Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There was a lot of human history even before 0 A.D. If everyone knew slavery was so wrong, and this was some kind of universal principle, why the blanket statements in Leviticus?

I think you are just deeply, deeply anti-evolution

actually much of what you guys have been talking about cuts out large parts of natural selection. Taking care of really sick kids that otherwise would have died, buying your kids glasses when they would have dies in caveman times, etc.

We've done loads to eliminate natural selection.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There was a lot of human history even before 0 A.D. If everyone knew slavery was so wrong, and this was some kind of universal principle, why the blanket statements in Leviticus?

I think you are just deeply, deeply anti-evolution or something, that we have all given you a bunch of different reasons other than "god gave humanity an immutable set of morals" for why/how people agree on general principles, and you reject all of them.

How does that wall feel against your head?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
How does that wall feel against your head?

Better than the spiky, muck-encrusted wall I could be banging my head against at work.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
actually much of what you guys have been talking about cuts out large parts of natural selection. Taking care of really sick kids that otherwise would have died, buying your kids glasses when they would have dies in caveman times, etc.

We've done loads to eliminate natural selection.

Yup, but like an appendix, this need to take care of things keeps staying on, producing irrational results like spending millions keeping some kid who really out to just die alive. Pretty sucky.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
actually much of what you guys have been talking about cuts out large parts of natural selection. Taking care of really sick kids that otherwise would have died, buying your kids glasses when they would have dies in caveman times, etc.

We've done loads to eliminate natural selection.

This is true.

Not that I have any interest in engaging in this discussion, but some part of people's instinct or whatever you want to call it to help others less fortunate has to do with the increased self-esteem imparted on the helper (including, I believe studies have shown (though I'm too busy to google it), increased production of endorphins). This is true whether the person being helped is your next door neighbor or is a victim of a tsunami thousands of miles away. So in that respect it is an act of self-interest. I think this is true not just in people, but also in some animals. Rescue dogs, for example - Newfoundlands instinctually will jump into a freezing lake to rescue a person (this is not trained behavior, at least at this point in time - query whether it at some point in history was trained into that breed of dogs by humans (again, not gonna google)) and are very proud of themselves once the task is accomplished.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think there's a universal moral code, but the process you describe is consistent with the idea that there has been a long evolution of moral reasoning, with people gradually converging on agreement over fundamental principles, but continuing to disagree in various ways about specific application.

You seem to think the fact that we all think this way suggests that there is a God. Not to say there isn't a good, but maybe it reflects that we get our moral philosophy from our parents and others who raise us. Or that the human brain is hard-wired to certain moral dispositions because we all share a brain design that evolved in this way on the plains of East Africa.

I totally understand everyones scepticism of faith. It is faith that guides the suicide bombers. If I say God wrote my book and you say God wrote your book, and we are both using faith to back up our positions, then we will not be able to reslove our differences. There is no convergence of agreement of morality in that situation. But somehow morality seems to be converging and I don't know why. As the dinasour puts it, I don't understand this "long evolution of moral reasoning". If morality is converging, why is it converging? If morality is just a mutation that helps us survive, I don't see morality for all mankind converging over time. Mutations by definition don't converge. Evolution is based on death. The successful mutation survive and reproduce and the unsuccessful mutations die out. The Eagles with the better eyesight survive, where the eagles with poor eyesight die out because the eagles with the better eyesight get all the food. However, all humans seem to be surviving (surviving meaning they live long enough to reproduce) so humans with a certain moral disposition don't seem to wiping out other humans with out it (don't confuse prosperity with death). So it does not seem that a certain moral mutation is becoming dominant by wiping out all other mutations, yet human morality seems to be converging.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
some part of people's instinct or whatever you want to call it to help others less fortunate has to do with the increased self-esteem imparted on the helper (including, I believe studies have shown (though I'm too busy to google it), increased production of endorphins).

So when dtb timmys she is getting off?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
They may have discussed it but they never defined it. Talking about how acidic something is is ridiculous without a ph scale. Talking about how heavy or light something does not work with out some kind of measuring system. Same as talking about how illegal something is unless there is some code of penal system - misdemeaor, A felony, B felony etc. Saying something is really immoral, just immoral or not immoral at all is ridiculous without some sort of way to measure. Since Plato did not have a code, he just assumed it was insinctual. He also assumed that every one would agree on what is good and what is not. He assumed a code.

