Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
Offline Moral men and women will deny women equal rights.
Seeking and demanding sanctity is one of the main five best rules of morality. Those rules shown below closely resemble most religious rules. For humankind to give an idea sanctity they must give sacrifice to it. The sacrifice that we must all do is deny women equality and give men a lower position in rulership. Men must bend the knee to women and elevate them to our ultimate sovereign. Those women and men who do not demand this are not in the best moral state of mind and should try to move to it.
We are all natural animals and follow the hierarchical rules of those species which have Alpha males. The main survival strategy of such a species is that the Alpha males will fight to the death to insure that the Beta females live.
Females, as the incubators of life and the most important within that species, must have the highest protection to insure that they will survive to continue the life of that species. Men, being the most physically powerful and having a more natural tendency to rule, must take a leadership role to insure this continuity. The Alpha of any species fights to insure that the Beta always has the highest position. The Kings and all other men IOW, must rule as the power behind the throne but the Queen is the one who must always sit on that throne and rule over the King.
The research done by Mr. Haigt shows that the right wings of religions and politics show more concern with tribalism than do the left wings. It appears then that if we are to move to the most advantageous moral position then it is to the right wings to promote it. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, I am the left of center and not in the best camp to sell the view that women should rule even as I recognize that they should. The right has been given a wakeup call thanks to president Obama being re-elected. FMPOV then, the right needs a new platform if they are to survive, as they should to balance the political spectrum.
Generally speaking only; women are the weaker of the sexes and are better places to know what the requirements of survival are and should thus rule. Women should then demand the full protection and sacrifice of the Alphas males as that is the natural order of hierarchical species and must be to insure survival. This sacrifice gives sanctity to our species and insures it’s longevity. The religious and political right seem better suited to lead towards this end.
In my opinion, men and women who do not agree with this premise are not taking the best moral position for families or for society at large. This issue is more in the hands of men than women and in that sense men would be more immoral than women if they do not deny women equality and place women above themselves.
Should the religious and political right take up this best moral position and demand that equality be denied to all women and demand that they be given their rightful and natural position above men?
Please see the research and logic behind this premise.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4
Regards
DL
- Login to post comments
I would say that it is instinct and the moral thing to do as if it had not been so in the past, chances are good that none of us would be here to discuss this issue.
If you mother had not put your care as a first priority and fed you, would you be here?
Things have been this way for us even before we came down from the trees and our basic instincts are the same. Only of late have we been able to put words to what has been coded into our genes.
Regards
DL
Refraining from creating a life is quite different than destroying a life that's already been created.
That is correct. Furthermore, as neurotypical parents can have autistic children, the gene patterns related to autism would not be lost even if ZERO autistic people passed on their genes.
The third principle arises from people's tendency to form large tribe-like groups. This tendency is quite different from people's ability to bond with each other on an individual level.
The third principle is based, at least in part, on an in-group vs. out-group mentality. As this kind of tribal mentality is a HUGE source of human conflict, I am reluctant to accept the third principle outright.
Then you could not be much of a citizen of any country.
I disagree with you on the third principle only applying to large groups. Bonding is learned one person at a time. If you cannot bond with those close to you then you will not likely be able to bond with those you do not know.
They say charity begins at home and so does bonding and love.
If you have, where did you start?
Regards
DL
That last statement is correct. However, according to the TED video you posted, the third principle is called "Ingroup Loyalty". Furthermore, the examples of it that Jonathan Haidt gives make no reference to human bonding at the individual level.
True. I guess that he assumed that his listeners would automatically know that bonding is done one person at a time and begins with those close to the listener. I knew it and now you do as well my friend.
Regards
DL
Yes, your second sentence is correct. However, I don't see how it has anything to do with the third principle--and I just watched the TED video again to be sure. How recently have you watched that video? Also, which of the two videos are you referencing?
I am not so convinced that bonding does occur at the individual level one person at a time. Perhaps it would be nice if it did, but people usually bond in the form of large groups- and their bond as a member or nonmember of a group is often the basis of whether or not they bond with an individual at all. I agree that bonding begins with those close to you, but who is close to you is usually dependent on what groups you are part of/bond with.
