Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
661

[quote]
Strawman. I’ve not suggested morality, or moral behaviour, evolved after the invention of agriculture. I said the need for more intricate moral behaviour became necessary after humankind began to congregate in number larger then even seen before.[/quote]

Maybe i misunderstood then.
“magnified” and now “more intricate” does not imply some kind of progress ?

[quote]
I don’t know what you mean by “what morality prescibes” as if morality is an entity that exists on its own. It doesn’t.[/quote]

it’s simple really :
Science can describe how and why people do what they are used to do.
Science can not tell what people shall do.

And that’s exactly what morality is : something you shall do. a rule you have to respect.

Or

It doesn’t exist.
Moral is just a fancy name we give to various behaviors determined by our natural evolution and our cultural upbringings

the cool part :
There is no duty and no rule over you.

the not-so-cool part :
We are just tools and means for you.
You are just a tool and a mean for us.

And we are all high-functionning sociopaths.

662

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Humankind is inherently selfish, and this selfishness is magnified when a society becomes rich enough to sustain its citizens comfortably.

That does not mean that that society actively cares for people outside of society.

Perhaps that, in time, the globalisation will lead to the inclusion of everyone but before that happens it does not mean that iVoodo wasn’t right.
[/quote]

Wait, right about what?

At what point would we have to reach for either of you to be able to say this? "Okay, there it is, see, there are no longer any poor people, classes, prejudices, inequality, desire, or need for anything at all, and look, no one is being mean to anyone and suddenly everyone has become altruistic and kind and, by golly, moral!

You don’t see that, regardless of how “right” iVoodo may or may not be, the statement itself is absolutely meaningless? Hell, the first four words of your reply were, “Humankind is inherently selfish.”

I mean, under this rubric, Communism may work. [/quote]

Yes and no. In my view, humankind is the only species of animal on this planet who’s capable of going beyond its genetic imprint and create a mature society that aims at more than aquiring wealth and power for a few to the detriment of many.

Utopia? Perhaps. Wholly impossible? I don’t think so.

I also think that, by necessity, this mature society will be secular.

663

[quote]kamui wrote:

And we are all high-functionning sociopaths.

[/quote]

Yes, basically. The ability to empathise, in varying degrees, determins the level of sociopathy. Combine that with intelligence, or the lack thereof, and the mechanisms behind morality become visible.

664

Yet, for some reasons, i doubt anyone can concretely apply these theoretical ideas for more than a few hours.

Basically, it would require that each and every time you make an act of evaluation, you try to remember that this evaluation is actually baseless (a genetically and culturally pre-determined magnifying illusion).

Then, each and every time, you should rationally examine the “mechanisms behind morality” to see if your initial moral evaluation was right or not, from a selfish utilitarian point of view.

And then, each and everytime, you should act accordingly, regardless of your spontaneous feelings.

No one can consistently do that. This constant internal doublespeak would be intenable.
Every body think and act as if morality existed, and “believe in it”, for all practical purposes.

And by the way, the vast majority of sociopaths understand morality just fine, usually way better than most relativist theoricians.
They just have an extremely hard time caring about it.

665

[quote]kamui wrote:

Every body think and act as if morality existed, and “believe in it”, for all practical purposes.

[/quote]

Bingo.

No matter how much anyone claims to the contrary, not a one of them really puts his money where his mouth is and lives as if he believes it to be true. Doing so would make one, well, a sociopath.

666

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Every body think and act as if morality existed, and “believe in it”, for all practical purposes.

[/quote]

Bingo.

No matter how much anyone claims to the contrary, not a one of them really puts his money where his mouth is and lives as if he believes it to be true. Doing so would make one, well, a sociopath. [/quote]

a very convoluted procrastinating sociopath, indeed.

667

[quote]kamui wrote:
Yet, for some reasons, i doubt anyone can concretely apply these theoretical ideas for more than a few hours.

Basically, it would require that each and every time you make an act of evaluation, you try to remember that this evaluation is actually baseless (a genetically and culturally pre-determined magnifying illusion).

