MORALITY is just a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT anyway

@Theo1899 Sure, we have hundreds of gods. Is there a specific one I should be repenting to? Vishnu, perhaps?

@xZabuzax Vishnu is a demon according to the Church's position so please don't do that.

@Theo1899 Which church? there are thousands of churches, each following a different god or different variations of a god because even Christians don't seem to agree on anything since there are different flavors of Christianity out there and apparently, each one of them knows exactly what a god wants even if they contradict each other.

And how is Vishnu a demon? according to Hinduism, he's a god, so is he a god or not?

@xZabuzax The Church (capital C) is used by Catholic and Orthodox christians to refer to their church as according to their theology there can only be one institution and the rest are invalid.
The whole "gods of other religions are demons" is something all denominations actually agree on as it's mentioned in the Bible so you can't get around that even though it's not very politically correct.

@Theo1899 But I like my churches (without capital C), so I guess I'll stick to churches.

And why are you using the Bible?, why not use the Bhagavad Gita to prove Vishnu instead? Not all Christian denominations will agree that the gods of different religions are demons either since my church didn't when I used to believe, we just said that they are following the same god but it just happened to have a different name on the other religions or that not all the religions have the "true word of god" but my church did have the "true word of god" because we were just that special and we happened to be the correct one while everybody else didn't, but then I realized that it was just a lazy excuse to make us not think too much about it, no wonder I don't believe in any of this religion or churches BS anymore, they all seem like a bunch of hypocrites to me while believing in different things without a single source of evidence for their gods (yes, without capital G).

@xZabuzax From what you are describing it seems you were part of one of those churches that promote a very extreme form of religious pluralism. Christianity has considered that a heresy since before Christ was even born (found in the Old Testament) which is why I think the Catholic and Orthodox view of the Church as one divine institution instead of the sum of all believers regardless of denomination (the traditional protestant view) is true (and also supported in the Bible in Matthew 16).
As for the Bible question, I'm convinced that the Bible is the true word of God after reading it. I've also compared it with other religious text (although to be fair no Hindu texts) and it and I found that its message of salvation and morals made the most sense out of all of them.
God bless.

Zenith is a devotee of Millis, which is why she doesn't accept polygamy very well, but she is prepared for it, since she knew who Paul was.

This is better explained in the light novel, in the anime this is the only indication we have.

Zenith is the only one that says a prayer before meals.

@Flacion I was more trying to point out that morality, religion, leadership are not independent of each other, assuming one lead to another does not follow the evidence we have in history.

You haven't proven that it is a social construct, you are using circular reasoning. It existed in societies, so societies must have made it up to control, but that doesn't answer the origin of such a concept in the first place, especially when history reveals that humans just did whatever was ok in their own eyes.

You are assuming societies considered "murder" to be immoral, but historically that is incorrect, even today, there are societies that muder others and think that they are doing a good thing.

There were societies where murder was seen as good, like for human sacrifice, or cannibalism, or to show a person's strength in battle, while there were other societies that did not allow it seeing it as bad.

But that only proves that deciding what is wrong or right is completely up to each human or group, which changes over time.

What I am asking is why humans would ever think "murder" is bad in the first place, when animals in the wild murder all the time, meaning why would morality develop when there is no basis for it in nature.

How is it sexism if it is consensual? It's not like how it is in the Middle East where grown men marry kids and have 4 wives and the women have no say on anything. There are lot of women (In western society) in real life that generally don't care for feminism/equality and what is expected of them as a result. They don't mind or don't care about playing the feminine or submissive role and are actually annoyed with the whole "strong, independent woman" thing because men are generally treating women a lot differently then they have before (woman basically have to do a lot of things on their own at this point men are less willing to help in fear of offending, annoying or generally being considered a harasser) I think women and men are fluid beings and don't have to commit to a masculine or feminine role in a relationship or in life. They can change depending on their mood, the conditions the task, etc. Women that work in corporate and make more than their husbands still want the man to play the dominant role in sex but also can want to be egalitarian for doing chores.

Roxy and Sylphy are feminine women that don't mind Rudy being the patriarch and taking the lead on everything. Roxy and Sylphy are powerful mages that can stand on their own but CHOOSE to be lead by Rudy because of his personality, ability to provide for them and overall familiarity with both of them, he knew them since he was a child. Anyone could theoretically leave at any time, even with kids involved.

While Sylphy being pregnant does complicate her ability to have agency in this situation, it is important to know that she was kind of expecting this eventually, but maybe not at that time. Meaning she would've been on board with her either way. But even if she decided to leave after the kid was born because Rudy cheated, Rudy still has the financial resources to take care of the kid, HIS kid. He has friends, family around the house alai. Rudy story is definitely "It takes a village to raise a child" type of vibe.