It is far more common that you will meet and bond with an individual after becoming part of a particular group than it is to become part of a particular group after bonding with an individual. When was the last time that you bonded with someone who had nothing in common with you?
Go sit in a place where initial social interactions take place for a few hours- say for example a bar. The vast majority of conversations among people who don't know each other will start on the basis of clues that define them as the same group. If they do not belong to any of the same groups the conversation will be virtually dead and everyone will sit in their own little shell. (which is the point where a good bartender knowing which groups his/her customers belong to will introduce people and say things like "hey, you know George plays poker too" and will get conversation started because to a bartender a silent bar is a bar that isn't spending money)
For example, if two guys are at the bar dressed in leather and are obviously bikers, I guarantee those two will start up a conversation and will bond with the starting subject being "Is that your Harley parked in the corner? Nice bike." People who order the same drink will tend to bond, people who are fans of the same sports team or at least the same sport, etc. Virtually every conversation that goes beyond pleasantries will be based on one person noticing the other is part of the same group.
I would argue that in most cases, bonding starts with being part of the same group and bonding with a group leads to bonding with individuals within that group.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So, Rule number one: Protect the children because they ensure the survival of the group. But is this at the expense of adult life? If children die, the remaining adults can later have more children.. but if the adults die, there's no food or protection for the remaining children, meaning it's vastly more likely that they won't survive either. If a group faced these two options, which one should it choose, to give it the best chance of survival?
You validate your second rule by saying that the mother should be protected because she's more useful to the child, yet you also admit the child needs protection by the male.. are these both not important then, to ensure the success of getting that child to reproductive age, and thus continue the species? I'm going to keep this discussion in the terms you appear to be doing, and that's with regard to instinctual behaviour, and not reference modern society's impact on this construct (except here: That modern baby-feeding methods, sperm storage, gay couples rearing children, orphanages, etc etc all have societal impacts that can make this discussion way more complicated that is necessary at this stage)
Baby + mother - father = high food but low protection
Baby + father - mother = high protection but low food
Why is the first equation more important? You're removing the impact of a protective father from your considerations for some reason.
I agree only women can bear children, and that the father is of lesser importance in this early stage pre-birth (kill the father, baby doesn't necessarily die, kill the mother, baby definitely dies) from the child's perspective, not from the viewpoint of society as a whole in terms of ensuring its survival. You need both men and women for the best chance of the group's success in general terms and from the perspective of general long term group survival.
Regarding your last point(as an aside, since i'm not sure why the protection of young and women by men would indicate they are more important than the male), there are many animal species where the male is larger and stronger, who on discovering a female with young, will kill the young and impregnate the female so that she spends her energy rearing his cubs rather than another male's. Is this because he's trying to ensure the survival of the species as a whole, or merely his own genetic blueprints? The result of this action, by natural selection, may well lead to a stronger species as a whole, but for the male that's a side effect of his actions.
Jonathan Haidt on TED.com
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/
In order.
Care/harm
Reciprocity/fair play
In group bonding
Recognizing authority
Purity/sanctity
Yea, except the third and fourth are called "Ingroup/Loyalty" and "Authority/Respect", respectively. Sorry for being picky, but wording is very important.
Perhaps.
Let's take a closer look. Let's say your bartender does as you say and introduces you around. Let's say you make the rounds and meet all the members but no one bonds with you the first few nights. You will continue to frequent that pub for a time but let's say that after a couple of months, you still only have acquaintanses but no one who seeks you out or shown an inclination to bond or ever buys you a round after you have paid more than your fair share of rounds. You still have your groupish instincts and desires but they are not being appeased.
Without that individual bond happening first, you will not form a loyalty to the group. The whole thing is for you to gain a sense of belonging. I think you will soon try to find another pub with a more forthcoming crew.
That or change your favorite tune to this one in that same bar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0q8Oho_RjM
Regards
DL
It can get complicate for sure and the 80/20 rules says that my view should be good for 80% of the time and the devil is in the details of the other 20.
Let me start with this and see what happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6c3OTr6yA
A hypothetical might shed light on what is true or not in terms of survival, which I class as a moral principle.
If for some reason there could only be one human chosen to repopulate the world after some imaginary disaster, are all equal to the task?