Then, each and every time, you should rationally examine the “mechanisms behind morality” to see if your initial moral evaluation was right or not, from a selfish utilitarian point of view.

And then, each and everytime, you should act accordingly, regardless of your spontaneous feelings.

No one can consistently do that. This constant internal doublespeak would be intenable.
Every body think and act as if morality existed, and “believe in it”, for all practical purposes.

And by the way, the vast majority of sociopaths understand morality just fine, usually way better than most relativist theoricians.
They just have an extremely hard time caring about it.

[/quote]

This only poses a false dichotomy instead of relating to something probable.

There is a hierarchy that determines, for me, what choice needs to be made, and what the consequences of that choice are.

We all have this hierarchy, and it’s based on experience, upbringing, education, desire, wants and needs.

Now, according to you, somewhere in that decision-making process, separate from everything yet permeating everything, exists morality that influences our decision-making.

Not surprisingly, I have a hard time believing that.

668

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Yet, for some reasons, i doubt anyone can concretely apply these theoretical ideas for more than a few hours.

Basically, it would require that each and every time you make an act of evaluation, you try to remember that this evaluation is actually baseless (a genetically and culturally pre-determined magnifying illusion).

Then, each and every time, you should rationally examine the “mechanisms behind morality” to see if your initial moral evaluation was right or not, from a selfish utilitarian point of view.

And then, each and everytime, you should act accordingly, regardless of your spontaneous feelings.

No one can consistently do that. This constant internal doublespeak would be intenable.
Every body think and act as if morality existed, and “believe in it”, for all practical purposes.

And by the way, the vast majority of sociopaths understand morality just fine, usually way better than most relativist theoricians.
They just have an extremely hard time caring about it.

[/quote]

This only poses a false dichotomy instead of relating to something probable.

There is a hierarchy that determines, for me, what choice needs to be made, and what the consequences of that choice are.

We all have this hierarchy, and it’s based on experience, upbringing, education, desire, wants and needs.

Now, according to you, somewhere in that decision-making process, separate from everything yet permeating everything, exists morality that influences our decision-making.

Not surprisingly, I have a hard time believing that.[/quote]

Experience, upbringing, education, desire, wants and needs does not determine what choice needs to be made.

Experience, upbringing, education, desire, wants and needs are nothing more and nothing less than informations.

Experience tells you what happened last time you made a certain choice.
Upbringing and education tells you what your parents, your teacher and your neighbor would think if you make a certain choice.
Desire tells you how you wil feel if you make a certain choice.
Needs tells you how you will feel if you don’t make a certain choice.

Now, these informations do inform your choice.
They may help you to make a more intelligent choice.
But they doesn’t make it. YOU do.
And, assuming you control yourself, you can make a moral or an immoral choice.

In that respect, these informations won’t help you.

You just need a normal brain, and a basic understanding of the concept of rule.

A moral choice is not
-the choice you naturally want to make
-the choice others want you to make
-the choice your genes want you to make
-the choice the specie want you to make

By definition, a moal choice is a choice that follows an universal rule.

Would you do it everytime, in every similar case, even if you were condemned to live forever and re-make this choice billions of times ?
Could any one do the same choice, in every similar situation ?
Can your choice become a rule ?

If yes, congratulation, you just made a moral choice.

669

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

This only poses a false dichotomy instead of relating to something probable.

There is a hierarchy that determines, for me, what choice needs to be made, and what the consequences of that choice are.

We all have this hierarchy, and it’s based on experience, upbringing, education, desire, wants and needs.

Now, according to you, somewhere in that decision-making process, separate from everything yet permeating everything, exists morality that influences our decision-making.

Not surprisingly, I have a hard time believing that.[/quote]

Experience, upbringing, education, desire, wants and needs does not determine what choice needs to be made.

Experience, upbringing, education, desire, wants and needs are nothing more and nothing less than informations.

Experience tells you what happened last time you made a certain choice.
Upbringing and education tells you what your parents, your teacher and your neighbor would think if you make a certain choice.
Desire tells you how you wil feel if you make a certain choice.
Needs tells you how you will feel if you don’t make a certain choice.

Now, these informations do inform your choice.
They may help you to make a more intelligent choice.
But they doesn’t make it. YOU do.
And, assuming you control yourself, you can make a moral or an immoral choice.

In that respect, these informations won’t help you.

You just need a normal brain, and a basic understanding of the concept of rule.

A moral choice is not
-the choice you naturally want to make
-the choice others want you to make
-the choice your genes want you to make
-the choice the specie want you to make

By definition, a moal choice is a choice that follows an universal rule.

Would you do it everytime, in every similar case, even if you were condemned to live forever and re-make this choice billions of times ?
Could any one do the same choice, in every similar situation ?
Can your choice become a rule ?

If yes, congratulation, you just made a moral choice.
[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying, and I think that what you’re saying is true upto the point of a choice becoming a rule.

Most rules are followed, but every rule gets broken. If you make a moral choice, which is a rule you live by, and I don’t share your moral stance on the matter, what makes your choice moral?

Your opinion? A majority of peoples’ opinion?

If all you have to go by when you establish a moral code is your own experience of morality, where’s the difference between you and I?

670

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem is that I don’t want to kill anybody ever, but everybody has a threshold, you threaten my family, you can kiss your ass good-bye.
The time of, and the people for whom these original books were intended lived in an entirely different world and hence the books made sense. These people were uneducated nomads who didn’t even know not to fuck goats or eat vultures. If you know the history or salvation and the way God works it makes a lot more sense. These are lowly, pretty stupid people whom God chose to use establish himself on earth. To do that initially, there had to be some ass whippin’.
I can explain this in more detail, but I don’t know that the axe you have to grind and the chip on your shoulder will allow you to be as objective as you need to, to understand. [/quote]

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but I’ve been more than willing to hear you, or any other theist, out. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to question what you say, but then again, converting would be a waste of time if I can’t even convince myself I’m right.

Next question; Since god is all knowing, he must have known ahead of time the amount of suffering that would occur should things go on the path he laid out. This question is a two-parter.

  1. Why did God not change the circumstances of the garden of Eden to avoid what he knew would happen should he not make any changes.
  2. How do you reconcile God’s omnipotence with free will?

Well, to be fair, you can breath infinite life into any literary work if you really choose to.

My problem is that the criticisms I see for these other religions also apply to yours and the best arguments for your religion seem like they apply equally to other religions as well. For example, you argue that the necessity of a “first cause” is reason to believe a timeless being is responsible for the universe. Why can’t that being be Allah or Zeus?

I don’t argue that God is a meanie to prove he doesn’t exist. My “meanie” arguments are just to establish that God is, in fact, a meanie.

671

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem is that I don’t want to kill anybody ever, but everybody has a threshold, you threaten my family, you can kiss your ass good-bye.
The time of, and the people for whom these original books were intended lived in an entirely different world and hence the books made sense. These people were uneducated nomads who didn’t even know not to fuck goats or eat vultures. If you know the history or salvation and the way God works it makes a lot more sense. These are lowly, pretty stupid people whom God chose to use establish himself on earth. To do that initially, there had to be some ass whippin’.
I can explain this in more detail, but I don’t know that the axe you have to grind and the chip on your shoulder will allow you to be as objective as you need to, to understand. [/quote]

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but I’ve been more than willing to hear you, or any other theist, out. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to question what you say, but then again, converting would be a waste of time if I can’t even convince myself I’m right.

Next question; Since god is all knowing, he must have known ahead of time the amount of suffering that would occur should things go on the path he laid out. This question is a two-parter.

  1. Why did God not change the circumstances of the garden of Eden to avoid what he knew would happen should he not make any changes.
    [/quote]
    Why he chose to do things the way he did it, I don’t know. It sure would be easier on everybody if he just popped down here and made it all very, very clear, or made us different, incapable of evil. But he didn’t, God doesn’t do easy and never has…

I am going to assume you meant omniscience? There are a few ways to reconcile it. One is the obvious paradox treatment. It’s a possibility of course, in that an omni-everything being should be able to trump even the seemingly logically impossible.

