Human nature has its natural moral principles that bring equilibrium and harmony between all living and non-living things. When all humans walk by the moral path, it brings unity and peace. Living contrary results in many untold hardships and chaos. So, why then should any of us want to live immorally, irrespective of the sound moral ethics in human nature?
Well , you made me thinking !!!
Again what makes us humans is partially defined by moral believes (I am pretty sure of that ). So it depends "human nature " if beastly then we want to think we are different so should act differently . This is easier here , there are many many solutions why let the beast in you awaken .
I agree with Murthy; if such behavior is accepted by a particular society.
Human nature has its natural moral principles that bring equilibrium and harmony between all living and non-living things. When all humans walk by the moral path, it brings unity and peace. Living contrary results in many untold hardships and chaos. So, why then should any of us want to live immorally, irrespective of the sound moral ethics in human nature?
I do not understand ideas of human nature and 'moral path' taken as a given, nor these dichotomies of moral and immoral. I take certain views on acceptable and unacceptable, but charging such concepts in this fixed fashion, no? While such concepts are freely bandied about, debate stops really unless these are subject to analysis. I do not believe there is any scientific basis to these views, but one based on an unquestioning acceptance of their universal meaning.
The fact is that society considers " immoral " if you behave contrary to the human nature.
Morality needs sanction of the society in which you live. When majority groups in the community prohibit certain acts because they are contrary to the human nature, such acts become immoral in the eyes of community and even in the eyes of law.
Morality is following ethical path in the direction of natural law. Positive or natural justice is administered by man.Natural law is also termed as divine law or Law of Reasons. If you behave contrary to the 'morality' "'good reasons"' don't exist to prove your own case. The conventional law is any rule or system of rules agreed upon by persons for the regulation of their conduct towards each other
It is always immoral to behave contrary to human nature.
Don't know what natural laws mean either. So much certainty perhaps with so little scientific and philosophical basis!
Religions have defined the moral things and different religions have different rules. An act in a religion be moral but in another it may be immoral
Mustaq, religions are horribly immoral most of the time, so can hardly be arbiters of morality. The Pentateuch contains murder, genocide, killing of children! Where is the morality?
''Is it always immoral to behave contrary to human nature?''
The way the question is asked, the only possible answer is Yes. Having said that, we have said nothing about what is it to act in conformity to human nature, or what is morality. We are at still at square 1.
In what way is human nature normative? These are the questions I shall address from the perspective of a natural law theorist, or to be more specific, from the perspective of what is often called the new natural law theory, in the line of Germain Grisez, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, and others. To approach the question, I shall first specify one way I think human nature is not morally normative. I shall then explain what I mean by nature when speaking of human nature, how I think free choice is related to human nature, how we reach basic practical insights and basic moral principles based on our nature, and I shall conclude by considering some theological worries about our natural knowledge of basic moral principles.
http://www.patrickleebioethics.com/nature-morality.htm
Regards..
There is an instinct for the sons of Adam, the fun of God the people on it has been mentioned in the Koran, which represents the nature of man and must be committed to it
I don't think so.Because, definition of morality varies time to time and place to place.
Yes, Humberto, human nature has its cultural development, and through that contains a number of imperatives to do with urban life. We now do not act as we did in the past, act randomly towards others, decapitate when we feel irritated, or a number of other forms of atrocious behaviour. This of course has nothing to do with moral dichotomies.
The questions really insists that humanbeings are naturally good, as with Rousseau, and maybe that is what we should be debating here.
Humberto,
Human do live into mixed reality , part of it is cultural , this is the fundamental difference with between humans and other animal but this being said, the new biocultural realm is a continuation of Nature and so being itself natural. Nothing escape Nature, although Nature involved many different realm. We are still fully primates and we still enjoy primate stuff but also enjoy totally outsisde normal primate stuff but the priamate is never gone. Life evolved by adding layers, the lower layers are always the basis of everehthing.
Culture is not as fixed and stable as physics or biology, culture keep evolving , repeated periods o f rise of ciilisation and period of deacays. The human being, being a socio-cultural being, its essense is not yet really known to us. It is not a simple question of biology, it is the question of the essence of culture but we do not yet know ourself yet,what we are about.
The question cannot be answered in a simple yes or no, lest we misunderstand the question. An attempt to answer the question must first begin with how we define (im)morality. As humans most of us consider religious teachings and 'holy books' as sources of morals, and this moral code dictates (im)morality. I personally have found it bizarre that when human nature is in conflict with religious intuition such teachings itself are considered more natural than our very nature. Morality and human nature are mutually exclusive, and one's morals is relative to one's faith. To the question " Is it always immoral to behave contrary to human nature?" i would say probably not so if our source of morality stems from so called 'holy books' but if our acceptance of what morality is stems from a reasoned moral code provided for by centuries of philosophy that is accepted by the mainstream civilized world independent of religious interference, then i have come to realize that it is not always immoral to behave contrary to human nature.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology