Cheese85 wrote:The title says most of it really.
As there is no morality in nature, why pretend we have it or need it. Nothing in life is based around what's fair, or moral, it's all chaos and chance.
The concept of 'treat others how you would like to be treated' is a reasonable form of pack mentality to keep yourself safe, but we do not practise this in a pure form, even from within that group we fight for hierarchy like all other pack mammals do, and we are willing to break these moral rules when we see fit.
So why must we pretend, why can't we call it as it is, their is no morality, ethics are based on perspective, why pretend things are good or bad, why can't things just be referred to allowed or not allowed, whether people find those things right or wrong, modern society being successful is solely based on what's allowed or not allowed within social groups.
Where those that allow the most usually progress the quickest.
You seem to be saying a number of things here. First, there's the suggestion that if there is no morality in nature, it's somehow wrong to suppose that we have it or need it. I'm not sure whether you are contrasting nature with human society or assertions of fact with moral assertions. In either case, I think I'd want to question your suggestion.
Second, there's the suggestion that if we depart from the Golden-Rule maxim, there must be something wrong with the maxim. But what exactly?
Third, there's the suggestion that societies that " allow the most usually progress the quickest." I take it that you think progress ( in some sense) better than stasis or regress. And I suppose that most of us would agree. But how well does the notion that progress
is better sit with the notion that it somehow wrong to use moral language?
I may well have misunderstood you, of course, and I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. So your comments would be welcome.