The original intention was to go through all the Oscars and Golden Globe nominations in chronological order, and the result was this Golden Globe nominee.
We know that before human beings were ignorant, there was no concept of morality. After the emergence of human civilization, morality followed.
Almost everyone adheres to ethical standards, at least on the surface, but few people have ever questioned them. This cannot but be called a kind of blindness.
What is the reason for morality?
Will morality hurt mankind one day?
Is science opposed to morality?
Will morality die?
Pro. Kinsey is a materialist. He believes that it is a natural need for a wife and an extramarital male ML. I can't do this, most people can't do it. My argument is not based on morality. I just think that Kinsey ignores psychology. Human possessiveness is also a natural desire, and he will definitely conflict with sexual desire. And the cost of this conflict is very high.
I have seen Discovery and told about the whole process of a mature male lion killing another male lion, occupying a lioness and killing a young lion. And this phenomenon is widespread.
If human beings do not consider various factors, but simply pay attention to the freedom of desire, it will also cause such bloody consequences.
This becomes unnecessary for civilization.
To avoid the extreme evils brought about by uncontrolled freedom is one of the reasons for morality.
But this still does not prove the rationality of immutable morality.
As described in the film, in order to avoid the spread of diseases caused by blind promiscuity, there are moral clauses prohibiting premarital sex. It was necessary under the conditions of the previous era.
But it is superfluous to continue habitually to this day. In developed areas, sex safety and sex education have minimized this danger. There is no reason to go on, the die-hards are just dogmatic and foolish.
They claim that they are morally high, but they never ask why.
The end result is that the dogmatists scold the offspring in the name of dignity, but fail to explain the correct reason to the victim. Zhang Guanli Dai added the crime in the name of crime, causing the latter's irreparable psychological trauma.
The burying of moral origins has allowed morality to shift from being used to others to harming others in the context of the development of the times.
I believe that many people have been taught in this way that the production of sex is the result of feelings. This pseudo-theorem has already killed many people. The virginity of a young girl for her future husband was defined as a virtue in ancient times. This is actually just a perverted possessive desire in a patriarchal society. This is another reason for morality.
If so, men should lead by example, but such masculine virtues are unheard of.
Science has proven that sexual impulse is the inevitable result of the physiological growth stage. The secretion of hormones is not controlled by human subjective consciousness, but is often stimulated by the external environment.
When we see a hot girl or a naked body, the natural and physical reaction proves that we have a sexual impulse, but it cannot prove that we just fell in love with someone like this.
If sexual impulse occurs naturally, and sexual depression is harmful to physical health, and people have completely safe conditions for sex, then sex after marriage is a pseudo-morality. He is opposed to science, and he harms mankind.
The reason why human cloning as we know it is morally intolerable is because the progress of science has endangered human relations. Those who have watched "Escape from the Clone Island" will understand that although this kind of science can be used for organ transplantation, it can save many lives that are still incurable. But he is involved in ideological issues, whether human cloning has human rights, and if such scientific experiments are out of control, will humans create an enemy by themselves, so that the clone will kill the host, and keep thinking about it, not only that social relations will be chaotic, and the living environment? It will be destroyed because of it, and more importantly, the human reproduction system will be destroyed, and one day it will go extinct.
In this case, science and morality are ostensibly opposed, and morality prevails. But in fact it is not, because the basis of this kind of morality is really the derivation of scientific causality, which is another reason for the generation of morality.
Therefore, on the basis, it is just the opposition of the two sciences, and one side wins because it benefits people.
In primitive society, clan communes were unconventional. Close relatives and promiscuity were uncontrollable. In ancient Egyptian royal families, siblings were intermarried in order to maintain the purity of the royal blood. In fact, they were only to maintain the consolidation of power. Later, it was discovered in the summary of life experience that the offspring of blood relatives will have disease inheritance and malformations. Later, blood unions were forbidden, but until modern times, intermarriage of close relatives is still popular. Needless to say in China, in the British royal family, Queen Victoria married his cousin. As a result, several of his descendants are blood. Those with friendly diseases, others are carriers of the hemophilia gene. What's more terrible is that her children and grandchildren intermarried throughout Europe, spreading hemophilia to various royal families in Europe.
In modern society, civilized countries basically legislate to prohibit such intermarriage. Social morality will also criticize this combination method, and this has emerged that morality and science are in harmony.
Therefore, whether science and morality are opposed or not depends on the attributes of the two, and more importantly, whether they are beneficial or unfavorable to people. And it’s not that science is correct and morality is sacred. It’s that simple.
We know that the Christian Church has so far ordered the prohibition of homosexuality. The Christian Church believes that homosexuality is anti-human and the direct result is sterilization.
This is unfounded. First of all, the original intention of homosexuality was not aimed at exterminating heterosexuality. Homosexuals do not regard heterosexuality as their enemy, and they naturally understand that they are the product of heterosexual union. Homosexuality is an objective existence of sexual orientation, as is heterosexuality. The two are not inherently hostile. So heterosexuality will not die out because of the existence of homosexuality, so don't mention the extinction of human beings.
Secondly, homosexuality is creating a way of love for society. Both are people of the same sex, together, they are only creating happiness, not creating danger. Setting up a family between them will also contribute to social stability.
Third, any sexual disease that is spread among homosexuals is the same spread among heterosexuals, but the probability is different.
Therefore, such an emotional model is far more harmful to society and civilization. There is no reason not to let him exist?
In the United States, many continents have legislated to allow same-sex marriages. I think it is progress, not ideology, nor human rights, but based on the pros and cons of a thing for social civilization.
You can also imagine that the determination of the law has caused the old decayed morality to die out in these continents.
Therefore, the existence of morality does not depend on what it is advertised as.
In fact, morality is not necessarily noble. Whether it is noble or not, one should look at one thing, the advantages and disadvantages it brings to mankind.
Dogmatic compliance will only be counterproductive.
In conclusion, we may not be able to ask why all things are produced and the result, but it does not mean that we can not ask why about all things. Some things that we think are important and key, we must go to the bottom of the question. If we do not do this, how can we prove his importance to us.
To analyze things, to analyze yourself, to find the reasons, and to correct your own stereotypes. The progress of social civilization depends on this method.
View more about Kinsey reviews
