Zygimantas

Which is why we value efficiency. We can't control it so we make the most of what we get. But I don't like how society goes about it. I don't think schools should try to cram in as much homework and subjects as possible in a short period of time. You know what that leads to? Stress. I think people ( at least in the U.S) today are stressed because they have too much to do in too little time.

I have similar thoughts sometimes. But I don't want to be homeless in a city area. But more like live off of nature with practically no money and away from society.

There is one annoyance that is so annoying and such a big part of most of our lives that I don't know how I forgot to mention it. Time. Time is the most annoying thing that I have ever encountered. Want more time time to do your homework? Nope, you don't get any. Want more time to play video games? Nope, you don't get any. Time has no mercy at all. You don't have control on how much you get, only on how you can use it. We are all slaves of time.

How is genetics relevant to it at all? Genetics is relevant to almost any human behavior. Certain genes probably make a person more or less future oriented.

Yea, girls with great smiles are the ones that you want to make laugh :)

I think that the want to succeed in something is based on genetics and the environment.

Well Lent, you wouldn't be having the problem with girls being too easy and not being "good" enough for you if you weren't completely awesome right?

This. I also blame the destruction of family values in society in general, the negative effects of which are magnified when applied to the poor. What do you mean by family values?

I think I should actually post some pictures for once...and add to the directory. This one is roughly half a year old. [hide][/hide] This one is about two months old. [hide][/hide]

And how is that? We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something. An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well). Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it. Right? Exactly. It's just the concept and understanding of what they're doing that they're missing, not the actions themselves. So then how could we go about finding out if they have this "understanding"?

Abortion is ok if the person who does it thinks it is the right thing to do and isn't morally against it. Personally, if I got somebody pregnant, it would depend on the situation on what I think she should do. Abortion would not be something that I would completely rule out.

And how is that? We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something. An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well). Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it. Right?

Picked up 3 books from the bookstore today: Socrates Cafe: A Fresh Taste of Philosophy, The 48 Laws of Power, and Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong. On top of that I also want/need to start reading The Odyssey for school. A lot of reading I want to do with little time :P

And how is that?

Uh, so how do they know it was because they had empathy? Seems like jumping to conclusions to me Because we would most likely do the same thing if we were in the experiment, and a psychopath would probably not give a damn and keep hitting the lever to fulfill its own needs. The chimpanzee is aware that the other monkey is hurting, if it did not care for it then it would continue to hit the lever for food. But it did care for it enough to not hit the lever for a long time ( until the chimp was insanely hungry and hit the lever to insure its own survival, which we would probably do too). The best explanation would be empathy. Of course we can never know ANYTHING 100%, but this seems to be the most logical reason.

It shouldn't matter what the reason behind it is, it is the result that should matter. Any picture without a shirt is still a picture without a shirt, no matter what the situation is...

Good? Bad? Don't leave us in suspense! REVIEW! REVIEW! That movie was OK. Kinda boring though.

He has a shirt on. But yes, you do need to cover up your stomach. It would be different if it was a picture of you at the beach or something. Ahh.. so you can post a picture of you at the beach with no shirt, but not at home with no shirt. Well that totally makes sense.

21st century? There has always been and will be pessimism. Anyways this topic reminds me of a book I've read, and here is a video about the book, ( same author). Make what you want to make of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJybVxUiy2U

Some morals are more of a choice, but I still think they originated in a way that makes sense. Take homosexuality for example, some people might say it is wrong because of some religious teachings. But take into account that the majority of people are heterosexual, and that we usually fear the unknown and then it makes sense why religious texts would say that homosexuality is immoral. A lot of people view homosexuals as abnormal, and because many tend to fear the abnormal they decide that it is not a good thing. Therefore, because of their fear of something that seems unusual, people tend to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