Another possibility is simply a matter of choice. In this scenario, God can choose simply not to know the decisions we are going to make. This would be omnipotence acting on omniscience. While for humans it would simply be impossible to pretend we didn’t know something, an omnipotent being should be able to do this.

Then there is the understand that the issue of freewill and choice actually are metaphysical constructs and technically do not occur in time, but we interact with them in time. So that all matters of choice happen outside the a time based continuum.

God’s not a big fat meanie, sometimes he had to be. How much would we all like it if God just once and for all got rid of all the evil people who rape kids, murder families, do child sexual slavery, who annihilate towns, shoot into a school yard just to make sure one person dies, etc. The world has no shortage of evil. I have heard the atheist criticism of why God doesn’t just get rid of all the evil in the world. Sounds good to me, until…

It sounds good until you realize how many people that really is. It could number in to the billions. So then it begs the question, do you really want God to deliver justice?
But then your stuck with these horrific things people inflict on one another. Just look at Somalia.

Well that’s what happened in the past and it will happen again. What most people miss about the OT, is that while the texts has these events happening in quick succession, that’s not really the case. These events were often spaced by hundreds if not thousands of years between them. Then in the end, there were only a handful.

Last point here, I was just discussing with someone else, this current modern world is no better or less brutal than the old world. There is wide spread evil. People are horrible each other through out the world. We are no more civilized than we have ever been, we just hide it better, we distract ourselves more, we hide it behind walls or use pretty words to make things not look as they first appear.

672

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Every body think and act as if morality existed, and “believe in it”, for all practical purposes.

[/quote]

Bingo.

No matter how much anyone claims to the contrary, not a one of them really puts his money where his mouth is and lives as if he believes it to be true. Doing so would make one, well, a sociopath. [/quote]

I argue though whether you act on it or believe it, it still does exist. Am I mistaken in the understanding of what is being said?

673

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Every body think and act as if morality existed, and “believe in it”, for all practical purposes.

[/quote]

Bingo.

No matter how much anyone claims to the contrary, not a one of them really puts his money where his mouth is and lives as if he believes it to be true. Doing so would make one, well, a sociopath. [/quote]

I argue though whether you act on it or believe it, it still does exist. Am I mistaken in the understanding of what is being said?[/quote]

You’re saying what I’m saying. Somebody like ephrem can claim up and down that morality is nothing more than a human construct, and that at the core we are just acting out of utilitarian concerns.

However, when it comes down to the line, almost every living person, if he could get away with something truly immoral that would vastly benefit himself or a number of others including himself (not that the others would matter, ostensibly), he would still choose the “right” option, or feel guilty at not having done so afterward. But why should he, if it doesn’t really matter? Well, he’ll say that it’s because of his upbringing, societal pressure, cognitive dissonance in acting contrary to how he’s always acted, take your pick. However, at some point, no matter what we’ve been told, or how we’ve been raised, or what the local Zeitgeist happens to be, we have to make a choice, and that choice gets decided, either way, with a clear feeling that it is either right, or wrong. That he should, or should not do it.

That’s why I say, and kamui is saying, whether or not there is an absolute metaphysical morality, despite what anyone claims to the contrary, we all live as if morality IS.

674

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< That’s why I say, and kamui is saying, whether or not there is an absolute metaphysical CERTAINTY, despite what anyone claims to the contrary, we all live as if CERTAINTY IS.[/quote]Edited for effect. Sound familiar? I say there IS a metaphysical certainty that dictates a metaphysically certain morality and they alone account for all of of existence, reality and human experience.

Every syllable that fell from the lips of Christopher Hitchens was a loud definitive proclamation of the glory of the God of ancient Christianity. As soon as I can cobble together some time we’ll get movin some more in the epistemology thread. It’s unavoidable everywhere. The key to everything indeed.

