The Question of Right and Wrong. What do you guys think?
Offline Hi everyone.
My introduction thread quickly turned into a discussion of alot of things, first pacifism, and then this: the question of right and wrong. I wrote this post in response to something Watcher wrote to me, and, actually, I'd like to continue this discussion, because I find it rather interesting. I'd like to hear the standpoint on this issue by more of the people here.
I hope you therefore won't mind, when I re-post this from my "come in and say hi to the new guy" Thread over in the intro-forum.
Watcher wrote:Of course there is a "right" and "wrong". And the reason why this is so is that Homo Sapiens are social creatures.
We are "pack animals". Plain and simple. We exist within a community. We are not loners. Therefore our "right" and "wrong" is clearly established.
"Right" is anything that benefits our society.
"Wrong" is anything that detracts from our society.
Trouble with that definition is that there is no clear way in which "our society" is defined. It doesn't HAVE to be all of humanity. There is nothing inherent in that world view that says society HAS to encompass absolutely everyone.
Chimpansees are social animals and they generally treat their own group kindly, but meet an outgroup and they will absolutely rip them to shreds, with no hesitation, and no remorse. Now, it does not detract from "my" society that people in Africa are starving, and indeed it might even BENEFIT my society if I went to another country and stole all their food and raped all their women. Indeed, my viking ancestors made quite an afluent and vibrant society based on just that premise.
Secondly, again returning to the chimpansees, even within their groups it doesn't always detract from their society as a whole if some elements within it suffer. Weak chimps are often killed by the others, if, for example, a slightly stronger chimp sees an oppotunity to flaunt his power, so as to gain the respect of the others, and maybe raise its status to leader. And not all the females are willingly mating with the males they come across. They are sometimes raped, but that doesn't detract from the overall welfare of the group, not in the slightest, in fact.
I agree with you that our sense of right and wrong IS DERIVED from our social-animal instincts, but like the above statements indicate, I don't corolate "instinctive" with "right". just because it is our nature it doesn't make it right. I think what comes natural to us, should be considered right, or at least we should strive to come to terms with it in some way, but I think there should be more than that too. If one is willing to "settle" for one definition of right and wrong, and then stop there, then there is a clear and present danger that one might just revert to all the bad sides of our nature. And I think this is what went wrong with religion. Because all the moral questions were "answered", instead of being constantly revisited and reconsidered, people didn't have to think about morals. They could just live their lives without giving any thought to their actions. Like you so rightly point out, the 10 commandments are based on our natural tendensies, and so therefore, it is not so hard to "act natural".
And as far as I'm concerned, people acting natural, is, as David Brin describes it: "In any human society that has invented agriculture and metalurgy, strong men have made weapons, and taken weaker men's women and wheat".
This, I think, is exactly what religion has done. Not because it mandates people to do so directly, but because it claims to answer moral questions. When people think the moral questions are answered they stop considering them, and therefore just live naturally; like animals. Animals that are (to an extent) friendly to their in-group, and ruthlessly barbaric to any out-group.
If, however, you are willing to ask "what is right and wrong?" and compel your fellow humans to do the same, things MIGHT, just MIGHT be different. If you consider morals to be: asking that question at every moral dilemma you are faced with, instead of defining morals once and for all in one all-emcompassing moral philosophy (be it the ten commandments or "People are social animals" ), then maybe the outcome will be different from the one we as humans have seen to be the case up until now (that is, as per the David Brin quote).
Or maybe not... All I know is, I'm not convinced that the "people are social animals" is a strong enough moral philosophy to do the job on its own.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline Thanks for the clarification (if not for the difficult to decipher interwebz jArGoN d00d...srsly!!).
In short, morality is the expression of inherent, instinctual awareness of the benefit of nonzero sum systems of reciprocal altruism. As you say, it has become more complex as the need for more complexity has arisen. Even today, we find a similar progression of moral systems from the most primitive cultures to the most complex and modern. This is because of the pragmatic nature of our genes.
Noting plz, that any hypothesis in this area of stuff must satisfy the demands of a number of disciplines and paradigms. IMHO this includes the 'Meme' paradigm for cultural transmission.
I'm not ready to commit to the meme being as analogous to a gene as many of its proponents would like. However, it is worth noting that the ultimate nonzero sum piece of capital is a bit of information. It costs no physical resources, and results in the group being significantly better off than if it had not been exchanged. Advanced communication is a requirement for advanced morality, and we can only assume that the two developed together.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline I think right and wrong isn't a very good way to look at human morals, because we're psychologically conflicted. For instance, we have a tendency to be very sexually possessive, so there are social taboos against sexual promiscuity(both in and out of religions). Of course we also want to breed a lot with many partners, and are by nature promiscuous. Also, these days we're taught from a young age to never "hate" anyone. It creates circumstances that will not be productive for the group. But let's face it, at some point in our lives we all have very angry feelings toward others, it's our nature. We are also very capable of hating anyone perceived as an "outsider", which is also a source of conflict in a society where we're told everyone is equal and the same.
I guess the point is evolution gave us a certain set of rules as a way to function as part of a social group, but it's by no means rigid or even consistent in all of it's aspects.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline I recommend Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion", where he dedicates an entire chapter to the concept of morality. It's got some fascinating theories of the evolutionary reasons for our sense of morality.
I've read "The God Delusion", but I was not surprised at what I read in it. I'm not a Biologist like Dawkins, but I have grown up in a secular society, and have had a secular education, so it was not an epyfany for me, or anything like that. The book was very much what I would have expected, considering my own non-religious background.
But I am more concerned with David Brin's take on it. The observation that human society has, untill very resently, consisted only of strong men dominating weak men, and all women. I don't see that "The God Delusion" has singlehandedly laid this concern of mine to rest. How exactly is oldfashioned feudalism contrary to a "natural" sense of morality? The king of any given European country at any given time in medieval history, could be expected to love his children, in so far as he wanted wealth, long life, glory and many off-spring for them, to love his closest friends and family, and to want his own society to flourish and thrive. So he was not acting contrary to his "natural" sense of morality. But he likely wasn't acting very moral by my standards, in most respects, either. Much like the chimp-societies I descripe on the OP one may observe heartwarming compassion among friends and family, as I'm sure even medieval kings were capable of, but ruthless barbarism is still just as common.
And again, the "rape" argument I used is also very important to me. To take a woman by force or coersion, is not harmful to society as a whole if you suceed in scaring her into submission. It still happens all the time, even in modern western societies. Just think of date-rape (all the many instances that are never reported that is).
