I feel like this is like what it would be like if we had wings. It would be a natural feeling. It would kind of just... be there.

If you knew it all, no one would like you, you would be hated and despised, maybe even imprisoned and your knowledge would be extracted by force to be used by those that had the power over you to control others. — Coeus

Also this.

I am a very negative person, so I'm probably not the one to do this, but here's my two cents: Lets say that we have an early death. In the next 1,000 years, the Homo sapiens sapiens species will not have any living members. Life on Earth, after this, will do what we should do when we encounter a travesty or the like - move on. The Earth will forget about us, and life will move on. Our death will not be a negative ultimately. It could, in fact, be a good thing if you think about it the right way. Also, if we go extinct when the sun dies out, then all the other species will die, too. so our death can't be a bad thing, because there isn't anything left to be bad to, and it's not even our fault.

It would just mean that, for example, hip hop is no longer "black music" but just music that anyone can make and listen to and it's as relevant that mostly black people do as it is that mostly people with blonde hair do. The way "black" people speak just becomes a way of speaking for people from particular areas. — Judaka

But not everyone might want to like same thing as everyone else. To achieve this, everyone would have to like the same thing, and if people didn't, there would just be separation again. Even if the separation wasn't by race, there would still be separation by groups of people over what they like. This might destroy racism, but it wouldn't stop prejudice, we just would be prejudice to people over what they like as opposed to their ethnicity. This happens on a smaller level already, such as in music communities, specifically metal. A lot of metal fans hate "metalcore", and don't even consider it metal, and have distaste for people who do. In the scenario you propose, it would basically be this on an exponential and broader scale.

My take on the subject matter is this: We are born a certain way. Literally. Our genetics combined with the habitat of our upbringings decides what kind of person we will become base-line. This is ourselves without inhibitions. We do not try to change ourselves, because this is who we are and who we know. Later on, however, we may want to be someone different. This is where inhibitions come in. By inhibiting our actions, we can change who we are fundamentally. Let me use a personal example. I used to be a real dick to people for self-entertainment. I, later on, viewed that as wrong, and inhibited myself from doing those things. I still completely have the capability to be an asshole for no reason, but I don't, I stop myself from doing that, in an effort to change myself, because my views now considered it as wrong. Inhibitions do stop us from being our natural selves, but being different from your base-line self is not a bad thing. Unless, of course, we are talking about people who copy other people, or change themselves for others, and those things. But that's a different story.
That's my take.

This sounds like a good idea, but in order to do that, we would have to eradicate everything that separated black people from white people. This would include culture, what kind of music they make/listen to, how they act and behave, et cetera. We would have to destroy the entirety of black culture in order to achieve something like this. I understand where you are coming from on this, but it really wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. It would decrease overall diversity. Black people are the same a white people biologically and those things, but culturally and socially they are different, in a general sense, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just think we would be worse off to decrease diversity.

Touchè.

Yup indeed, and that little gap is (probably) not measurable, so we can't compare people on who is closer to the truth. — Hypnos

False. We can compare what we now to two statements, and see which has more probability of being true. For example, one person says that Sarah is a whore. The other says she is a perfect little angel. You know that Sarah has done questionable stuff before, so you choose to believe the former statement. The gaps are measurable, but not precisely. To be fair though, in some situations, the gaps are immeasurable.

If you have to kill 100 innocent people or 50 innocent people, but you have to kill some, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that killing 50 is better. — NKBJ

Well, killing 100 people would lower the population more, and we would have to kill less animals AND plants because of less mouths to feed overall. So killing the greater number of people is, in this situation, the "correct" choice. Through this logic, we should start killing loads of people, as it would inhibit the amount of animals and plants killed overall, and would create more space for both of these to procreate. Perhaps only brainless fools would choose to kill 50 people?

Well, not all of these things are bad, in my humble opinion. Take that one episode of M.A.S.H. The man killed the baby. How could he kill a baby? It was the save his other troops. More people would of died had he not silenced the baby, as they were in enemy territory, and would have been spotted. There are loopholes in the common law, because if a similar event were to occur today, the person who killed would be convicted of crime.This has in fact happened before modern time. Also, I'm probably going to drop the Universe thing, as that isn't going to go anywhere.

But just because humans make morality doesn't mean it's random, illogical, or whatever you want it to be on whatever whim you have.

You assume order to things gives them meaning. Just because we have been evolutionary selected to be more likely to care for one another does not mean the Universe then bends itself to require things to care for one another. While I do believe in morality and rights, that does not mean I recognize them to be real. I know they are made up, but I like them. Why do you think people become so attached to fictional characters? Similar reasons, they find them favorable, despite the fact that they don't exist.

Yeah, I just realized you were talking about that statement and not the other one, sorry. But still, you're 100% correct. there is no law of the Universe that states "killing babies and raping women and whatnot is wrong!" Therefore, it isn't "wrong" in general. I would definitely shame you if you did these actions, but (a.) nothing really gives me the right to, and (b.) you technically have the right to do that. Really, even the moral standings of a god doesn't dictate that you shouldn't do something, as their standings also have no meaning, just like ours.

If it's for a good cause, then you're absolutely correct.

It's interesting because things that aren't even alive, like T4 and the like, appear to have some sort of complex thinking structure. A lot of beings seem to be more capable of rational thought than we give them credit for, and it makes me wish that we had a way of communicating with them. I would also like to mention Henrietta Lacks. Is "she" still alive? Is her soul still in her cells? Are her cells even her at all anymore?

