So whats the solution?

Re mental health, the healthy state of being is whatever you're satisfied/comfortable with and whatever allows you to go about your daily business, so that you can house, feed, etc. yourself. — Terrapin Station

I know and have known depressed people, who work day in day out, simply out of neccessity because their families are dependent upon it, and i mean severly depressed.

I also know people who are 'comfortable' being depressed, or at the least show no desire to stop being depressed.

Are such people in a healthy state of being?

Hmmmm.

I have allways wondered whether evolution might be a good explanation as to why, (some) humans are endowed with a conscience.
For example: humans who felt an instincual revulsion to murder, lived in more stable tribes, this in turn resulted in propagation of DNA. Conversely humans who lacked this revulsion to murder, lived in unstable tribes ultimately resulting such that DNA would not get passed along. (I have no evidence for this, its just a hypothesis).

What i cannot explain is why a trait for 'not stealing' would have evolutionary advantage. That said I'm not so sure our conscience endows us with a revulsion to theft. Perhaps aversion to theft is learned rather that acquired, so a sociologucal factor rather than a biological factor.

@Brillig explained (quite well) why we evolutionarily evolved to kill humans outside our group (soilders for instance) but why we dont kill within the group (a random on the street for instance). He states

Humans have developed a myriad of instincts through evolution that promote social bonds on various levels, such as family, city, and country. — Brillig

Where i would disagree with this explanation is that cities and countries are very recent phenomenon (on an evolutionary timescale). While we are constantly evolving, an insufficient length of time has passed, during which to evolve in respect to these new sociological inventions. For the sake of enhancing your argument, when one tribe (or family) encountered another tribe (or family), their were many risks, diesease transmition or insufficient food/water for both tribes to coexist. Thus the tribe that could kill the other had an evolutionary advantage. When more tribes start killing each other it adds an additional risk factor when tribes encounter each other. The ability to kill outside of your tribe/family became a necessity for surrvival, while within the tribe/family there remain all the evolutionary factors for why not to kill. In essence within groups killing reduces surrvival, but between multiple groups killing increases chance of survival.

This is however a side note your question, my real problem with an evolutionary explanation would be that it describes how humans act and have acted. What an evolutionary explanation cannot tell us, is why we aught to act a certain way (note Humes is aught distinction). Additionally by my estimation evolution lacks a definitive value on which to ground morality or ethics, unless one counts surrvival to be a sufficient value. I find such a foundational value to be very dubious because it fails to distinguish whose survival is important, mine? Yours? Everyones?

That begs the question, What is the healthy state of being? Perhaps depression is a healthy response to the awareness of death.

Do i have to condescend so low...

Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral?
— The Devils Disciple

Because you claimed that. You said that everyone acts as if morality exists. — René Descartes

This is absurd reasoning. I will maintain that people act as if Morality exists, that is not claiming that everyone is moral all the time.
I would never claim that everyone is Moral all the time. Merely they believe or subconscious believe that morality exists.

Why do i believe something is wrong yet still do it anyway? There is a difference between what you believe and how you act.

When have i ever said war is moral? It is one of the most Immoral things i can think of.

-War is Immoral
-Slavery is Immoral
-persecuting sexual minoritys is Immoral
-Rape is still Immoral

Do I really need to spell this out.

I dont think i understand your point here. Why would you claim that just because it is happening somewhere in the world means its moral? And before you say it im not religious so i will not defend the Immoral acts that religon has preformed throughout history.

Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half.

— The Devils Disciple

It doesn't.

-Blue Banana

If you are going to make claims like that please back them up with an explanation.

@Cabbage Farmer

Is truth physical. What about complex maths. They may exhibit themselves in nature, but are they really just part of human imagination?

How does it exist?

Good question, I dont know.

You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god

Morality hasnt changed. Its is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to rape and it is still wrong to steal.
Additionaly i think it is still Moral to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. This has not changed. I am not going to claim that it comes form God. But at the very least, you must ask yourself, is it universaly true that murder, rape, and theft are wrong; is there ever a time when you should not do unto others as you would do unto yourself. If your answer is "No these are not universaly true", Forgive me for disagreeing with you.

