Superior Being and Human Morality

[Philocrat]

Earlier during age of slave trade, people bought slave people and treated them as if they didnt have any feelings, flog them, whip them, and were lower than animals. If we could think that our fellow humans were lower than animals then the type II civ could think the same of us.

There is nothing that is structurally and functionally perfect (in the very way that I have described above) that would at the same time lack MORAL PERFECTION or SUPERIORITY as well. My long-existing argument is that if it lacks moral perfection or superiority in the very way that I personally understand it, then such a thing is still structurally and functionally imperfect. It still needs structural and functional improvement, scientifically!

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I see that many people are talking about these beings having little or no morals. This civilization would have to stop the war, the murdering, and the simplist things such as deceit.
I see a superior being as being far more moral than us humans. They would probably actual base their lives around their morals and beliefs. It is outrageous think that a civilization that would be so advanced as to travel to our world would contain no moral aspects about them, one unmoral being of that power could push a button and destroy his own race.
You can see that us unperfect MORAL human beings can create catastrophe with nuclear bobms, imagine the weapons we could produce at the stage that one would compare with beings capable of interstellar travel.

_______________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[Dayle Record]

Someone in this thread mentioned the intelligence of Neanderthal People. We have no idea how intelligent they were.

I think that the proper way to treat this planet is to live as lightly as possible, on the surface here. I think if an extremely advanced race had come here, when there was no mark of man, or significant mark of man. The way they would have lived, would have to be in harmony with the life here. I think they would have been vegetarian, and lived in a soft climate, and make few marks. They would have treated this world as an object of exquisite complexity and beauty, and basically left it alone as much as possible. The older I get, the more I think that simplicity and harmony are the marks of advanced civilization.

We are not that, we are ridiculous in our brutality, and have been for all of recorded western history. History will remember this civilization for its destructiveness.

 

[Dissident Dan]

They didn't even give any citations for this article. What studies were they even referring to and what were the conclusions drawn by the scientists that actually performed these studies?

It says "Source: New Scientist" at the bottom.

 

[loseyourname]

It says "Source: New Scientist" at the bottom.

A citation would include the name of the article and the author. If you found that, you looked harder than I did.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

We are not that, we are ridiculous in our brutality, and have been for all of recorded western history. History will remember this civilization for its destructiveness.

Do you not believe that some of the brutality used by ALL civilizations has been necessary? The individual is not perfectly moral and effiicient, until that day comes, people must have slip knots around their heads choking them everytime they stray off the edge, and thereby teaching them harmony and order. Of course that is metaphorical, I hope that it helped you understand my point that brutality helps society advance.

And when I talk of brutality, I am not talking about murder, torcher, or oppression ect.. I am talking about consequence and rule.
_______________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[Francis M]

Originally posted by Bartholomew

If a superior being is as advanced compared to us as we are to a fruit fly, would there be any immorality if that being swatted us like a bunch of fruit flies?

Good question, on somewhat the same note,

If they were that much more advanced than we were, would we even realize their existence and recognize that we were being killed off by them? That's of course if they decided to treat us like some kind of annoying nuisance

 

[mapper]

I ask a question, is it immoral for a plant to grow bigger/taller then another species of plant thus taking its sunlight? Nothing wrong with that imo. But to the smaller plant it may figure differently. I think all concerns or moral and immoral behavior sums up to survival. If something needs to die for a species survival it must not be immoral. We are given an instinct to survive so why must necessary killing be immoral.

Back to the question. It would be immoral if the super race to kill us for any other purpose other then their survival. If they needed our resources or us to eat or whatever to continue their survival then I wouldn’t say that would be immoral.

But super beings surely should be able to find an alternative no?