I think right and wrong isn't a very good way to look at human morals, because we're psychologically conflicted. For instance, we have a tendency to be very sexually possessive, so there are social taboos against sexual promiscuity(both in and out of religions). Of course we also want to breed a lot with many partners, and are by nature promiscuous. Also, these days we're taught from a young age to never "hate" anyone. It creates circumstances that will not be productive for the group. But let's face it, at some point in our lives we all have very angry feelings toward others, it's our nature. We are also very capable of hating anyone perceived as an "outsider", which is also a source of conflict in a society where we're told everyone is equal and the same.I guess the point is evolution gave us a certain set of rules as a way to function as part of a social group, but it's by no means rigid or even consistent in all of it's aspects.
Please understand, that I am a strict moral relativist (Is that a contradiction in terms? 
), and I do not pressume to know what's right and wrong at all. I started this thread mainly for the purposes of hearing different people's take on the subject, not to claim that I myself know the answer to: "What is right, and what is wrong?". I agree more or less completely with Pyrokidd's above quote, but that doesn't get us very far though, does it? And perhaps that's my entire point with this. I don't really want to "go" anywhere with any of this. I just want to discuss and comtemplate, because in the end I know what I think is right and what I think is wrong, from my own emotional responses, and I also know that I am incapaple of arguing rationally for some, if not all of those emotional responses.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline I started this thread mainly for the purposes of hearing different people's take on the subject, not to claim that I myself know the answer to: "What is right, and what is wrong?". I agree more or less completely with Pyrokidd's above quote, but that doesn't get us very far though, does it?
That's the point, I don't think discussing right and wrong, especially in absolutes we all should follow, gets us very far. Or really anywhere. Other than if you just like to hear other people's opinions on it, as an interesting conversation topic, which I understand. I find it very interesting hearing other's moral codes and why they have chosen them. Plus, if I hear something I really like, I can always adopt it into my own moral code.
(edit):so, basically agreeing with you.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline Good evening, I hope your day has been ... productive.
Thank you for your response. Also thanking you for pointer to your essay re: moderate believers, a definite add for me. Still mulling it over, and hoping I may be able to add thoughts to it.
Thanks for the clarification (if not for the difficult to decipher interwebz jArGoN d00d...srsly!!).
Chuckle. My apologies. Sometimes it seems very difficult to get thoughts down as rapidly and (in)coherently as they seem to appear. It's like competing gangs up random typing monkeys banging on the door and demanding I read their latest script.
In short, morality is the expression of inherent, instinctual awareness of the benefit of nonzero sum systems of reciprocal altruism.
Incomplete. Your statement would account for the 'morality' we observe in most instances of social species, including some remaining human groups. It will not account for, however, the morality conundrums the vast majority (98-99%) of humans are currently stuck with.
BTW, thank you again for your response.
As you say, it has become more complex as the need for more complexity has arisen.
I do not recall noting more complexity. I did note different and change. Imho, it is a mistake to use the more complexity label just yet. E.g. it appears there is more than one axis of complexity that one might apply to social groups.
Even today, we find a similar progression of moral systems from the most primitive cultures to the most complex and modern. This is because of the pragmatic nature of our genes.
Oh sure... just like we find progression in evolution until we come to the latest and greatest, just one step below the angels, crown of creation and what a piece of work it is ... human. Chuckle.
Civilization, as we like to call our world culture, informs us that of course civilization is the best way for humans to live... and we Believe it with the same uncritical embrace that we find occurs in another aspect of our culture... Belief in the unbelievable.
Similar basis for both beliefs, imho. I.e. acceptance of something as true without evidence or in spite of the evidence.
Noting plz, that any hypothesis in this area of stuff must satisfy the demands of a number of disciplines and paradigms. IMHO this includes the 'Meme' paradigm for cultural transmission.
I'm not ready to commit to the meme being as analogous to a gene as many of its proponents would like.
Imho that would actually be 2 jumps. 1 to the gene analogy and then 1 to the cooperative (selfish) replicator model. I figure that most usages of 'meme' are problematic and yet... in a gross sense, accurate. It is a useful bit of model for working with culture. E.g. it gives at least a rough way to provide variable quantifying.
However, it is worth noting that the ultimate nonzero sum piece of capital is a bit of information. It costs no physical resources, and results in the group being significantly better off than if it had not been exchanged.
Imho you may wish to hunt further with that. For example, you imply a positive/good directionality that there is no basis for, as yet. Noting too, that physical resources are indeed involved in a significant way. Brains, for example, provide many neat and related things, and they are huge energy hogs.
Advanced communication is a requirement for advanced morality, and we can only assume that the two developed together.
Imho one might be stepping into Katzen-Poo when one uses 'advanced morality' as some kind of a priori. Advanced communication... probably less fuzzy, though still not a free ride. Perhaps you might address them in order to provide the link between that you state, and to support your assume.
I.e. I think we can test some of this.
Thank you for your thoughts.
- Login to post comments
Offline Incomplete. Your statement would account for the 'morality' we observe in most instances of social species, including some remaining human groups. It will not account for, however, the morality conundrums the vast majority (98-99%) of humans are currently stuck with.
You say this, but you do not defend it. Care to elaborate?
I do not recall noting more complexity. I did note different and change. Imho, it is a mistake to use the more complexity label just yet. E.g. it appears there is more than one axis of complexity that one might apply to social groups.
Actually, it's not a mistake. Are you familiar with the recent evolutionary psychology research into the origins of morality? If not, you're arguing from ignorance, and I'd recommend getting yourself to a university library with all due haste.
Civilization, as we like to call our world culture, informs us that of course civilization is the best way for humans to live... and we Believe it with the same uncritical embrace that we find occurs in another aspect of our culture... Belief in the unbelievable.
Err... I think you have it backwards. We live in civilizations because they're the expression of nonzero sum reciprocal altruism, which is superior to isolationism, empirically, for our species. Civilization doesn't tell us to do anything. We form civilization based on what is best for our species to do... we do it because it's in our genes to do it.
E.g. it gives at least a rough way to provide variable quantifying.
I'm fine with memes as an analog, but not as a theory. It's a good metaphor for a lot of things, regardless of how meme theory pans out.
Imho you may wish to hunt further with that. For example, you imply a positive/good directionality that there is no basis for, as yet. Noting too, that physical resources are indeed involved in a significant way. Brains, for example, provide many neat and related things, and they are huge energy hogs.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Imho one might be stepping into Katzen-Poo when one uses 'advanced morality' as some kind of a priori. Advanced communication... probably less fuzzy, though still not a free ride. Perhaps you might address them in order to provide the link between that you state, and to support your assume.