Liliyah's daughter should be focused on more. she basically played the same role as her mother who is a maid which is in a subservient position to Zenith Paul and Rudy side of the family. That seems a lot less ethical to me, that she was born into subservient role to servethe mainfamily instead of being treated more like the primary family (Zenith derivative)

@xZabuzax
and you honestly sound like me, when I walked away from the Christian sphere thinking that it was nothing more than a philosophical social convenience and you can live perfectly well without God without any real consequences.

I see that you're mistaken about the meaning of faith and following Christ. The Faith that Jesus and the apostles speak of is not some kind of intellectual conclusion. Its a spiritual gift from God that He gives through His Spirit to those who ask for it. It literally does not come from us. The Bible call it baptism of the Holy Spirit, when you go through the so-called new birth (John 3:1-12). I can even say that the vast majority of Christians today have not gone through this experience yet.

Furthermore, Mormons are an antichristic cult founded by a strange angel and filled with unbiblical doctrines, as the apostle Paul explicitly warned in Galatians 1:8. Its very unlikely that a born-again person would be part of this organization, since the Holy Spirit effectively directs them away from denominational idolatry.

As for the topic (so as not to stray from the main subject, since I'm only replying this because you asked), it seems a little worrying to see so many young people subjectivizing human morality because they still have no idea of ​​the evil they're advocating, but I understand that theres a time to let go of these nihilistic ideas and learn properly as we mature. As for the show I dropped in S2P1 so I can't go any further. The bad writing and pacing and the lack of plot would be tolerable if there wasn't so much debauchery and demonic wish-fulfillment.

Ah yes, of course, this is the part that made me cringe about religions, it's the "your religion is wrong but my religion is the correct one, it's the bestest of the best!!!", mate, don't give me that, I've been there and done that too, that same thing you just said is the same shit I used to say about other religions too because I was indoctrinated to believe that Mormons had it right all along, just as you are indoctrinated about your religion and just like any other person is indoctrinated about their religion, a Hindu or a Muslim will say the same thing about your religion too, which is silly.

And to say that Mormons are antichristic is just plain wrong, don't talk about Mormonism if you don't know anything about it, they follow Christ too, it's just absurd how you are even using your Bible to prove your point when a Mormon can use the Book of Mormon to prove their point too, it's circular reasoning. Go tell a Mormon how antichristic they are to see how well that will end up.

@xZabuzax No, the proof that it is a cult comes from the Bible itself, not from some personal will. You can prove that the Mormons are a heretical sect by the very sound doctrine that God left in writing through his servants, and the same goes for many of the denominations. The Holy Spirit just attests the truth in the consciousness of a believer and then fully reveals it on the Day of Judgment to give each person according to his works.

...It doesnt seem that you really read anything I just said. If you're not open to a conversation without being so dismissive, don't ask for clarification like you did.

Those are evolutionary mistakes in our dna. Just survival instincts gone wrong.

@ejleon I do think there is some basis for it in nature, though not how you would normally discuss it. If someone were to say that "squirrels have morals too" I would at the very least hesitate before disagreeing. The point is, the concept of "moral" is completely socially constructed, but the behavioural patterns that influence how we categorize morals most certainly aren't. To use our squirrel buddies again, they generally don't kill each other, I'm not saying that this never happened, but generally they kind of don't do that, and that is something we see across a wide range of species. While animals undeniably kill, they rarely kill their own kind, and out of that we get a behavioural pattern. We get even more exclusive data, by going for cannibalism instead of simple murder, now there are even fewer species left. The interesting part though, as might be obvious, we humans both murder and do cannibalism, so we are kind of out there really. But we can very clearly say, that most of these behavioural patterns are socially constructed, and that is because biology cares very little about religious blood gods and eating children. These are types of behaviour created as a social response to environmental change, and human sacrifice is a great example. I think we can pretty openly agree, that we as a species gain very little from sacrificing people to gods, but humans did that anyway. The answer to this, which I most definitely don't need to explain to you, is simply our tendency to seek explanations and when we can't find those, make up explanations. You have lighting that comes from the sky, but how does that make sense? Boom, you just made a Zeus, awesome. Let's just say that, for example, some old religious leader saw his son die in a great blizzard and right after that the storm ended, the conclusion that every storm will claim one life, then end, really doesn't seem so illogical. Murder is a lot trickier, so why is the idea of murder being bad so hard to pin down? We have a whole pile of problems when discussing this, a few would be:

1. Our bias towards "murder = bad" makes us pretty poor judges
2. We don't really know when we turned from pretty standard "compassionate" monkeys into warmongering Homo sapiens
3. There are underlying problems when drawing lines between evolutionary psychology and our behaviour of domination over other humans for gain
4. Evolutionary psychology is like 99% fake, don't listen to Jordan Peterson
5. It is hard to fully determine the scope of how the social perception of murder evolved over centuries (our date is just to inconclusive)
6. The "The Big Government says we need to sacrifice the children" VS. "The Simple Guy who has his own morals but can't follow them because of a lack of power" - This means that murder could generally be evolutionarily unfavourable and most humans see murder as an evil, but those few that are willing to use it shape public perception by gaining the power to write history (if everyone plays nice, you are going to have one heck of a time, being the only cheater in the room)

There are a lot more of these arguments, all well better conveyed then I could ever do it, it's an interesting subject, would really recommend looking into this, though don't expect any conclusive answers. My personal stance on the thing is:

Human babies first and foremost don't want to kill each other, so the idea of murder has to either be learned through outside influence or comes natural later in life. I think that there inevitably came a day, when one guy killed another guy, after which there will always be a social perception of this event which forms cultural moral norms. In other words, I am of the "Squirrels kill each other, but only very rarely"-faction, humans unlike squirrels just form cultural perception afterwards which from there on out shapes how we see murder, how we kill each other and so on. In other words, murder is pretty much completely a social construct.

That's how I see it, hope this made any sense, if it didn't, it's probably because of those damn squirrels, I tell ya, they are pure evil, which most definitely isn't a social construct. Have a good one.

That makes sense now. It's still a Harem and not Poly. It's just a Harem with well written characters. Rudeus is sexist by default because he never spent any time around women before reincarnation. He never had a legit connection with any of them until now which is understandable.

I like that you challenge that they can't consent to the Harem because society says they're supposed to be submissive to men. Even if they aren't consenting to the Harem, they both consented to him individually and surely they're able to do that. So doesn't that undermine your argument? They both wanna be with him and if that's the stipulation attached to it Roxy and Sylphy are pretty accepting of it. A relationship is all about compromise and you're not going to be 100% happy about everything even in a monogamous egalitarian relationship. Sylphy being an Elf may have a lower sex drive than Roxy. So It could give Sylphy some room to breath while Rudy can spend time with Roxy.

So it just combines both of their consents to a Harem agreement. While it may be implied, Rudy also doesn't explicitly say that they can't have other partners as well but I guess they choose not to because of patriarchy/social norms. But also, unlike Liliyah, Roxy and Sylphy are powerful mages and don't necessarily need to rely on Rudy for finances or protection, as they both have places to go if they wanted to leave the situation although again, the kids complicates things.

@Lucianael Thank you for all that you shared, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to present your perspective on the topic.

Multiple people, including yourself, have stated, "morality is a social construct", no offense, but in my mind this sounds like circular reasoning, 'Societies have morality, so morality must be a social construct', but my question is about the origin and basis for the 'concept of morality' itself in nature, before 'societies' existed, why would this concept ever enter the brain of an animal named 'humans' with their natural behavior in the wild.

Also, I think we have two different perspectives on the 'concept of morality'. It seems in your perspective, morality comes from how animals act in nature, but in my perspective, morality is something that is to prevent how animals act in nature, meaning to stop animals from acting how they would in the natural wild, which would make morality an intended self-imposed restraint and restriction to stop their own natural behavior.

To use your squirrels example, yes these animals do not kill each other, but many squirrels steal from each other and fight over their food resources, so that would be what I call the natural behavior of these animals int the wild. However, 'morality' would be that one day a squirrel living in the wild, decided to stop stealing nuts from another squirrel, because, for some unknown reason, they considered it to be a 'wrong/bad' behavior, meaning that there would also be 'right/good' behavior too. But that is not all, then one day, this same squirrel said to other squirrels, "You should not steal from each other, it is bad, we should be good", which causes the other squirrels to either consider this for themselves or to ignore it altogether, making it a free will choice by each individual squirrel to purposely restrict and restrain themselves from their natural behavior in the wild.

In the case of humans, 'morality' is used to prevent their natural behavior in the wild, a restriction and restraint on themselves (or others), for example, to stop humans from stealing from other humans.

As for the 'concept of a god/God', this too is like the concept of 'morality', I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. With all due respect, my dog doesn't know what lightning is and he is sure afraid of it, but my dog does not one day bow down, worship, pray, sacrifice, do rituals, and believe the lightning has senses, consciousness, power, and can affect their life in some way.

Someone might argue, "Well humans are different than squirrels and dogs", but then this brings up the 'concept of consciousness', which again I find no logical explanation for the origin and basis in nature. Animals have different brain sizes and have different behaviors, but animals in nature do not have behaviors that are equal to 'human consciousness'.

Hence my original starting point ...

If humans are or were animals like all the rest on planet earth, then why would a human act any differently than how animals act in nature?