But morals aren't the same thing, nothing is inherently right or wrong. We decide what is right or wrong, and that takes a higher brain function than other animals have imo. Taking care of the sick in your pack isn't inherently right or wrong, neither is culling the herd. But what in our brains makes us decide what is right instead of wrong? I just think that humans and animals make their morals based on their instincts and emotions, of course for humans not all morals are the simple, but some are. I could not make myself think that killing is right, because if I did kill someone, no matter how hard I would try not to, I would still feel bad. Why would I feel bad? Because I have empathy. Why do I have empathy? Because it stops me from killing or hurting people, and makes it easier to preserve the human race. Murder being wrong is not a moral we decide to have, it is a moral that we are forced to have. Monkeys have also been shown to have empathy for other monkeys. There was an experiment done where the scientists put a chimpanzee in a room, and there was a lever. When the monkey smacked the lever it got some food. But then there is a window in the room that leads to another room, where another chimpanzee is placed. They have never seen each other before and are not relatives. Now, when the 1st chimpanzee hits the lever the 2nd gets an electrical shock. The first chimpanzee then stops hitting the lever and goes without food for a long time in order not to hurt the other chimpanzee that it doesn't even know. It is not because the chimp simply decided that hurting the other is wrong, it is because he felt empathy toward the other which made him think that hurting the other is wrong. This is similar to why we have certain morals.

The voice seems to be a big part of physical attraction ( for me at least). If a girl is going to talk to me a lot, she might as well sound sexy when doing it, or at the very least not annoying.

[hide] Uh, no. Beating up and eating a cute little bird seems wrong, but to the dog it's pretty enjoyable thus he is happy. The owner arrives home from work, I know MY dog doesn't think for a walk or food or anything else because we don't give it to him once we arrive, but he likes our presence. Our presence isn't right or wrong its just something he likes and thus is happy. We hit him with a broom because he peed inside the garage, it wasn't a morally wrong thing to do but he's taught not to do it so he's scared when we come out because we'll be upset and probably hit him. Animals don't have morals. But saying they don't have emotions is the stupidest thing I've heard. Thinking emotions = human intelligence which leads you to say animals don't emotions is stupid as well. Well, maybe its just not morally wrong for the dog to kill the bird, animals probably just have a different level of empathy. Its not going to attack you because you give it food, and that makes the dog realize that that would be a wrong thing to do, so it becomes a moral. And if I got hit every time I did something, I'd probably soon realize its not a good idea as well. That's not a moral. A moral is, "Wow, that was a mean thing to do. I won't do it again." What the dog developed was fear. "Wow, I peed in the garage and that guy beat the hell out of me with a stick. Better not do that again." I wasn't talking about the dog peeing in fear; what about those animals that help their weak and feed their sick that somebody said a few pages back. What would that be? Preservation of the species. They instinctually feel the need to preserve their companions. There are also many who do not feel this need, or who intstinctually feel the opposite. [/hide] Does this instinct not form the basis for our morals? I mean, we feel more empathy for people who are closer to us in genetic makeup because we want to preserve our species, which in turn leads most of us to thinking that murder is wrong. Its because of the emotions that are caused by instincts.

Uh, no. Beating up and eating a cute little bird seems wrong, but to the dog it's pretty enjoyable thus he is happy. The owner arrives home from work, I know MY dog doesn't think for a walk or food or anything else because we don't give it to him once we arrive, but he likes our presence. Our presence isn't right or wrong its just something he likes and thus is happy. We hit him with a broom because he peed inside the garage, it wasn't a morally wrong thing to do but he's taught not to do it so he's scared when we come out because we'll be upset and probably hit him. Animals don't have morals. But saying they don't have emotions is the stupidest thing I've heard. Thinking emotions = human intelligence which leads you to say animals don't emotions is stupid as well. Well, maybe its just not morally wrong for the dog to kill the bird, animals probably just have a different level of empathy. Its not going to attack you because you give it food, and that makes the dog realize that that would be a wrong thing to do, so it becomes a moral. And if I got hit every time I did something, I'd probably soon realize its not a good idea as well.

But isn't whats right or wrong based on emotions? If you look at morality as a human construct then there is no point in even debating this topic because the very definition of the word provides the answer.