By advanced communication, I mean communication of abstract ideas. We can't possibly have a system of corporate torts, for instance, if it's not possible to convey the idea of a corporation as an abstract entity. By advanced morality, I mean a system of right and wrong designations for activities that are not directly related to simple concepts of basic one to one altruism. Apes cannot form five way trades of resources. Humans can, and we can assess the fairness of the trade. That's advanced morals.
If you'd like to demonstrate that we are not capable of more abstract moral judgments than apes, go right ahead, but it seems pretty obvious to me that we are, so I didn't bother with a lengthy dissertation on why it's not an a priori claim.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Good evening, I hope you are well. Thanks for the question set, btw. Fun stuff.
A couple comments and q's, plz.
..., but I have grown up in a secular society,
Imho this is inaccurate. You have a new world accent, chuckle. This leads me to think that you grew up in a society that has religion coming out it's pointy little ears. It does sound like your individual circle has not taken Belief quite as a given as most circles seem to.
The observation that human society has, untill very resently, consisted only of strong men dominating weak men, and all women.
Imho that is an hypothesis that follows from observing only one set. It is also testable. I.e. if this is to hold (along with it's implied notion of human) then there should not be societies that function this way, either current or documented.
And when we look we note that virtually all of the societies within our world culture tend toward power hierarchies, i.e. strong men dominating and doing the majority of the bigtime screwing.
We also note, however, that there still exists human cultures with societies that do not behave this way. And we can note, in addition, extinct but documented cultures which have not behaved this way in the past.
Imho this is reasonable news. I.e. we are not dealing with some basic quality or flaw in the human species (as Religion would have us Believe, for example), but rather it is more likely a function of the culture/social arrangements.
Please understand, that I am a strict moral relativist (Is that a contradiction in terms?
It's a bit I think must be included in any groping toward stuff that works. At least the evidence indicates that.
Consider and pretend you are a duckling. A big snapping turtle, sneaking up under a murky flowing stream, grabs you and hauls you under and eats you. Is that good or evil, mr. duckling?
Or you are a big snapping turtle, sneaking up under a murky flowing stream, and you go to snatch a delicious looking little duckling and... it scoots and all the ducks leave the water, leaving you hungry... Is that good or evil, mr. turtle?
..., and I do not pressume to know what's right and wrong at all.
Why not?
Thank you for your thoughts.
- Login to post comments
Offline Good evening again,
I will endeavor to address. I've been reading a bunch of ingersoll lately and you know, there is a distinct tendency to incorporate some of the more short but long (gotta be a word for that) tendencies of expression. (Nervous aside, chuckle.)
Incomplete. Your statement would account for the 'morality' we observe in most instances of social species, including some remaining human groups. It will not account for, however, the morality conundrums the vast majority (98-99%) of humans are currently stuck with.
You say this, but you do not defend it. Care to elaborate?
Sure. Your statement was
In short, morality is the expression of inherent, instinctual awareness of the benefit of nonzero sum systems of reciprocal altruism.
This appears to parse as social beings evolve with their morality systems according to rules (i.e. definable algorithms). This is a statement I agree with, but that I indicate is incomplete in that it does not account for the search for morality that our world culture exhibits.
That is, if the algorithm held for our culture, then we would not be having this portion of this discussion except possibly as an abstract what if.
It does hold for bees. It holds for wolves. It holds for fish and dogs (a clue species... dogs make the universe work). Crap... I must be tired. I can't remember group name for fishies.
The rule (the one you posited) holds for pods and gaggles and herds and murders, mostly. It does not hold for herds of domesticated geese. It does not hold for pet canaries.
And it is problematic when one is thinking about human cultures. We look at human cultures like we look at other primates in primate centers or zoos.
Small Question, with leader stuff: One can note in the Bible that the first thing Cain does after killing Abel is go out and build a city. It's like it's the most natural thing in the world.
Is it?
I do not recall noting more complexity. I did note different and change. Imho, it is a mistake to use the more complexity label just yet. E.g. it appears there is more than one axis of complexity that one might apply to social groups.
Actually, it's not a mistake. Are you familiar with the recent evolutionary psychology research into the origins of morality? If not, you're arguing from ignorance, and I'd recommend getting yourself to a university library with all due haste.
Oh... I might be a little familiar with some aspects of basic research into the evolutionary basis for morality. I.e. yes, and yes it's still prob a mistake at this point. For example, I mentioned that it appears there is more than one axis of complexity for social grouping that might be laid out. An E.g. one can note that some tribal members in New Guiniea (sp) would have Very extensive knowledge of familial relationships. These would be referenced in a dynamic way between two strangers meeting one another in the forest in order to figure out a way to keep from trying to murder each other (J. Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel).
Imho, that is evidence for a very complex social structure.
Civilization, as we like to call our world culture, informs us that of course civilization is the best way for humans to live... and we Believe it with the same uncritical embrace that we find occurs in another aspect ofour culture... Belief in the unbelievable.
Err... I think you have it backwards. We live in civilizations because they're the expression of nonzero sum reciprocal altruism, which is superior to isolationism, empirically, for our species.
I will note that you've made this hard to respond to. You've done a bunch of equivocating.
OK. I will note that civilization does not operate under an 'expression of nonzero sum reciprocal altruism'. That is, civilization accrues benefit to a smaller and smaller group of humans. Civilization, as we understand it, is hierarchal in structure an accrues power and other benefits 'upward.'
Always has.
This is not 'expression of nonzero sum reciprocal altruism'. (In fact you can note that it leans toward a zero sum outlook.)
I am noting that this is not how humans evolved, nor is it a necessary condition for cultural advancement.
Civilization doesn't tell us to do anything. We form civilization based on wht is best for our species to do... we do it because it's in our genes to do it.
You've just ignored significant facts. Noting that the currently popular form of H.Sapiens has existed for about (at least) 70K years. Noting that 'Civilization' is about 10K years old.
I.e. Humans did not become created with the idea that they were just waiting to form civilization. And there is no particular evidence to indicate that humans have evolved to form 'Civilization.' In fact, there is significant counter evidence.
Noting also that 'best for our species' stuff is problematic at times.
-- Regarding meme utility:
E.g. it gives at least a rough way to provide variable quantifying.
I'm fine with memes as an analog, but not as a theory. It's a good metaphor for a lot of things, regardless of how meme theory pans out.
kuhl.