675

When I fart is it also a “definitive proclamation of the glory of the God of ancient Christianity”?

676

[quote]ephrem wrote:
When I fart is it also a “definitive proclamation of the glory of the God of ancient Christianity”?[/quote]Absolutely. Me too. The God I worship governs and orders absolutely every last sub atomic particle in all the universe to His glory and His alone. The most vociferous of snarling unbelievers. Everything they fart, belch, vomit, think, do, say and ARE, are by His unchangeable almighty decreeing will, foreordained to serve His holy, just, most pure and perfect purpose. He ALWAYS gets His way Ephrem. You are this very moment His servant. Even while you scoff and deny Him. If you only knew how I want you as my brother.

677

[quote]ephrem wrote:
When I fart is it also a “definitive proclamation of the glory of the God of ancient Christianity”?[/quote]

You are alive. Does that answer your question?

678

[quote]ephrem wrote:
When I fart is it also a “definitive proclamation of the glory of the God of ancient Christianity”?[/quote]

Well, there is no such thing as ‘the God of ancient Christianity’… That sounds like the ol’ sun god or moon god, or god of my lawn, or whatnot.

679

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem is that I don’t want to kill anybody ever, but everybody has a threshold, you threaten my family, you can kiss your ass good-bye.
The time of, and the people for whom these original books were intended lived in an entirely different world and hence the books made sense. These people were uneducated nomads who didn’t even know not to fuck goats or eat vultures. If you know the history or salvation and the way God works it makes a lot more sense. These are lowly, pretty stupid people whom God chose to use establish himself on earth. To do that initially, there had to be some ass whippin’.
I can explain this in more detail, but I don’t know that the axe you have to grind and the chip on your shoulder will allow you to be as objective as you need to, to understand. [/quote]

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but I’ve been more than willing to hear you, or any other theist, out. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to question what you say, but then again, converting would be a waste of time if I can’t even convince myself I’m right.

Next question; Since god is all knowing, he must have known ahead of time the amount of suffering that would occur should things go on the path he laid out. This question is a two-parter.

  1. Why did God not change the circumstances of the garden of Eden to avoid what he knew would happen should he not make any changes.
    [/quote]
    Why he chose to do things the way he did it, I don’t know. It sure would be easier on everybody if he just popped down here and made it all very, very clear, or made us different, incapable of evil. But he didn’t, God doesn’t do easy and never has…

I am going to assume you meant omniscience? There are a few ways to reconcile it. One is the obvious paradox treatment. It’s a possibility of course, in that an omni-everything being should be able to trump even the seemingly logically impossible.

Another possibility is simply a matter of choice. In this scenario, God can choose simply not to know the decisions we are going to make. This would be omnipotence acting on omniscience. While for humans it would simply be impossible to pretend we didn’t know something, an omnipotent being should be able to do this.

Then there is the understand that the issue of freewill and choice actually are metaphysical constructs and technically do not occur in time, but we interact with them in time. So that all matters of choice happen outside the a time based continuum.

God’s not a big fat meanie, sometimes he had to be. How much would we all like it if God just once and for all got rid of all the evil people who rape kids, murder families, do child sexual slavery, who annihilate towns, shoot into a school yard just to make sure one person dies, etc. The world has no shortage of evil. I have heard the atheist criticism of why God doesn’t just get rid of all the evil in the world. Sounds good to me, until…

It sounds good until you realize how many people that really is. It could number in to the billions. So then it begs the question, do you really want God to deliver justice?
But then your stuck with these horrific things people inflict on one another. Just look at Somalia.

Well that’s what happened in the past and it will happen again. What most people miss about the OT, is that while the texts has these events happening in quick succession, that’s not really the case. These events were often spaced by hundreds if not thousands of years between them. Then in the end, there were only a handful.

Last point here, I was just discussing with someone else, this current modern world is no better or less brutal than the old world. There is wide spread evil. People are horrible each other through out the world. We are no more civilized than we have ever been, we just hide it better, we distract ourselves more, we hide it behind walls or use pretty words to make things not look as they first appear.[/quote]

I see most of these points heading in the same direction so I’m going to save us both some time by just assuming we already got there.

