What is morality but an unhealthy form of attachment?

[Zion]

What are examples of why morality is both a healthy & unhealthy attachment that us humans seem to cling to so heavily?

What are the pros & cons of having a set of constant morals?

I realize the potential danger of asking such a question, though it is important none-the-less.

At what point is something no longer healthy? What makes something healthy? What makes something unhealthy? It is seemingly always personal, though exceptions always arise. What constitutes an attachment & are there attachments that are healthy? If so, what makes for a healthy attachment as appose to an unhealthy one? 

Why is having a set of constant morals healthy? Under what grounds is it justified? What are the alternatives?

Please only answer if you genuinely feel that you have something that may help me to find a truthful answer to these questions.

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, Zion said:

What are examples of why morality is both a healthy & unhealthy attachment that us humans seem to cling to so heavily?

What are the pros & cons of having a set of constant morals?

I realize the potential danger of asking such a question, though it is important none-the-less.

At what point is something no longer healthy? What makes something healthy? What makes something unhealthy? It is seemingly always personal, though exceptions always arise. What constitutes an attachment & are there attachments that are healthy? If so, what makes for a healthy attachment as appose to an unhealthy one? 

Why is having a set of constant morals healthy? Under what grounds is it justified? What are the alternatives?

Please only answer if you genuinely feel that you have something that may help me to find a truthful answer to these questions.

Why is this our responsibility to help you fine a truthful answer? Based on your writing you seem plenty capable to answer these questions.

Have you studied human history? Have you studied why humans create laws?

Have you proved to yourself in your own experience that you do not need morals?

Morals are an expression of authority. So where does authority come from? 

You talk about health and are asking us what is healthy.....but who are we to tell you what healthy is? Sure we could...but who determines if what we are saying is true or not? 

You talk about what grounds is it justified...again that deals with authority so again I ask you....where does authority come from?

[Tomek6]

If you are under compulsions of doing things considered as not moral, then morality is not healthy for you. Actually it's bonding in that case. There are many people like that and they go their natural way by harming others for their own profit. This is good for them but not for you as a part of society and potential victim.

In evolution of civilisation consciousness morality should be replaced by natural habits of caring of each other. On some high levels of consciousness morality doesn't exist and on some low levels it doesn't exist either. Humanity is somewhere between

[An young being]

6 hours ago, Zion said:

What are examples of why morality is both a healthy & unhealthy attachment that us humans seem to cling to so heavily?

What are the pros & cons of having a set of constant morals?

I realize the potential danger of asking such a question, though it is important none-the-less.

At what point is something no longer healthy? What makes something healthy? What makes something unhealthy? It is seemingly always personal, though exceptions always arise. What constitutes an attachment & are there attachments that are healthy? If so, what makes for a healthy attachment as appose to an unhealthy one? 

Why is having a set of constant morals healthy? Under what grounds is it justified? What are the alternatives?

There are different set of moralities based on the person or the group being considered. For example, if you consider the locality or province you are living in, based on the local culture and their beliefs, different laws exist. Some of the factors affecting such laws will be religious beliefs, local crime rate, level of development etc. When it comes to the entire country, different laws exist considering both the local and national level factors. These depend on factors like national security, overall culture, diversity, etc. But, most countries in general follow a common set of moral principles, applicable for welfare of all human beings, such as not hurting others physically and sometimes mentally, not stealing others things etc.

But when it comes to Spirituality, since it encompasses all living beings, morality is seen as being compassionate, grateful, being a vegetarian, caring about all living beings etc. Sure, everyone can follow that, and it's good for them. But it can hurt them when others don't follow the same. If a soldier is being compassionate, the whole nation can get into trouble. If a religious leader is being compassionate, the whole religion can disappear. So, there can be universal set of moral rules only when all such groups are eliminated or grouped together under humanity.

Edited October 13, 2023 by An young being

[Schizophonia]

There is no morality, it's juste a control tols.

Either based on irrational belief, generally with a threat of punishment (karma, hell), either basically based on nothing, a argumentative loop perched in the world of conceptual thinking without any piece of the edge touching the sensitive world even a little, without any concept of this loop can touch, lead to other concepts already more tangible.

It's basically the case of vegetarian and most of dogmas derived from post-modern thought, “human rights” .

 

Yet it's very simple, you're dont want rape your neighbor because you're probably not sociopath enought, and even if it's the acse you dont want being killed by her familly and friends.

