TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Why should we adopt morals?

Morals cannot be proven philosophically and are not needed for a stable society that already punishes people for doing things that are detrimental to our society. Morality only hinders us, as it makes us, as a country, (I'm in the USA) obligated to give money to poor countries and not torture terrorists who have crucial intelligence needed to ensure the national security.

Topics: morality

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 16 2013: How so, serving the highest amount of people is the definition of utilitarianism. My argument is that, since all philosophical beliefs should be equally esteemed, in that none of them has any evidence to back them up, we should scrap them and then adopt to utilitarianism. When I say all philosophical beliefs should be esteemed equally, I'm saying that they should all be thrown out, and that instead people should realize that since they're all equal philosophically, they should instead embrace practicality for the majority of themselves. Which means having a utilitarian stance and doing what's best for most of them, this stance however, is not necessarily a philosophical one because it doesn't claim to be "right" but instead practical, and it responds to most peoples' needs and desires regardless of whether that's "right" or "wrong". Your quote of me was not describing a philosophical belief, but instead a practical one that doesn't claim to be philosophically superior to any other beliefs.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.