Imho you may wish to hunt further with that. For example, you imply a positive/good directionality that there is no basis for, as yet. Noting too, that physical resources are indeed involved in a significant way. Brains, for example, provide many neat and related things, and they are huge energy hogs.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I was responding to your prior statement:
However, it is worth noting that the ultimate nonzero sum piece of capital is a bit of information. It costs no physical resources, and results in the group being significantly better off than if it had not been exchanged.
That is, I was noting that your claim of no cost might be reexamined, and that you may also wish to reexamine the tendency toward good.
Imho one might be stepping into Katzen-Poo when one uses 'advanced morality' as some kind of a priori. Advanced communication... probably less fuzzy, though still not a free ride. Perhaps you might address them in order to provide the link between that you state, and to support your assume.
By advanced communication, I mean communication of abstract ideas.
Ok. LIS, less fuzzy.
OH ... the advanced moral aspect has a bit of logical weakness.
Can I be a prick and not address it tonight?
Serious, with the apes... Which aspect can the apes not do? And which aspect is the critical one?
If you'd like to demonstrate that we are not capable of more abstract moral judgments than apes, go right ahead, but it seems pretty obvious to me that we are, so I didn't bother with a lengthy dissertation on why it's not an a priori claim.
I must have missed it when you went up the chain to 'more abstract.'
tq
- Login to post comments
Offline
I think I am going to get the boot from my 2nd daughter, when I tell my grand kids that gawd is nothing more than santa claus. It is my way of teaching them right from wrong, or at least the beginings of the truth. I just got my copy of Paul Donovan's "Happily Godless". It shouldn't take to long to read and pass on to the grand kids. If it weren't so expensive I would love to give the school library's and public library here each a copy.
- Login to post comments
Offline Nikolaj wrote:Imho this is inaccurate. You have a new world accent, chuckle. This leads me to think that you grew up in a society that has religion coming out it's pointy little ears. It does sound like your individual circle has not taken Belief quite as a given as most circles seem to...., but I have grown up in a secular society,
I am from Denmark. I don't know what you would consider Denmark, but I think that it can be defined as a secular society. I have met only a handful of theists in real life, and even they were more new age types, and not conservative Christians. My grandparents were agnostic atheists, as far as I can tell.
*edit* : I've spent approx. 0.001 percent of my life in church. I just did a calculation. That seems about right.
I have a new world accent? What does that mean? That I sound like I'm from Canada or the US? Maybe so, but I'm still from Denmark. I've spent a fortnight in the states 12 years ago. That's as much firsthand experience I have with "the new world"; a vacation in California. And also, when have you heard me speak?
Nikolaj wrote:The observation that human society has, untill very resently, consisted only of strong men dominating weak men, and all women....We also note, however, that there still exists human cultures with societies that do not behave this way. And we can note, in addition, extinct but documented cultures which have not behaved this way in the past.
I agree that there have been some societies that did not follow David Brin's "Strong men taking weak men's women and wheat" observation. But what I am saying is that, to me, it seems apparent that it is very common indeed. The societies you mention (can you give an example b.t.w.?) are an exeption to a rule, is my impression. And furthermore, Brin's observation seems to me to conform perfectly with whatever natural moral intentions we humans might have. I don't see that it violates the moral code of our genes.
Imho this is reasonable news. I.e. we are not dealing with some basic quality or flaw in the human species (as Religion would have us Believe, for example), but rather it is more likely a function of the culture/social arrangements.
I agree. I myself have a different moral code, because I find a society in which the strong men dominate all others to be an imoral society, and so, clearly it is not an imperative that all humans act that way. But is it not a flaw? If (and only if) it conforms perfectly with "genetic morals", then I think it is a basic flaw of humanity, because humans are the product of their genes. I don't know that it does conform perfectly though, but with my limited observation of human history, it does appear that way. The only thing that makes me hesitate in declaring it so, is because I know my own observations are less than complete.
Nikolaj wrote:Consider and pretend you are a duckling. A big snapping turtle, sneaking up under a murky flowing stream, grabs you and hauls you under and eats you. Is that good or evil, mr. duckling?Please understand, that I am a strict moral relativist (Is that a contradiction in terms?Or you are a big snapping turtle, sneaking up under a murky flowing stream, and you go to snatch a delicious looking little duckling and... it scoots and all the ducks leave the water, leaving you hungry... Is that good or evil, mr. turtle?
Like I said, I am a moral relativist... Where are you going with the duck/turtle questions?
Nikolaj wrote:..., and I do not pressume to know what's right and wrong at all.Why not?
I wrote quite clearly:
...because in the end I know what I think is right and what I think is wrong, from my own emotional responses
But I don't have infinite knowledge, so obviously I don't know. I know what my right and wrong is, what my good and evil is. But how could I call myself a moral relativist, and still claim to know what absolute moral right and wrong is? I don't understand where you are going with these questions?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline This appears to parse as social beings evolve with their morality systems according to rules (i.e. definable algorithms). This is a statement I agree with, but that I indicate is incomplete in that it does not account for the search for morality that our world culture exhibits.
Erm... why would you think that?
The rule (the one you posited) holds for pods and gaggles and herds and murders, mostly. It does not hold for herds of domesticated geese. It does not hold for pet canaries.
What on earth are you talking about?
Small Question, with leader stuff: One can note in the Bible that the first thing Cain does after killing Abel is go out and build a city. It's like it's the most natural thing in the world.
Is it?
Seriously. I have no idea what you're getting at. You said that my explanation of morality doesn't hold for humans because we search our minds for answers to complex questions of morality. I'm baffled as to where Cain comes into this, or why it would surprise you that animals without the capacity for abstract thought wouldn't think abstractly about their behavior. Duh.
You're going to have to be more clear because I don't see anything in what you wrote that invalidates my explanation of morality, or even addresses your own assertion that thinking about morality disproves it.
Oh... I might be a little familiar with some aspects of basic research into the evolutionary basis for morality. I.e. yes, and yes it's still prob a mistake at this point. For example, I mentioned that it appears there is more than one axis of complexity for social grouping that might be laid out. An E.g. one can note that some tribal members in New Guiniea (sp) would have Very extensive knowledge of familial relationships. These would be referenced in a dynamic way between two strangers meeting one another in the forest in order to figure out a way to keep from trying to murder each other (J. Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel).
Imho, that is evidence for a very complex social structure.
Um... yes... very complex social structures are evidence for very complex social structures. What's the point?
OK. I will note that civilization does not operate under an 'expression of nonzero sum reciprocal altruism'.