It's very tangible and pragmatic, isn't it ? But if that's what you asked, yes there is no particular issue to rape/kill people is it's enjoyable to you and if you're sure that it dont will attract problems. Exemple : If you're a psychopath viking and are going to attack a village, rape womans and reduce mens/childrens to slavery.

But it's violent for the ego, most of people prefer to come back to what i said before even if that limits them, rather that accept this "Violent Jungle Paradigm", even if it doesn't fundamentally change anything in the outside world, lol.

It's a form of denial, putting your head under the sand.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

 

40 minutes ago, An young being said:

There are different set of moralities based on the person or the group being considered. For example, if you consider the locality or province you are living in, based on the local culture and their beliefs, different laws exist. Some of the factors affecting such laws will be religious beliefs, local crime rate, level of development etc. When it comes to the entire country, different laws exist considering both the local and national level factors. These depend on factors like national security, overall culture, diversity, etc. But, most countries in general follow a common set of moral principles, applicable for welfare of all human beings, such as not hurting others physically and sometimes mentally, not stealing others things etc.

But when it comes to Spirituality, since it encompasses all living beings, morality is seen as being compassionate, grateful, being a vegetarian, caring about all living beings etc. Sure, everyone can follow that, and it's good for them. But it can hurt them when others don't follow the same. If a soldier is being compassionate, the whole nation can get into trouble. If a religious leader is being compassionate, the whole religion can disappear. So, there can be universal set of moral rules only when all such groups are eliminated or grouped together under humanity.

The social contract is a pragmatic matter, it has nothing to do with morality, with any ethics.

[An young being]

2 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

 

The social contract is a pragmatic matter, it has nothing to do with morality, with any ethics.

Of course, it is for survival and order. But qualities like compassion, gratitude and forgiveness are not dependent on society.

[Schizophonia]

2 minutes ago, An young being said:

Of course, it is for survival and order. But qualities like compassion, gratitude and forgiveness are not dependent on society.

But biology...
That's not really what we mean by moral.

[An young being]

26 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

But biology...
That's not really what we mean by moral.

You could consider them as moral qualities rather than moral laws.

[Schizophonia]

1 minute ago, An young being said:

You could consider them as moral qualities rather than moral laws.

I think it's just an energy difference.

I prefer to talk about “social qualities” something like that.

[hyruga]

If there is no morality, what do you think will happen to H?

If H attacks you, should you attack back at H?

[Schizophonia]

2 minutes ago, hyruga said:

If there is no morality, what do you think will happen to H?

If H attacks you, should you attack back at H?

Obviously.

If I try to hurt you, you're going to let it happen ? 

"Too bad I die" lol.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Schizophonia

[Shawn Philips]

Unless you'e a psychopath, you have an intrinsic guilt while being inmoral. That's because you are empathic.

[Sincerity]

I would say there is profound truth in morality. But for me it's not about a "constant set of morals". It's about an intuitive, fluid feeling of what the right thing is, in this exact moment. And doing it!

You don't need to remember any rules or commandments. The good choice right now is simply recognized.

I would suggest You can awaken to Morality as an aspect of You. Divine morality, which isn't always "good" in an obvious way. On the contrary, it's amazingly mysterious. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Sincerity

[Rafael Thundercat]

Morality is absolutize when its applied to defend me  and relativized when is applied to when others can cause me damage. 

This is not how I normaly deal in life bit how sometimes I behave. 

I get myself angry when people drive as fucks not respecting traffic rules so I defend that there must be obedience to the rules for the safety of all. But when sometimes I drive as a inconsiderate fuck I relativise the rules saying to myself that some traffic laws are stupid. 

So the thing I keep catching myself is when I play the morality in a self serving way. Is pretty tricky. 

[An young being]

7 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

. I get myself angry when people drive as fucks not respecting traffic rules so I defend that there must be obedience to the rules for the safety of all. But when sometimes I drive as a inconsiderate fuck I relativise the rules saying to myself that some traffic laws are stupid. . 

True. That's why a world without laws becomes disastrous.

[Rafael Thundercat]

2 hours ago, An young being said:

True. That's why a world without laws becomes disastrous.

In my dreams sometimes I visit this world. Where I can do anything with no need to care of morality or law. But of course all in the safety of my sleeping bed. As soon as you wake up you better obey some or many rules unless you want to lose your freedom or life. So we can see the morality is a way to keep ourselfs alive, because we see that the ones that go to much crazy lost their freedom or life. Beautifull if to do the rigth thing just for the sake of doing the rigth thing, for sake of wisdom and joy and not for any external gain or punishiment. To get the stick and the carrot under your own command. Motivated by Truth, Love, Beauty instead of Fear.