Do you agree with the use of Hell (infinite torture) as punishment for finite sins? Also, do you think all humans deserve to go to Hell by birth right and must atone for the sin of… being born in order to go to Heaven?

680

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The problem is that I don’t want to kill anybody ever, but everybody has a threshold, you threaten my family, you can kiss your ass good-bye.
The time of, and the people for whom these original books were intended lived in an entirely different world and hence the books made sense. These people were uneducated nomads who didn’t even know not to fuck goats or eat vultures. If you know the history or salvation and the way God works it makes a lot more sense. These are lowly, pretty stupid people whom God chose to use establish himself on earth. To do that initially, there had to be some ass whippin’.
I can explain this in more detail, but I don’t know that the axe you have to grind and the chip on your shoulder will allow you to be as objective as you need to, to understand. [/quote]

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but I’ve been more than willing to hear you, or any other theist, out. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to question what you say, but then again, converting would be a waste of time if I can’t even convince myself I’m right.

Next question; Since god is all knowing, he must have known ahead of time the amount of suffering that would occur should things go on the path he laid out. This question is a two-parter.

  1. Why did God not change the circumstances of the garden of Eden to avoid what he knew would happen should he not make any changes.
    [/quote]
    Why he chose to do things the way he did it, I don’t know. It sure would be easier on everybody if he just popped down here and made it all very, very clear, or made us different, incapable of evil. But he didn’t, God doesn’t do easy and never has…

I am going to assume you meant omniscience? There are a few ways to reconcile it. One is the obvious paradox treatment. It’s a possibility of course, in that an omni-everything being should be able to trump even the seemingly logically impossible.

Another possibility is simply a matter of choice. In this scenario, God can choose simply not to know the decisions we are going to make. This would be omnipotence acting on omniscience. While for humans it would simply be impossible to pretend we didn’t know something, an omnipotent being should be able to do this.

Then there is the understand that the issue of freewill and choice actually are metaphysical constructs and technically do not occur in time, but we interact with them in time. So that all matters of choice happen outside the a time based continuum.

God’s not a big fat meanie, sometimes he had to be. How much would we all like it if God just once and for all got rid of all the evil people who rape kids, murder families, do child sexual slavery, who annihilate towns, shoot into a school yard just to make sure one person dies, etc. The world has no shortage of evil. I have heard the atheist criticism of why God doesn’t just get rid of all the evil in the world. Sounds good to me, until…

It sounds good until you realize how many people that really is. It could number in to the billions. So then it begs the question, do you really want God to deliver justice?
But then your stuck with these horrific things people inflict on one another. Just look at Somalia.

Well that’s what happened in the past and it will happen again. What most people miss about the OT, is that while the texts has these events happening in quick succession, that’s not really the case. These events were often spaced by hundreds if not thousands of years between them. Then in the end, there were only a handful.

Last point here, I was just discussing with someone else, this current modern world is no better or less brutal than the old world. There is wide spread evil. People are horrible each other through out the world. We are no more civilized than we have ever been, we just hide it better, we distract ourselves more, we hide it behind walls or use pretty words to make things not look as they first appear.[/quote]

I see most of these points heading in the same direction so I’m going to save us both some time by just assuming we already got there.

Do you agree with the use of Hell (infinite torture) as punishment for finite sins? Also, do you think all humans deserve to go to Hell by birth right and must atone for the sin of… being born in order to go to Heaven? [/quote]

That’s not the way it works. You’re not damned by default. There are some sects that believe that, but they primarily pulled it out of their ass because it’s damn sure not biblical. The components of salvation are faith and behavior. Culpability is the key, you are held accountable for what you do. If you are not culpable, you are not guilty of anything.

Do I think some people deserve to got to hell, based on my finite judgement? absolutely. For some, there is no hell hot enough, no torture sufficient for the evil they propagate. But save for the obvious, I cannot pass judgement because I flat don’t know most people in any detail.