It [Morality] does not exist without the humans that generate it.

Good point, i agree. Just as i do not think that the universe exists without conscious beings to percieve it. My best guess at where morality comes from is that somewhere deep in the human pysche there exists an inate schematism that transcends the indivdual and via the means of this schematism an individual can comprehend Moral truth. Kinda like the lingustic schematism Chomsky talks about. And no i dont have an evidence for this. And No this is not a spiritual thing.

@charleton

How does it exist?

good question i have no idea.

You might want to consider this. If morality is objective, ask yourself why has morality changed over the centuries? Changing morals and laws surely implies that they are not set on stone; not written by the universe; not given us by god.

Really? Id say that; do not murder, do not rape, do not steal, have not changed. Nor has do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Am i going to say that these come from God, Certainly not. Now i will admit i dont have a good answer as to where these moral truths come from, but at the least you must ask yourself; are these 'truths' unchangeable and are they true. You may answer no but forgive me for not sharing your opinion.

The best answer i can posit as to where Morality comes from is that somewhere deep within the human Pysche there exists that which transcends the individual, and from this schematism he learns moral truth.

It [morality] does not exist without the humans that generate it.

True, but as far as im concered the universe doesnt exist without consious beings existing to observe it.

@René Descartes

You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths).
— The Devils Disciple

no one acts as if morality is relative.
— The Devils Disciple

Had you made any effort to understand what i was saying you would understand these are not contradictory claims. Why? Because morality that is relative is not morality

if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes

Of course morality exists -Rene Descartes

not if its relative.

Of course morality exists I never doubted that or said anything against it, but morality is relative and a social construct. - Rene Descartes

Well now the first half of that sentence truly contradicts the seccond half. Ive allready said that relative morality is not morality at all. Im afraid that we might have so fundamental a disagreement on this matter that we can progress no futher.

Answer me this

one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.

Basically im not willing to cede you the belief that relative morality is still morality. If it is true that morality is relative then right and wrong dont exist thefore morality cannot exist.

@charleton
@René Descartes

I feel like if all morality is relative then it ceases being morality because anything goes. one may claim that an action is moral for that individual. Such and individual however has not followed his reasoning to the end wherein he can apply no moral authority to his actions.

@René Descartes

What do you mean by that? You can act as though there is morality whether it is relative or not. This statement means nothing at all. Actually, it's the opposite. Everyone acts as though morality is relative. I think that one should not allow for capital punishment while someone else may think otherwise if they live in the US or in the Middle East. They act as though their morality is that it is right to execute someone, i act in an opposite manner. We are told all these morals and we live by them through our lives and they change, everyone acts as though morality is relative. Morality may or may not be relative, that is another question, but everyone acts differently in their moral standards. So the acting part I am not very convinced about.

Psychopaths are an example, but another example is an average human being, and another example would be you.

You have just proven my point. Everyone acts as if morality exists (Except psychopaths). I sense we are not actually arguing different points.

@René Descartes

I feel like you missed the point i was making.
Im not positing an answer to your question merely pointing out that no one acts as if morality is relative. At least only psychopaths, which indicates that there must be more than just social construction.

The only man whom i can recall, who i would label a total and utter relatavist is ted bundy. The problem is unless we are pyschopathic serial killers we act as if there exists a 'good' or morality which transcends man.

@René Descartes

Depends what you mean by cold war. The cold war was an idealogical war between communism and capitalism. The cold war was a war over influence, where each country tried to spread their respective ideologies. It was as much a cultral and ecconomic war as a war it was a series of physical battles. The main rivalry was between USA and the USSR, Russia as it stands today cannot be equated with the USSR, and modern Russia is a Capatalism society. the main idealogical conflict between Capatalism and Communism has ended. That is not to say that the Usa and Russia do not still maintain aminosity towards each other, this should not be equated with the cold war.