I'm sorry. You're wrong. This isn't my opinion. It's a fact. Either you don't know what nonzero sum reciprocal altruism is, or you have an incredibly strange view of civilization. To be fair, there are certainly zero-sum exchanges in human culture, but they are part of the larger overarching structure in which the superorganism (and often, the individuals within it) benefit from reciprocal altruism by producing more en masse than could be produced as individuals.
That is, civilization accrues benefit to a smaller and smaller group of humans. Civilization, as we understand it, is hierarchal in structure an accrues power and other benefits 'upward.'
I think you've mistaken some specifics of Jared Diamonds' observations of geopoliticall progression for other principles of Game Theory that describe how complex reciprocal relationships form. In other words, you're mistaking political history with human history. Certainly, they go hand in hand, but you need to be careful not to get caught up in political idealism when thinking about what human beings are, scientifically.
Furthermore, what you're describing isn't an opposing argument. It fits perfectly well within the model I described. The hierarchies inherent in humanity are the expression of the laws of natural selection. They perpetuate themselves because of differences in environment and genetics between individuals, and by extension, groups of individuals, alliances, states, and multinational corporations. At each level, the hierarchy fits the model perfectly.
I am noting that this is not how humans evolved, nor is it a necessary condition for cultural advancement.
Yes, it is how we evolved, and it is a necessary condition for culture to exist. "Cultural advancement" is a dangerous term. When a scientist uses it, he's talking about increased complexity of extrafamilial relationships, development of greater technology, increase in commerce, the invention of currency, etc. When a politician uses the term, who knows what it might mean! Maybe it means universal healthcare, or maybe it means a utopian model like something out of Brave New World.
The reason that the !Kung don't have an equivalent to Wall Street is that they are foragers, and do not have the resources to develop such an advanced expression of their genetic cultural plasticity. Take a !Kung man, teach him everything an American learns in school, put a suit on him, and stick him in a Wall Street office, and he'll adapt. This works on individuals, families, groups, nations, and international corporate conglomerates. The environment is the limiting factor on the plasticity of the human psyche.
I.e. Humans did not become created with the idea that they were just waiting to form civilization. And there is no particular evidence to indicate that humans have evolved to form 'Civilization.' In fact, there is significant counter evidence.
You don't know what you're talking about. The "idea" that humans were going to form civilization didn't need to exist in humans any more than the idea that guarding the hive against intruders is necessary for bees to be able to do it. The progression of humans' development from hunter-gatherer to CEO has been an expression of existing genetic plasticity -- the environment spurring the expression of innate capabilities. Natural selection didn't have to know that civilization was coming. It just created a being with great intellectual capability, and civilization developed as a natural result.
Noting also that 'best for our species' stuff is problematic at times.
I notice you didn't give me any counter evidence. You only claimed that it exists. How odd.
When I speak of "best for our species" I mean exactly what it says. I am not speaking of welfare systems or personal happiness. Since the agricultural revolution, we have gone from a few hundred thousand wandering nomads, always on the edge of starvation or disease, to a population of 6 billion that isn't showing any signs of slowing its growth significantly. That, in terms of evolution, is really great for the species.
I have no idea what you're talking about.I was responding to your prior statement:
This doesn't help me understand what you were talking about.
That is, I was noting that your claim of no cost might be reexamined, and that you may also wish to reexamine the tendency toward good.
I'm perfectly happy with the claim. If I ask you who won the ball game last night, and you tell me it was the Yankees, we both now have equal amounts of knowledge about the victor of the game, yet neither of us has lost any information. That's non-zero sum altruism at work.
I'm not the one who's been confusing the subjective good of individuals in political systems with the objective reality that non-zero sum altruism is necessarily the foundation of reciprocal altruism.
Ok. LIS, less fuzzy.
What in the world does LIS mean?
I must have missed it when you went up the chain to 'more abstract.'
You're the one claiming that our moral system isn't the same as the other animals. Our morality involves abstractions, and that's what we can do that other animals can't. It seems patently obvious that's what I would be talking about.
(If you didn't know that's what you were claiming, I'd ask you again to please get yourself some information on this topic before you continue. I'm not trying to be mean, but between your strange use of English and your odd ideas about what you think I'm saying, it's really hard to even address a lot of what you're saying. I feel as if you don't even know what I'm saying, and are objecting to things that aren't even a part of what I've said.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Well I think it is one of those questions that as you try to answer you realise how dificult it is. What is right for some is wrong for others, but the main laws concerning the most serious of crimes are obvious and beyond question. It is the big grey area that needs more debate and through debate is the only way to get an understanding of what it is that is wrong. I think and hope the day for arguments against certain "acts/crimes" can only be argued with facts and real points, not the religous dirrections that we are infected with. I have an exaple..
I have a view about societys problem with sex on tv, and its fascination with violence and killing. We see at 2.00pm in the afternoon fighting and killing whether it be John Wayne as a cowboy killing Indians or gangs fighting in the ghettos of our cities. Sex has to be shown late in the evening when children are in bed, this has never made sense to me, ever. If we went out for some lunch with our children and out of the windows aside our table to one side was 2 men fighting and to the other was a couple having sex we would point the heads of our children instinctively towards the violence hiding them from the beautiful act of lovemaking which we all crave and desire and which clearly is a huge focal point of society in general. Now even to most atheist people they would be shocked at the 2 lovers but quite indifferent to the 2 men fighting. Thats wrong to me and to evrybody else when they actually think about it. I think the question of right and wrong, morals etc is an ever ongoing process that we can all look forward to. The first and biggest hurdle is to take out the arguments and (non)reasoning of the religous types who argue their ideals based on a myth.
My first day as a member here so i hope i dont come accross as some wacko.
Hello to all..
- Login to post comments
Offline I have a view about societys problem with sex on tv, and its fascination with violence and killing. We see at 2.00pm in the afternoon fighting and killing whether it be John Wayne as a cowboy killing Indians or gangs fighting in the ghettos of our cities. Sex has to be shown late in the evening when children are in bed, this has never made sense to me, ever. If we went out for some lunch with our children and out of the windows aside our table to one side was 2 men fighting and to the other was a couple having sex we would point the heads of our children instinctively towards the violence hiding them from the beautiful act of lovemaking which we all crave and desire and which clearly is a huge focal point of society in general. Now even to most atheist people they would be shocked at the 2 lovers but quite indifferent to the 2 men fighting. Thats wrong to me and to evrybody else when they actually think about it. I think the question of right and wrong, morals etc is an ever ongoing process that we can all look forward to. The first and biggest hurdle is to take out the arguments and (non)reasoning of the religous types who argue their ideals based on a myth.
The petition is currently closed. We received over thousand of signatures, which were sent on an adress of Petition comission of the Czech Republic Parliament. The statement of a president of this comission is, that the parliament already received several of similar petitions and will adress this topic in future.
Media, TV in particular, has so great influence on people, that they must be considered a strategic technology. This technology shouldn't be entirely exploited for a commercial entertainment purposes, but it should have slightly more than 50% of educative function. As there are quality standards in food and other material production, so there should be quality standards in a content of TV programs. I'd love to see some TV programs officially marked as a "stupid crap" by a quality comission.
My first day as a member here so i hope i dont come accross as some wacko.Hello to all..
) (search for HamuROOKi's Irrational Precepts) Some people (me too) however prefer to discuss some of these things seriously, which certainly spices up the forum life It would be a bit boring to agree with everyone about everything.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hello, and i would like you to meet mr. crow He is a savior in that he said "eat me" in order to be saved. hey.... does that mean if I eat crow then crow gets saved?
netjaeger wrote:Nikolaj wrote:Imho this is inaccurate. You have a new world accent, chuckle. This leads me to think that you grew up in a society that has religion coming out it's pointy little ears. It does sound like your individual circle has not taken Belief quite as a given as most circles seem to...., but I have grown up in a secular society,I am from Denmark. I don't know what you would consider Denmark, but I think that it can be defined as a secular society. I have met only a handful of theists in real life, and even they were more new age types, and not conservative Christians. My grandparents were agnostic atheists, as far as I can tell.
*edit* : I've spent approx. 0.001 percent of my life in church. I just did a calculation. That seems about right.
I have a new world accent? What does that mean? That I sound like I'm from Canada or the US? Maybe so, but I'm still from Denmark. I've spent a fortnight in the states 12 years ago. That's as much firsthand experience I have with "the new world"; a vacation in California. And also, when have you heard me speak?
I think I have the brackets straight.
I have not heard you speak, I have just noted word usage. And yes, NW accent in as far as typed words represent what comes out of your mouth. And NW accent, yep. "Sounds" like MW TV.
And again, oops. Denmark? As I recall is a Lutheran country. A couple state/church thingies. And def, I misread. You appear to come from a society much less Religion oriented than I had supposed.
---
PL: I hope I get the next part right at least kinda. I am soooo tired, LOL.
netjaeger wrote:Nikolaj wrote:The observation that human society has, untill very resently, consisted only of strong men dominating weak men, and all women....We also note, however, that there still exists human cultures with societies that do not behave this way. And we can note, in addition, extinct but documented cultures which have not behaved this way in the past.
I agree that there have been some societies that did not follow David Brin's "Strong men taking weak men's women and wheat" observation. But what I am saying is that, to me, it seems apparent that it is very common indeed. The societies you mention (can you give an example b.t.w.?) are an exeption to a rule, is my impression. And furthermore, Brin's observation seems to me to conform perfectly with whatever natural moral intentions we humans might have. I don't see that it violates the moral code of our genes.
>Useful in that you note at least some cultures are not what is considered to be all cultures. I.e. repeating:...We also note, however, that there still exists human cultures with societies that do not behave this way. And we can note, in addition, extinct but documented cultures which have not behaved this way in the past.
I agree that there have been some societies that did not follow David Brin's "Strong men taking weak men's women and wheat" observation. But what I am saying is that, to me, it seems apparent that it is very common indeed. The societies you mention (can you give an example b.t.w.?) are an exeption to a rule, is my impression. And furthermore, Brin's observation seems to me to conform perfectly with whatever natural moral intentions we humans might have. I don't see that it violates the moral code of our genes.
Imho this is reasonable news. I.e. we are not dealing with some basic quality or flaw in the human species (as Religion would have us Believe, for example), but rather it is more likely a function of the culture/social arrangements.
I agree. I myself have a different moral code, because I find a society in which the strong men dominate all others to be an imoral society,"
You mean a society which you find difficult to morally conform to?
and so, clearly it is not an imperative that all humans act that way.
Hoping I am not mixing up. I agree. There is no one right way for all humans to behave.
But is it not a flaw? If (and only if) it conforms perfectly with "genetic morals", then I think it is a basic flaw of humanity, because humans are the product of their genes."
If there is one right way to be human, then what you examine holds.
If there is not one right way to be human, then nope, no flaw.
Nikolaj wrote:I don't know that it does conform perfectly though, but with my limited observation of human history, it does appear that way. The only thing that makes me hesitate in declaring it so, is because I know my own observations are less than complete.[/quoteOK... looking ahead to another answer and rather worn and substance abused out, LOL.
I hope all the brackets work and I hope you accept my apology for the Denmark thing.
tq
netjaeger wrote:Nikolaj wrote:Consider and pretend you are a duckling. A big snapping turtle, sneaking up under a murky flowing stream, grabs you and hauls you under and eats you. Is that good or evil, mr. duckling?Please understand, that I am a strict moral relativist (Is that a contradiction in terms?Or you are a big snapping turtle, sneaking up under a murky flowing stream, and you go to snatch a delicious looking little duckling and... it scoots and all the ducks leave the water, leaving you hungry... Is that good or evil, mr. turtle?
Like I said, I am a moral relativist... Where are you going with the duck/turtle questions?
netjaeger wrote:Nikolaj wrote:..., and I do not pressume to know what's right and wrong at all.Why not?
I wrote quite clearly:
Nikolaj wrote:...because in the end I know what I think is right and what I think is wrong, from my own emotional responsesBut I don't have infinite knowledge, so obviously I don't know. I know what my right and wrong is, what my good and evil is. But how could I call myself a moral relativist, and still claim to know what absolute moral right and wrong is? I don't understand where you are going with these questions?
- Login to post comments
Offline Good eve,
And my apologies for a disjointed half reply.
A long week on home and work and ex fronts.
I fell asleep during thinking on last response. I figure instincts took over and 'saved' the partial post.
Long week. I am transferring to a new machine, reconfiguring and transferring to application servers,
and the home front gives me excuse... plz.
I figure a bit more snooze and I will be able to contribute again.
Noting that I do indeed have a bit of insight into how humans figure
right and wrong.
chuckle.
Thank you for your forbearance.
- Login to post comments
Offline Zen master of tantrum.
When he throws a tantrum, he [really] throws a tantrum.
Student: Can you enlighten me, tantrum master?
Tantrum master: Why is everybody always asking me for?!
tq
- Login to post comments
Offline Again apologies for less than easy prose.
Figure I'll start again on this topic that interests me.
Right and wrong and
where it comes from.
I noted early on that most discussions of 'Right And Wrong' only examine stuff within our current world mother culture. This makes science difficult.