I'm a bit late but would like to welcome you here nonetheless. I would inspire you to check out all fields of philosophy and to not cage yourself to one, but if you don't feel comfortable with that, then it probably won't affect your experience here. I hope that that experience is a good one.

Well, really nothing is immoral/moral unless you dictate to be in your own head. It wouldn't be immoral to eat a plant as long as the there was at least a net neutral (a.k.a killing one plant so one animal can survive.) Technically, if killing a number of plants would sustain the survival of more animals than the population of plants killed, then it would, in my opinion, be moral. Even if the plants could feel pain. This is the same line of reasoning that I use with animals.

I suffer similar (though not the same) thoughts that you do daily, and one thing that helps is that we know for a fact what life is like, as we are experiencing it (maybe.) But we don't know what death is like. If I were to kill myself, and death turn out to be worse than life, then I would have made a grave mistake, and be in for a probable eternity of suffering. We have no idea how a "soul", if you believe in one, experiences emotions or the like. It isn't worth the gamble, in my opinion. Though I have thought differently before, those are because of outside reasons that do not correlate to this situation. I hope this helps.

It's a bit bad of me to re-direct this conversation, but I must ask: what makes the moral opinions of "God", or a god, any more absolute than that of any other living being that can rationally deduct things? Why should what s/he thinks automatically be considered "absolute", whilst a man's is put on a pedestal before even being considered?

...anguish is not an emotion that you can plaster a specific face on

Perhaps, but that does not mean that there are other ways of identifying when someone is in such a state. I have been victim of "anguish", and after a while, people start to see through the cracks of my shell. Such as acting different, being touchy, et cetera. So while it may not be a breeze, there definitely is a way to define anguish in other people.

While that would in fact make killing the man the wrong choice, it would be better to end his life than run the risk of everyone dying. It would be very detrimental to kill everyone on a party out of faith that you will be rescued than to kill one for the preservation of the rest. While it does suck that no one had to be killed ultimately, it is more reasonable to perform evil actions for the potentially right choice than to do the good action out of faith, of all things. Everyone had faith the Titanic wouldn't sink. Look how that went. It is much better to base actions off of reason than faith, even if it means doing some evil things.

I, personally, really hate religion. It limits the mind and wastes time. However, I am not going to strip the ability to talk about religion from people, especially if they bring up good points about it.

A good action is an action with positive implications, and an evil action is an action with negative implications. Let's say I give you some bread and lunch-meat as a present. That was good of me. I, however, stole that food from a family of three. That was wrong. A good action that was in fact morally wrong. I've already discussed the contrary example.

Killing a person is evil. Terminating their existence and ending all of their potential is one of the worst things any person could do. However, it may sometimes be the right thing to do. Something being evil doen't make it wrong, and something being good (or "holy", if you prefer) doesn't make it right. I see my grammar mistakes, however, and would like to apologize for that.

If the person was going to die, then why would it be bad to kill him if it was inevitable? Also, it was Dudley's fault that the situation occurred, however, he did not know that the bulwark weer to fail and leave them stranded on an island, so it was not his fault that Parker died. He should not have, at least, received so harsh a punishment as death.

Let's cook up a situation where the gift given to me was something out of love/compassion, but it was something I legitimately had no use for and would be better off in someone ele's hands. Should I give it to the person, enabling them to use the gift and improving their life, ensuring the gift does not go to waste, or should I keep the gift as an expression of gratitude, not for the gift, but for the person's caring, thus also making them happy?

Yes it would, but my lack of omniscience prevents me from knowing that. I would feel really regretful if such a situation were to occur, but I wouldn't be "wrong", because it was better than the alternative of potentially limiting the amount of good in the world. I understand that that sounds more than pretentious, but I'm being serious. People have a tendency to not be nice. I view myself as helpful. I would rather a helpful person live than an unhelpful one. Take Johann Georg Elser for instance. He didn't know that man would go on to kill millions of people. So while is action was ultimately wrong, the man is not to blame for his action, so therefore, his choice was not wrong.

I'm actually having that problem myself. I've not come up with a solution yet, but I will let you know if I do.

You also have to take into account how primitive we are. I'd like to say that I could negotiate a situation where someone pulls a gun out on me, but I can't say that for certain. I would probably end up attacking immediately. Some things just can't be helped. While it may be your fault, there's not much you could have done about it, so it is not your fault that it's your fault.

This isn't directed towards me, but I'll put my two cents into it. The best way to fight this is to do as many things as possible, and regulate how you do them. For an analogy, take the reeds of woodwind instrument - using one reed continuously will cause it to be used up faster, meaning you will have to by ones more often. Using two to three reeds at a time, and switching between them, means that you preserve the reeds better, as they each aren't used so extensively, making their net lifespan longer. If you switch between doing different things, you won't burn out on them so fast. Also, try new things, even if you don't want to. Even if you end up not liking it, it will still be something that takes up your time. I hope this helps.

. An evil act would be good if it helped more than it harmed (which would make it not evil, but stick with me here.) It would be morally right to kill the other person, to me, because I know that I would go on to do everything I could to make the lives of other people better, and I don't know that of the other person. The action would in fact be wrong if the other person were to help more then me, however, but I don't know that, so I therefore did nothing wrong in that scenario.