North Korea is a remnant of the Cold War, that does not mean that the cold war is still raging.

World history is nothing but a repetition of catastrophe; waiting for one final catastrophe

I think it was Emil Cioran who said that, the more i learn about the world the more i think he might be right. After the Holocaust and the atom bomb humanity was offered one chance to get it right, but it seems like we are repeating ourselves, only now the cost is too high.

When you absolutly destroy someone with strong reasoning and fact, and then at the end of the debate they just say "well i believe im right even though I can't prove it." That said ive been on the loosing sides many times, i like to think that most of the time i might say "hmm ill need to think about that" or "i think you might be right"

@CuddlyHedgehog

I seem to remember a controversial article a while ago, talking about Kant, and objectification. There might have been a thread on here about it, ill see if i can find it.

Anyway as far as i can remember the point of the article was to say that all sexual attraction is more or less objectification. Which i think i agree with. I know that women objectify men just as much as men objectify women but no one seems to care about that, (not that i do). I think we evolved to objectify one another so it seems pretty unsolvable to me, and i dont see a whole lot wrong about it.

@CuddlyHedgehog

I think the murder of millions of people is wrong. I wish i could be a pacifist akin to tolstoy in his later life. But alas that is not the case. And finally

It is therefore just as little neccesary for the saint to be a philosopher as for the philosopher to be a saint; just as it is is not neccesary for a prefectly beautiful person to be a great sculptor, or for a great sculptor to be himself a beutiful person. In general it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses -schopenhauer

@René Descartes
@CuddlyHedgehog

Jesus is God, and as God has killed so many people I don't see why Jesus would not.

"Ok, the rich people are given a choice, but if they choose wrongly their reward is death,

With all due respect, Wtf is this shit man. Irrespective of wheter you believe in God or not, this pathology is Wrong. It is the same pathology that justified the murder of millions of people under communist rule. Shame on You. Shame on You.

And seccondly this is the weirdest interpretation of christianity ive ever heard. I personally base my understanding on Tolstoys works, "the Kingdom of god is within you", and "My Confession". Tolstoy was a pacifist who influenced Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr he thought the fundametal foundation of Christianity was to love thy neighbor. In your interpretation of christianity what happen to the golden rule which was "LOVE your neighbor as yourself" that includes you rich neighbor, or are the rich for some reason allowed to be killed?

@René Descartes

Firstly Where did you get this strange idea that Karl Marx was a jew?

Seccondal whats with this strange hero worship of Karl Marx, as if he was Jesus.

Marx is more like the Jesus of Communism

think if Jesus were living in our world he would either be a Marxist or an Anarchist.

Karl marx and jesus and the antithesis of each other

1) jesus would never support the forceful seizure of property, by the state, from the rich or any man. It is true that jesus was critical of the rich however, he would have only have supported their volantarily donation of all they own. Why because jesus believes in individual freedom, unlike Marx.

2) jesus would never ever support world wide revolution. Why because he was a pacifist and would never kill anyone. Marx thinks its fine to kill the rich in the name of revolution.

3) Marx as far as i understand thought of Religon as the opressor of the poor, why? Because for the last thousand years religon kept the peasantry subservant, the upperclasses claimed divine right to rule and the uneducated peasants obeyed this claim. Just look at the indulgences and stuff like that. Now you might claim that religon should not operate like this, but in reality that is how religon work for thousand of years and marx was reacting agaisnt that reality.

@René Descartes

You seem to be a vocal supporter of communism and yet i noticed in one of your other posts you said you believe in God. Two points of view which i thought were antithetical. Did not Karl Marx say of religon that it is "the soul of the soulless conditions" and the "opium of the people". My understanding of what karl marx was getting at here was that it was religon which kept the working class subservient.

Futhermore has not everysingle communist state persecuted the religous while enforcing atheism. Some historians also claim that since communist states had no god they had no morality, which in turn justified some of the greatest mass murder in history. Death tolls ranging from 20mill to 70mill, i think it is more dispicable to call yourself a communist than a nazi. (Both being terrible).