Let me start again. About 10 thousand years ago a group of humans started living different.
They were the first of our mother culture.
I also noted that humans, just like every other social species, evolved WITH a social arrangement.
I hold for those earlier statements.
...
Now, looking back #1. To about 10,000 years ago.
Humans, for the very first time, actually have to accept right and wrong. Prior to that there was no question. Now there was.
...
As alluded to, humans evolved with their social arrangement and their social arrangement Right and Wrong.
Just like pod or herd or pack or whatever, humans had evolved with their social arrangement: tribe.
There was Right and Wrong. In fact, with the first human words for it I suspect the first differentiation of it occurred. Soft chuckle... Fruit thing, Fruit of good and evil and mythology.
---
Civilizations. Rather our version since all the others have been put to death.
Civilization came up with right and wrong and it is to be expected, if we are observers of human.
Rather... Every bit of human had right and wrong before civilization.
Before 'OUR' civilization that started in the ME about 10,000 years ago.
Then civilization insisted upon ONE Right Way To Live... as it absorbed and expanded.
Civilization insisted upon a TRUE right and wrong.
And since then every society within our world mother culture has insisted the same things. There is one right way to live and all humans should live this way.
---
Noting that this was a special thing. It was essentially a one time thing.
It was the beginning of our civilization and the death of even the possibility of other civilizations. It was Right and Wrong.
----
tq
- Login to post comments
Offline Good morn and good eve again. Noting that I recognize an answer or two would be reasonable for the thread. It's an interesting thread.
I got buried in a couple projects. Techies may relate. I finished well at 12:33 with an odd mailing of 31,114 documents ... printed 300 at a time... don't ask, lol.
Related to right and wrong, imho, is the day before yesterday now.
I.e. the day before 9-12. I do see a relevance in how our world culture
"Respects" so called right and wrong. (Yes, I talk funny. So?)
LIS (Like I said), ...
I've been buried in a project and yet I could not fail to notice that many humans remarked about yesterday. The day before 9-12.
I do remember that day. I do remember the project I was working on. I do remember too, the insanity that followed.
Yesterday, the day before 9-12, names were read, bells were rung, silence was thought about.
Yesterday, the day before 9-12, a lot of humans noted that a bunch of humans were on a mission from God and that they killed about 3000 people and they scared about 300,000,000 more.
Let me say that again.
Several years ago, on the day before 9-12, about 19 humans on a mission from God hijacked 4 airplanes and killed about 3000 people in very scary ways. On a Mission sanctioned and encouraged by God.
Sidenote plz. I noted a lot of the 'best' and a lot of the 'worst' when I observed human reactions.
And then I observed the worst of the worst (imho) which leads me to this next thought.
Do you think Iraqis will commemorate the day before 3-21 ?
Do you think that someday they may name the dead and ring a bell
to mark the day that an invasion by the most militarily powerful (and militant) country on the planet was ordered by a president that claimed a mission from God?
tq
- Login to post comments
Kinda embaressed to do this, but I'm posting here to bump this OP to the top of the list, in the hopes that someone might comment on it this time. I'd still like to hear your opinions, you see.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
hey Nikolaj,
I've always just viewed right and wrong, (good and evil) as concepts. I don't believe that most people for the most part are either entirely. Right and wrong does not exist in absolution like you've stated. I like the example you gave of people starving in Africa. IMHO, it is in our best interest to help because it opens capitalist markets if nothing else in developing countries. We rarely give something without wanting something in return. Thomas Malthus has an interesting perspective on suffering and population and this was written in the early 1800s.
Your OP seems to revolve around moral-relativism which I have always found to be an interesting study. Moral dilemmas are not about choosing between one good and one bad outcome but most often than not two bad ones. If anyone tells me that absolute morals exist I usually roll my eyes at them and just sort of laugh to myself. Sure I find a few things to be morally relative, but not killing each other is kind of a DUH in the area of morality. Theistic morals are just a little blanket that keep their holders warm at night.
Overall, I like the definition of right and wrong you posted. However, you are correct that society is loosely defined. If I were to guess who society is I would say that it is whatever the strong of the society decide it to be.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Good and evil? Well, there are choices, which leads to development, and choices which doesn't lead to development.
These choices aren't always apparent, you know, many good things can be misused, and many bad things eventually has a good effect.
Things aren't good by themselves, they must be used correctly in a right time. For example, technology. Thus, we create the sense of good and evil. No, that's not precise... We rather explore more and more from it, but we don't create it. For example, if I say that a war is good, it won't be automatically good. By our own development we discover new goods and evils. Yeah, we discover them, and there is, to some extent, predicted what is good and bad. For example, Sumerians domesticated most of animals, and then the world was introduced to horses pulling a plough and horses carrying raiders. I think it sooner or later would inevitably happen, and so would be inevitably discovered these good and bad aspects. This is how I mean it.
Older standards can't be used for the standards of today. By older I mean about 2000 years. We can't identify with what our animal ancestors were doing on trees, then on savanna and later in caves. We can't even identify with what they were doing in times of Abraham, people on this site knows it very well.
Historical records seems to indicate, that moral development comes in jumps and changes with sudden revolutions. It's an ageless principle, apparent on great and small scale, both in time and space. Whenever someone or something wins, it rules for a time and then it becomes rigid and crystallized, and inevitably, diffcultly and violently shattered by a new, revolutionary order of things. The fall of the strongest is quite a predictable thing.
So, what's the point of that vague nonsense? Do right things on right place and right time, and to determine what's right, when you don't already know, use your intuition. Well trained intuition never fails.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
All our attempts at definitions such as this are flawed.... fortunately, perfection is not required for human systems to work.... which actually is not such bad news if you are a lawyer.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Agreed
Agreed
hehe. Good one.
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Good evening, I hope you are well.
Some interesting thoughts, thank you.
I note a particular, and very common stance for the comments. Imho it represents an easy place to wander off into difficulty with the why's of right/wrong, good/evil. I will try and sneak up on it a little.
Noting Watcher notes humans are social creatures. Imho he makes a mistake by stating humans are 'pack animals.' The evidence indicates that humans aren't, just like dolphins (pod animals) and elephants (herd animals) and crows (murder animals) are not like wolves (pack animals).
I think we do find a clue in this. All social animals evolved in and with their social organizations. This includes the particular rules, or Right and Wrong behavior, that is part of the describing aspects of these social organizations. These rules, these Rights and Wrongs (or good and evils) have generally worked well for the social groups. We know that they have at least worked so far For The Surviving Groups. If they had not, the groups would not be here ... eventually. I.e. as noted earlier this is a neat area for evolution.
