Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[dharveymi]

You have revised my thinking a bit.  I think those that are most advanced (from an evolutionary perspective) are those who can convince others of a strict moral code while at the same time convincing them that because of their personal position, heritage, etc. they are somehow exempt from this morality, and any violations of that they must commit of that strict moral code is for the greater good, national security, etc.  Such people have the best chance of passing on their ideas and genes.  It seems to me that all the rest of this is nothing more than a lot of yada...yada.

[theCelestrian]

You have revised my thinking a bit.  I think those that are most advanced (from an evolutionary perspective) are those who can convince others of a strict moral code while at the same time convincing them that because of their personal position, heritage, etc. they are somehow exempt from this morality, and any violations of that they must commit of that strict moral code is for the greater good, national security, etc.

Hmmm.  It's an interesting hypothesis, but I would say this could also have as much to do about humanity's apparent instinctual response to accept authority, which I have made the assertion that this very well could also be an evolved behavior/instinct, as a lot of human "growth" has resulted form the centralization of leadership and the specialization of tasks within a population.

Such people have the best chance of passing on their ideas and genes.  It seems to me that all the rest of this is nothing more than a lot of yada...yada.

I would also point out though, that societies where this happens is often doomed to mass "unhappiness", revolution, restructuring, recentralization, mass "unhappiness", revolution, restructuring, recentralization....ad infinitum.  While it's very true that the "genetic success" of the few do indeed happen in this particular time, this comes as the cost of "genetic success" of a larger group of people in the population, something that Rillion points out eventaully get "punished," since in essence this can be a kind of "social cheating."  Who knows though, I'm not an anthropologist nor psychologist by education.

While I can see the arguments made, I think one of the problems we have is that there is no long-term verifiable "test cases" where we can see, measure and observe a society of a group of individuals that collectively share this "proper morality," and therefore cannot draw any real conclusions based on actual observable evidence.  As this thread illustrates, we're dealing mostly in the academic abstracts of hypothesis, hypotheticals and conjecture.


(EDIT: changed "humanities" to the proper "humanity's")

[ChristianAnarchist]

yada yada...

[theCelestrian]

yada yada...

Amusing.  Shall I take this as you are tired of talking about the sensibility of Christian Anarchy and all the related issues that entails?


....on "your own" thread?

[ChristianAnarchist]

yada yada...

Amusing.  Shall I take this as you are tired of talking about the sensibility of Christian Anarchy and all the related issues that entails?


....on "your own" thread?

No, you should take this as "yada yada..."

[theCelestrian]

No, you should take this as "yada yada..."

Well, "yada yada..." can be taken a lot of ways, generally the most common is "this is just talk, and I've stopped listening."

Care to clarify?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Jerry Seinfeld...

[theCelestrian]

Ah.  I see.  You and I are speaking different languages, and we're having the discussion "about nothing", are we?  Okay, that's fine.  I won't bother anymore.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Antisemite...

[theCelestrian]

yada yada...

Jerry Seinfeld...

Antisemite...

Pretty unimpressive, Gene.  I think I've always been pretty respectful to you, and now you're giving me this...

[Lindsey]

Jerry Seinfeld...

Wasn't "yada yada yada" the dirty part of the events that were being explained?  Or did I completely lose my mind?  Sorry.  Had to ask. 

[theCelestrian]

Wasn't "yada yada yada" the dirty part of the events that were being explained?  Or did I completely lose my mind?  Sorry.  Had to ask.

I never watched Sienfeld... or Network TV as a whole for that matter.

[Lindsey]

Wasn't "yada yada yada" the dirty part of the events that were being explained?  Or did I completely lose my mind?  Sorry.  Had to ask.

I never watched Sienfeld... or Network TV as a whole for that matter.

Blasphemer.  Okay, I hardly watch television anymore, but still.   

[markuzick]

Then your interpretation flies in the face of all the evidence which shows that man can be the most violent and self destructive of all the animals, with whole societies following irrational paths to mistaken dead ends.