In the first place, Spnky, the mere fact that this discussion is taking place is confirmation of the fact that we still haven't defined it.

Furthermore, you can't assert that because what is "good" didn't have a relative scale under Plato doesn't mean he understood it any less than we do today, at least not if what you're debating is the foundation of morality as an absolute.

Finally, Plato did not assume that "everyone would agree on what is good and what is not." Plato posited that there is an ideal "Good" (i.e., the Form) and that we, as mere mortals could not fully understand the Form, but only attempt to puzzle it out on the basis of human faculties, like empathy, mutual benefit, and rational discourse.

You are talking in circles and making less sense each time around. I suggest you stop, think through exactly what it is you believe, why you believe it, and why anyone else here should care. Then, and only then, should you take this discussion to the next level. Because it's becoming apparent that the more others respond to you, the more confused you are getting.

[Spanky]

The questions comes down to this:

1) Everyone by posting to this board assumes everyone on the board has the same view of right and wrong. If we disagree on something people assume that is because the person has not thought out their position correctly, but once they see the fallacy of their thinking they will change their mind. So by posting on this board we are all assuming that we share a common morality. This common morality can come from two places.

a) The common morality we share is a mutation that has helped our species survive and we all share that mutation.

b) the common morality has been inserted into our brains by some supernatural force.

A rational person would first jump to position (a ) - as all the rational people on this board are doing. However, in my opinion, if you think about it, option (a) does not hold up to scrutiny. And as Sherlock homes said, if you have exhausted all possible explanations, the only explanation left, no matter how improbable, has to be the answer.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I totally understand everyones scepticism of faith. It is faith that guides the suicide bombers. If I say God wrote my book and you say God wrote your book, and we are both using faith to back up our positions, then we will not be able to reslove our differences. There is no convergence of agreement of morality in that situation. But somehow morality seems to be converging and I don't know why. As the dinasour puts it, I don't understand this "long evolution of moral reasoning". If morality is converging, why is it converging? If morality is just a mutation that helps us survive, I don't see morality for all mankind converging over time. Mutations by definition don't converge. Evolution is based on death. The successful mutation survive and reproduce and the unsuccessful mutations die out. The Eagles with the better eyesight survive, where the eagles with poor eyesight die out because the eagles with the better eyesight get all the food. However, all humans seem to be surviving (surviving meaning they live long enough to reproduce) so humans with a certain moral disposition don't seem to wiping out other humans with out it (don't confuse prosperity with death). So it does not seem that a certain moral mutation is becoming dominant by wiping out all other mutations, yet human morality seems to be converging.

I have read very little, if anything, that rejected faith. Neither have you. What has been offered, repreatedly, are a number of rational bases for moral and ethical decision-making.

People are rejecting your assertion that a faith in the Judeo-Christian model God is the only supportable basis for an ethical or moral code. The whole business about Darwin and natural selection is, it seems to me, a diversion at best, or sophistry at worst. Your resistance to accept the existence of pre-Jewish moral or ethical codes has been similarly diverting, but has failed to either support your point or refute the contrary view.

If it makes you feel better to adhere to a moral standard because you believe God has commanded it, so be it. But why, in the name of all that is holy, would you insist upon arguing to others who find other reasons for supporting a moral life that they should not, unless they do so to follow God? Do you really believe God cares why people act morally?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
The questions comes down to this:

1) Everyone by posting to this board assumes everyone on the board has the same view of right and wrong. If we disagree on something people assume that is because the person has not thought out their position correctly, but once they see the fallacy of their thinking they will change their mind.

here's your problem.
If you truly believe that you're too new here. No one has ever changed anyone's mind here. I helped fringey figure out how to get donuts from her work cafateria, but other than that, there's hasn't even been co-operation across the politic divide.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In the first place, Spnky, the mere fact that this discussion is taking place is confirmation of the fact that we still haven't defined it.

Furthermore, you can't assert that because what is "good" didn't have a relative scale under Plato doesn't mean he understood it any less than we do today, at least not if what you're debating is the foundation of morality as an absolute.

Finally, Plato did not assume that "everyone would agree on what is good and what is not." Plato posited that there is an ideal "Good" (i.e., the Form) and that we, as mere mortals could not fully understand the Form, but only attempt to puzzle it out on the basis of human faculties, like empathy, mutual benefit, and rational discourse.

1) Yes - we haven't defined it and that is the problem. That was the point I was making and you seem to agree with me.

2) I never said we understand the moral code better than Plato, I just stated he never stated an origin of morality. How do you decide what is good and evil. Either that decision is random or it is based on a code. That code must have an origen Just like what is legal or illegal. The question of what is legal or illegal is absurd without legal treaties. Plato, by positing there is an ideal Good is saying there is a universal Code. Can't you see that. He never states where this ideal Good comes from, so as for my question, Plato does not help.

Originally posted by taxwonk You are talking in circles and making less sense each time around. I suggest you stop, think through exactly what it is you believe, why you believe it, and why anyone else here should care. Then, and only then, should you take this discussion to the next level. Because it's becoming apparent that the more others respond to you, the more confused you are getting.

Why is it that the most ignorant people are always the most arrogant and condescending. I have put a lot of thought into this over many years. You are the one talking in circles and not following a logical train of thought. For future reference, I have no interest in how you think I should or should not conduct myself on the board. I don't tell you how to conduct yourself and I expect the same courtesey from you. Is that too much to ask?

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Spanky
The questions comes down to this:

1) Everyone by posting to this board assumes everyone on the board has the same view of right and wrong. If we disagree on something people assume that is because the person has not thought out their position correctly, but once they see the fallacy of their thinking they will change their mind. So by posting on this board we are all assuming that we share a common morality. This common morality can come from two places.

a) The common morality we share is a mutation that has helped our species survive and we all share that mutation.

b) the common morality has been inserted into our brains by some supernatural force.

A rational person would first jump to position (a ) - as all the rational people on this board are doing. However, in my opinion, if you think about it, option (a) does not hold up to scrutiny. And as Sherlock homes said, if you have exhausted all possible explanations, the only explanation left, no matter how improbable, has to be the answer.

What about c)?

c) Initially, the common morality we share was developed to help our species survive, this morality can be taught to those who lack a predisopistion to the common morality.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I just don't think it explains the existence of a universal morality code. Besides that it seems to explain everything else.

First, I question the existence of a univeral moral code. If there is one, I've never seen it. Cite, please.

As to how evolution could explain the development of morality generally, I think it has been touched on here. Human beings on their own face limited prospects of survival. Those who learned to cooperate would multiply more quickly and wipe out those who could not. Much of basic morality is necessary for humans to live together. If you steal my spear, I'm going to come kill you with my club. If I fuck your mate, you're going to want to kill me. If we kill each other, the tribe will lack 2 warriors to defend it the next time the Ug Ug tribe comes over to attack our yam pile. Likewise, the tribe that learns to help its injured and sick will increase and prosper faster than the every man for himself tribe on club island. As society became more advanced and complex, so did the rules that govern its behavior.

We are not the only species that depends on the altruism of others for its survival, we are just the only ones to assign fancy words and divine meaning to it. I don't know why you feel compelled to apply and Intelligent Design theory to the development of morals when there are many more plausible explanations available.

eta: What spooky said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
First, I question the existence of a univeral moral code. If there is one, I've never seen it. Cite, please.

As to how evolution could explain the development of morality generally, I think it has been touched on here. Human beings on their own face limited prospects of survival. Those who learned to cooperate would multiply more quickly and wipe out those who could not. Much of basic morality is necessary for humans to live together. If you steal my spear, I'm going to come kill you with my club. If I fuck your mate, you're going to want to kill me. If we kill each other, the tribe will lack 2 warriors to defend it the next time the Ug Ug tribe comes over to attack our yam pile. Likewise, the tribe that learns to help its injured and sick will increase and prosper faster than the every man for himself tribe on club island. As society became more advanced and complex, so did the rules that govern its behavior.

We are not the only species that depends on the altruism of others for its survival, we are just the only ones to assign fancy words and divine meaning to it. I don't know why you feel compelled to apply and Intelligent Design theory to the development of morals when there are many more plausible explanations available.

eta: What spooky said.

If you believed any of this, or more accurately practiced any of this, you would spend more time working for your employer to justify your job than posting here every five fucking minutes. Or are you one of the "only out for myself" guys that natrual selection didn't quite completely eliminate.