Doing a cursory survey of the social organizations that animals live under we also note a high degree of ... inner harmony(?) That is, operations social-wise are generally pretty smooth, e.g. the changes are predictable and ordinary. Lion prides have their male due to a predictable set of circumstances. Elephant herds have their rules for social order. Bee hives get new queens the way bee hives have gotten new queens for a very long time.
As you note, pan troglodytus chimps also have particular right and wrong, good and evil. As will all social primate groups.
An additional thing we can note about all social organizations is that they are all different, down to a very granular level. That is, even every beehive is different from every other beehive, and every goose gaggle is different from every other goose gaggle... I really like those two examples, btw.
And going from bee to goose to crow to elephant to primate, we can also note that there is a difference we can see. Evolution has provided bees, for example, with social behavior that appears to be essentially hard wired. Social primates, on the other paw, appear to have some aspects of their social behavior culturally transmitted. (Suspect you will note the rough continuum in between.) Noting, btw, that the rules of the social organization, e.g. Right and Wrong, are a big part of this passed on social behavior... I.e. hardwired or culture.
I do like this area of hunting. It gives us insight into our world culture's Religion too! And clues from myths and stuff too...
So diving, About 10,000 years ago a group of humans started living different.
By different, I mean that they began to live like most current humans do.
Until that point, this group (or possibly a couple groups that changed how they lived ... only one needed) had lived like humans had lived for at least the previous 65,000 years (and more likely for the prior 3 million years... etc.).
That is, just like wolves had evolved in and with pack, and just like wildebeest had evolved in and with herd, humans evolved in and with their social organization, and lived with the particular rules (e.g. Right-Wrong).
Then around 10,000 years ago in the Middle East, a group of humans started living different (like 'now' humans, kinda) and ... Things changed.
We can note what some humans were thinking about these changes just a couple thousand years afterward. We can look at the myths of Cain and Abel, for example, and check out what the humans did for a living and what Cain did right after. We can also check out Gilgamesh and his buddy Enkidu, and see what was represented by each and what happened to Enkidu (Abel).
My apologies, long day and I have to drive a human kid to the hospital for early morning hospital stuff.
I hope I've added.
tq
Good eve again,
My apologies. I did not mean to post anonymously. I was just kinda' thinkin' and uh... oops.
tq
Personally, I make a distinction in philosophical morality. Personal morality I tend toward Social Contract. I would argue that, for most situations, whatever is best for the people around you as a whole is to receive the post-hoc label 'right'. There are criticisms of Social Contract theory, and some of them are very good (like your chimp war analogy). This is why I make the distinction.
For group-policy I trend very heavily towards the Kantian Theory (The Categorical Imperative).
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Essentially, act only in a way that no harm to humanity would result if all people were to act in such a way.
That is, however, philosophical morality. In reality, I tend to act blindly according to my own moral compass (I suppose that would be mostly cultural). It's done me well so far.
If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre
Well, it's nice to see Todangst chiming in. Nice to see you, sir.
Anyway, yeah, Watcher's answer is a bit simplistic, but it's essentially on the mark. We do have right and wrong, and it is because we are social creatures, but there are a couple more things that go into the equation:
1) Memory. Without the capacity to remember the past and place it in a contextual "box" with the present and future, morality could not possibly be as complex as it is. Reputation is a huge part of morality. Consider this: If a convicted thief gets out of jail, we laud him as a very moral person if he simply doesn't repeat his crime. However, if a well known philanthropist simply didn't steal any money for a year, and failed to give anything to anyone, we would question his moral character. Reputation has a profound effect on the morality of an action. [edited for clarity of concept]
2) Conflicting goals. It's common -- almost ubiquitous, in fact -- for different people to have different goals. These goals overlap, and it's impossible to say within an absolute scale which is better. For instance, I may think that ending human misery is the highest moral ideal, and you may think that preserving the environment is a higher goal. We will have areas where we overlap goals, but we will be at loggerheads in other areas. That doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong. We're both right within our own framework.
In short, morality exists because we are social creatures. It is subjective, in that it is different for each individual. It is NOT arbitrary, in that we are all bound by human nature, which is an expression of our genes. In other words, we can't just decide that from now on, it will be morally acceptable to barbecue newborn infants for PTA meetings. That is beyond the scope of human nature's ability to accept as moral.
I highly recommend reading the following books, in the order presented:
The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley (Paperback - April 1, 1998)
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
Ridley's book was published later than Wrights, but you should read it first, as it goes into the genetics and math of morality in much more depth. Wright's book has a lot more examples, and a lot less math. It's a lot easier to get the math first and then see how it works later, in my opinion.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I recommend Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion", where he dedicates an entire chapter to the concept of morality. It's got some fascinating theories of the evolutionary reasons for our sense of morality.
*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*
"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby
Good eve again.
So after noting that what is studied about humans is not what humans evolved with and in, I figure some further.
First, what I just said. What is studied about humans is not what human evolved with.
Note plz I am sticking within the moral/ethics/stuff that's right and wrong thing.
I.e. We can note with glee that our cousins, chimp whatever, can figure this is not or is
good stuff.
And then a miracle happens,
and we are looking at how humans are now.
I note in most stuff, including books re: moral/ethical,
that there is a bit of a time gap ignore.
Good and Evil, this dog is not afraid to say,
EVOLVED with human, and with and in the social groups human evolved with and in.
OH... Sex stuff too, smile.
tq
Huh? Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that humans have evolved new morality since the agricultural revolution?
Well, it would probably be more precise to say that as humans evolved, they accessed more and more of the genetic capacity for morality inherent in the genetic predisposition for nonzero sum social systems.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Good eve, and heading 3 times widdershins very soon,
Thank you for your response.
Not bad. That is indeed an inference that can be drawn.
I would expand this to note that humans and morality have evolved with each other since the advent of what humans call the agricultural revolution.
Noting plz, that any hypothesis in this area of stuff must satisfy the demands of a number of disciplines and paradigms. IMHO this includes the 'Meme' paradigm for cultural transmission.
I.e. humans will not have had to change at all, evolutionarily (though it may have happened). What has changed is the culture, and culture's relationship with humans. (And it hasn't really 'changed' as just become manifest...)
Nah. 10K not enough time for a lot of genetic evolution with primates.
Some, def,
but not what we 'see', per se. What we see is changes in the worldview about how humans should live and whether humans should live that way.
OK ... Hoping I did not screw up the quote parity.
On to the snooze!
Tq muchas.