Umm, hardly.  The discussion is on where morality came from, not what species is capable of the most violence.  The fact that I think morality has evolved doesn't mean I believe plenty of other urges haven't as well.  Not to mention, the moral instinct has itself  manifested in much violence and destruction over our history (remember I said concepts of right and wrong, not actual right and wrong).

Again, you're confusing moral intuition with instinctual personal and social behavior. Morality implies a choice. Instinctual behavior is chosen by either evolution or a creator/designer. Moral intuitions come from values that are learned or discovered. Curiosity is an instinct that is inborn. The desire to survive is an instinct that is inborn. Most technical and social skills, including morality are learned and then become intuitive.

If Man is responsible for choosing his own morality, then simple human error, human weakness and the arduousness of accumulating  knowledge and wisdom over countless generations, would account for his behavior, both good and bad.

This statement is nonsensical.  First of all, it would help if you would stop talking about "Man choosing his" as if the entirety of the humanity is one (male, apparently) person making "his" choices.  The billions of homo sapiens who have existed over time (not to mention all of the hominids and australopithicenes who have come before them) have made moral choices for a variety of reasons.

 

You shouldn't be falsely accusing me of nonsense, while spewing pure ignorant nonsense of your own. I know that you're knowledgeable, so I can only assume this subject upsets you so greatly as to forget that all of your examples are Man.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
hominid
1889, "family of mammals represented by man," from Mod.L. Hominidæ the biological family name, coined 1825 from L. homo (gen. hominis) "man." Hominoid "man-like" is from 1927.

Secondly, choices have to come from somewhere-- your calling them "choices" does not say anything about their origin whatsoever.  Intuitions are still choices, though they can't properly be called "conscious."

You're repeating what I've already made clear, as if I didn't already explain it. 

The language you're using is decidedly non-scientific.  It doesn't translate into an actual argument about how evolution is related to morality.

Well, you don't seem to be doing so well with your "official" terminology. Using professional jargon doesn't help, if you don't use it logically, or consistently.

Man has an instinctual desire to survive and be happy, but the moral intuition that he requires to achieve this, he must discover for himself or learn from his culture.

You don't learn or discover intuitions.  They are conclusions you make without realizing it. 

You're correct. I should have said " but the values upon which the moral intuition that he requires to achieve this are based," That was sloppy of me.

I think we're talking at cross purposes.  The kind of commentary you're making comes straight out of Hobbes, a kind of fairy tale about the journey of Man from primitive to civilization.  But though it's a nice story, it doesn't actually explain where morality comes from.

You must first know what morality is, as well as the distinction between morality and inborn instinct, before you can converse meaningfully about the subject.

[Rillion]

Okay, markuzick, this conversation is not going to go anywhere with such dramatic disagreement about terms. 

Again, you're confusing moral intuition with instinctual personal and social behavior.

I am saying that moral intuition is  instinctive.  I am saying that moral intuitions are evolved. 

Morality implies a choice.

Not to me, it doesn't.  Not a conscious one, when the very thing I am saying is that so many of our moral judgments are unconscious.  You can disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I don't understand my own argument. 

You shouldn't be falsely accusing me of nonsense, while spewing pure ignorant nonsense of your own. I know that you're knowledgeable, so I can only assume this subject upsets you so greatly as to forget that all of your examples are Man.

What I am saying is that when you insist on talking about "Man choosing his," you're basically portraying all of humanity as a single character who has consciously guided "his" own evolution.  That's not what happened-- the whole premise of evolutionary psychology is that a lot of our behavior stems from instincts we developed 100,000 years ago or more.  Before consciousness in the sense we have now even existed. 

And this subject hardly "upsets" me.  I am frustrated by the difficulty of communicating with you.

You must first know what morality is, as well as the distinction between morality and inborn instinct, before you can converse meaningfully about the subject.

I already gave you my working definition of morality, and it is not dependent on instinct vs. conscious behavior.  If you want to know where this kind of thinking comes from, I suggest reading this:  http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf