is the case, then thereshould be a way to measure its physical morality. How much is the "hate-molecule" weigh? What is the chemical composition of love? This is absurd, because the materials are responsible for a non-material thing as morality. If the materialist and evolutionist is correct, then we should not blame Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden for their actions, because it has only a few molecules in their evil, and it was inevitable, because of their genes. Apparently, Hitler also supportsDarwinian point of view, eliminating the Jews, when he was but an inferior race. But we all agree that he was wrong, is not it? Should we blame evolution? Of course not! In addition, we can say that the morality of such "good" than necessary. Now this statement is also counterproductive, as can the word "good" when it used to be an end in itself moral terms.

Then We Came

By definition we use when we have something "good" or "bad" defined anyway? Who isbegin to say what is "good" for the species and the fact that survival is starting to "good"? And who is it for? It is that moral reciprocity for each species or group? Who has the right, is not it? How could such a process to determine what "right" or "wrong" is the first point is that the evolution of knowing what "right" or wrong? "In other words, how can something be the impetus for being" right "to act when there is no" right "or wrong to begin"?The moral was not the source of his. If morality is the product of evolution, then why work hard with the weak, when it's all a matter of "survival of the fittest", why should we feel pity for the weak, incapable and disabled? If evolution strives ultimately to the target of survival because it can explain why people commit suicide, engaged in destructive behavior to drug abuse, or make use of their noble lives for others? If a groupSpecies were in direct competition with their counterparts in the same age, but they were more moral, you do not have competition? But it is not valid CS Lewis would have added a different perspective on this issue?

Where is the moral?

If you see someone fall down and ask for help, our instinct tells us to be safer to say that our instincts to help the weak to resist. However, there is a third thing to suppress the strongest and encourages theWeaker, we should help, and that instinct can not be.

And if all this can be explained in terms of evolution then our curiosity to seek the truth and understand that morality is a fixed wiring itself, in which we have no control. All in all I have to say that evolution is a biological explanation for man's moral faculties, which states that evolution is responsible for injury to feelings faces great difficulties. You look at what I call a 2-pointDilemma:

1 If morality is a natural source by genetics, then it is not objective or absolute, there is no right or wrong, and our values ​​are equivalent to one in which we did, the mucus has come when we say for no reason, we can be morally better, the only reason is to understand about morality, because they are genetically designed to do.

2 Even if morality were genetically subjective, then we should not blamePeople for murder, rape and theft, because they were hard as wired. His permission. It would be only one opinion on others in order to obtain and to stop complaining and moaning!

For me, evolution is no justice in defense, in which morality is not morality from.If then evolution came from, where it came from? We need to look for other ways to answer this question, perhaps. But what about society and culture? CouldBusinesses play an important role in the development of morality? I think so, but I do not agree that was the cause of morality. But another challenge. Where are the customs of their society? The generation before them? And where the company has on their morality? It would be a question without end, without a satisfactory answer. Some can not try to tell the difference between morality in various countries, but the similarities. For example, Hinduslove the cows, but Americans eat the cows must be different morality. But the reason why Hindus do not eat cows because they believe that their ancestors live in them, but the Americans did not. If the Americans shared the same beliefs then you probably would not have eaten the grandmother. The basic truth is that murder is wrong. The belief may be different, but the moral is always the same.

Now that the issue of abortion? Some say that peopleCustoms, if the reference. The reason why its called into question, because nobody extent to which a person can actually determine. No mother would her child for the sake of murder or knowledge of it, wrong to murder. If everyone knew, was at that point then there would be a big disagreement. Ronald Regan also pointed out that if all were returned to their mother's womb, would be against abortion. When considering abortion, there is a hugeControversies and divisions between pro choice and pro-life, some of the adDresses that shows that morality is relative. The belief that if a person can actually change the morality that murder is wrong are still divided. While morality show, what "should" do, have different cultures, values ​​and beliefs "as" should be done. For example, we all know that when we meet someone who "should," and Hello to express a kind of confirmIndividual. However, he waved to express different cultures so different from a kiss, a hand, shake hands, hug, etc. So, some may see the differences, but what about the similarities? Do you think that a country or a civilization, no matter what time it would have been a coward to honor? It would be a man who raped and murdered their parents praise their children? Of course not! This is ridiculous to believe.

If anyone, regardless of age, race, nationality, gender, culture (including the infamousMurderess was) a child on the edge of a pit, perhaps to dive until his death threat, I can guarantee that it would be compassion and concern expressed at the highest levels. This means that a universal morality that we all share. Well, what with the tribes that eat each other and to sacrifice their own people? It is not a sufficient reason, morality and culture are based on the period of time? Not necessarily, because the only reason why is because they do not think cannibalismare men. Yet know that murder is wrong, otherwise it would have been rituals, spiritual rituals, before trying his own victim, before the act because they know that their evil. Even Hitler knew murder was wrong or would not dehumanize the Jews, in order to rationalize killing them. Murderess knows that killing is wrong only that they have no remorse. There is also some confusion about the other's position on morality. Often I hear the statement: "Moralcome from God, because an atheist / agnostic and I am / or understand morality. "This does not necessarily prove that God does not exist and that morality does not come from God, just because atheists have morals. Christians believe that God was the source of morality, but because they sometimes say things immoral? Some Christians say that a atheist does not believe in God, so do not have morals. That alone is not true. Atheist or Christians have an innate knowledge of whatright or wrong. Each of us has. Religion can play an influence is not the source of morality. Religion is not necessary for the life of moral and ethical people to live. It may be that it is also said that in the animal kingdom has a lot of morals. I think there is confusion between instinct and morality. Animals have no moral sense that the outcome before they can act on them to judge and decide if its right or wrong. Animals kill each other, but it is always for thesimple reason for territorial conquests, defense, energy and Food. It is hard to imagine an animal to kill for killing, raping, and the press of war. It would be hard to put a monkey, Air conditioning, compassion, when someone steals his friend.

In summary we can say, evolution, and to maintain should not be a definitive answer, if the source of morality has come. My notes show that absolute moral laws do not exist in reality. We did not invent, but discoverit.but if the moral law had been embedded in us, then it would need a donor law!

Where is the moral?

Graco SnugRide Infant Car Seat Base, Silver Crystal Deodorant Spray