No. Only a pregnant woman would be able to reboot the species. Of course, the child in the womb would need to be a male. This indicates that to serve the needs of the one, who wants to become many, a pregnant female is the best choice.
If not pregnant.
If there were only two people to be chosen to be saved, then either a productive man and woman or a woman and male child would be the best choice. In terms of duty to protect, the man would have to take the lead in protecting the female, be she pregnant or not, as she must live if the species is to have the best chance to grow. Not to get gory here but a woman can use a newly dead man and reboot the population alone whereas a man cannot in any way use a dead woman.
If in our scenario 3 or more are chosen to live, the ratio should always favor the female.
If not, then you recognize what is good for the one. It follows then that what is good for the one is good for the many. The ancients knew this and that is likely why they allowed themselves multiple wives. As resources and populations increased, that perceived need or want disappeared. Almost.
Woman's womb and breasts makes her more valuable than a man. This serves man well as he, being more aggressive and sexually demanding than women, generally speaking, is why he instinctively knows that he is to be the protector and bend the knee to woman and elevate her to the top of society.
=========================
You said---
Baby + mother - father = high food but low protection
Baby + father - mother = high protection but low food
Why is the first equation more important? You're removing the impact of a protective father from your considerations for some reason.
I agree only women can bear children, and that the father is of lesser importance in this early stage pre-birth (kill the father, baby doesn't necessarily die, kill the mother, baby definitely dies) from the child's perspective, not from the viewpoint of society as a whole in terms of ensuring its survival. You need both men and women for the best chance of the group's success in general terms and from the perspective of general long term group survival.
My reply ----
The health of the society on the whole depends on the health of the individual sub group or families and yes there would be a tolerable change of who should protect and if need be die. I E. At a certain age, if the woman becomes barren then a man would and society would be better off to insure that his younger daughter survives as long as she is old enough to feed herself.
To your last. Male lions do kill of the offspring of another male when his selfish gene kicks in to have the female expend energy rearing his own. Other species do not so the lion would be in that 20% of the 80/20 rule mentioned above. There are many species and many survival techniques.
In humans, you may have noted that in times of starvation, our instincts seem to be selfish and men and women will let the offspring die first so that the adults might live to reproduce. I am not sure if there is an age limit for the child where that instinct kicks in. I have never been close enough to see if there are any older no reproductive parents in the foods camps who let their old enough to survive on their own children. I would think that those children, if old and strong enough, would abandon their parents and head out on their own. It becomes every person for themselves.
Regards
DL
For sure.
Regards
DL
What you have just described is an individual who is essentially excluded from the group for whatever reason. Some bars cater to specific groups. For example, if you went to a biker bar and were not a biker you would probably have an experience similar to what you describe (assuming they don't just tell you to leave and physically throw you out). You are essentially considered as an "outsider" and the individuals in that bar will probably refuse to bond with you because you were rejected by the group that they are a part of.
So as you suggested, such a person would most likely go to a different bar which had more people that were members of their group. I think your example is an illustration of how the group bond usually comes before the individual bonds are made. Now of course there may be exceptions.
I think one obvious one is when a member of the "in" group vouches for the new person. Suppose for example that I went out drinking with HarleySportster due to the bond we have formed as members of the atheist group- Harley might take me to one of his favorite biker dives where most likely I would be instantly excluded (I am not a biker and don't know the first thing about bikes and certainly don't look like one). By arriving with him I would probably be at least temporarily accepted as a member of the group. In that case the individual bond could lead to bonding with a different group. However, you will note that the individual bond that led to the new group bond only occurred because of a group bond.
Furthermore, it is likely that if I continued going to that bar without adopting their culture that I would never really be accepted into the group and depending on Harley's social standing within the group they may even start excluding him for associating with me. I have even witnessed people being directly asked/told not to bring a particular person around anymore because they are not a welcome part of the group. In many ways, humans never escape highschool, some just get better at hiding it.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
There could be tons of reason to ostracise someone. I have seen peer pressure work both for the negative and positive. Group dynamics are funny sometimes. We like to discriminate both for and against. That good old 20% is always in play.
Regards
DL