Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

[Daylight63]

Why don't you ever summarize these papers that you link to in your own words?

It makes me think you haven't read them.

Well, the last one I posted basically just gave you the DETAILS about what I've been talking about all along in my own words. I provided it to you since you seem to not know how evolution provides a survival benefit to social animals.

I realize that you don't like to read a lot. But basically they are merely explaining the various reasons why evolution provides an advantage to social development for social animals and how those various things like reciprocity and all the other words you like can be factored in.

I've already explaine a LOT of this in my own words but you simply refuse to believe me. So I post references in hopes you will be interested enough in learning this interesting topic.

 

[Scut Farkus]

You haven't been talking about morality.

You've been hollering about cooperation.

Cooperation is based on self-interest and mutual benefit.

There are no objectively admirable moral actions if the intent is ultimately based on self-interest and reciprocity. At that point it's just about self-preservation - which actually is consistent with Darwinian evolution

they are the same.

we act morally to one another so that we can cooperate.

why do you hate the truth so much?

 

[Cypress]

Well, the last one I posted basically just gave you the DETAILS about what I've been talking about all along in my own words. I provided it to you since you seem to not know how evolution provides a survival benefit to social animals.

I realize that you don't like to read a lot. But basically they are merely explaining the various reasons why evolution provides an advantage to social development for social animals and how those various things like reciprocity and all the other words you like can be factored in.

I've already explaine a LOT of this in my own words but you simply refuse to believe me. So I post references in hopes you will be interested enough in learning this interesting topic.

Basing your actions on expectations of reciprocity or cooperative mutual advantage is not the basis of ethics in any religious text or ancient moral philosophy that I have read.

It's based ultimately on self-interest.

Even lemurs and monkeys have relationships based on reciprocity and mutual advantage. But those aren't moral societies. You would be horrified to have to change places with a chimpanzee and live in chimp society

 

[Cypress]

they are the same.

we act morally to one another so that we can cooperate.

why do you hate the truth so much?

No, you cannot call what Schindler, Bonhoeffer, or Perlasca did "cooperation". What they did was in utter defiance of existing national law.

 

[Daylight63]

Basing your actions on expectations of reciprocity or cooperative mutual advantage is not the basis of ethics in any religious text or ancient moral philosophy that I have read.

It's based ultimately on self-interest.

Even lemurs and monkeys have relationships based on reciprocity and mutual advantage. But those aren't moral societies. You would be horrified to have to change places with a chimpanzee and live in chimp society

Why do you parse "morality" that way? I'm genuinely curious because you seem to be working overtime in special pleading for moral laws. In fact the very things you describe all have analogues in the animal kingdom. Your apparently dislike of the science on it doesn't really make the science go away.

You seem to think morality has to have some "good" to it. As if "self-interest" is insufficient for you. I understand that, for people of faith it is often quite distasteful to think that we are all just animals whose only goal is to survive. For those of us lucky enough to gain a survival advantage from SOCIAL NETWORKS we are hardwired to be able to function in those networks.

Why do you think it has been nearly impossible to truly domesticate the cat, but the dog basically jumped in our laps. One is a social creature who understands (at a basic instinctual level) the rules of a social animal and the other is a lone predator that has limited to no real social network built into the system.

I sense you will complain about this post as well since I am trying to leverage actual science and biology which you seem to think play no or very limited role in morality.

So maybe the question is: Where do YOU think morality comes from? Clearly you dislike it being a natural effect. So who was it that FIRST figured out that murder was wrong? Was it Jesus? Or did Abraham figure out murder was wrong? Was it Moses? Who was it? And how did they arrive at the decree that murder is wrong?

 

[Tobytone]

You people have grown up in a highly moral world so you think peace, and stability, and schools, and roads. and banks and churches and strip malls just exist automatically.

they require that enough individuals in a population live in a cooperative fashion.

morality is cooperation.

and cooperation is humanity's advantage.

we couldn't even dominate animals until we learned to hunt cooperatively, and that requires not treating each other as enemies and prey.

the neocon banker fascists are trying to demoralize humanity so we cannot work together to repel their tyrannical bullshit.

Oh, I was on the edge of my seat, thinking, "Wow, finally, a leftist with an ounce of gray matter!" But nope, just another train-wreck of an argument derailing faster than a drunk conductor on New Year's Eve.

So, I did a little digging into your glorious history of comments, and what do I find? Just another basement-dwelling, left-wing drone, sporting a self inflicted bald dome that reflects more light than your empty head, surrounded by a sea of discarded lotion bottles and fast food cartons – all courtesy of mommy's DoorDash account, no doubt. Instead of crafting a single coherent thought, you're hurling insults like a toddler with a rattle.

What a colossal waste of space. I got more intellectual stimulation from watching paint dry. Bravo, you've managed to disappoint on every conceivable level.

 

[Diogenes]

Its painfully clear that morals separated from God dont do us any good.

I don't know that such an entity exists, so there's that.

 

[Diogenes]

everyone knows morality is good, except evil people, but they actually know but are pretending they don't know.

Think so?

 

[Diogenes]

Oh, I was on the edge of my seat, thinking, "Wow, finally, a leftist with an ounce of gray matter!"

I doubt that "thinking" is an activity you indulge in, based on that and other "thoughts" you've expressed on this forum.

 

[Cypress]

Why do you parse "morality" that way? I'm genuinely curious because you seem to be working overtime in special pleading for moral laws. In fact the very things you describe all have analogues in the animal kingdom. Your apparently dislike of the science on it doesn't really make the science go away.

You seem to think morality has to have some "good" to it. As if "self-interest" is insufficient for you. I understand that, for people of faith it is often quite distasteful to think that we are all just animals whose only goal is to survive. For those of us lucky enough to gain a survival advantage from SOCIAL NETWORKS we are hardwired to be able to function in those networks.

Why do you think it has been nearly impossible to truly domesticate the cat, but the dog basically jumped in our laps. One is a social creature who understands (at a basic instinctual level) the rules of a social animal and the other is a lone predator that has limited to no real social network built into the system.

I sense you will complain about this post as well since I am trying to leverage actual science and biology which you seem to think play no or very limited role in morality.

So maybe the question is: Where do YOU think morality comes from? Clearly you dislike it being a natural effect. So who was it that FIRST figured out that murder was wrong? Was it Jesus? Or did Abraham figure out murder was wrong? Was it Moses? Who was it? And how did they arrive at the decree that murder is wrong?

There are no examples of Oscar Schindler Giorgio Perlasca, or Jesus in the animal world.

If you want to point to mutual cooperation as the definition of morality, then it all just comes down to self-interest. Self-interest is not the underlying basis of any morality described by traditional religious and philosophical writers.

If your goal is just to have a "stable society", you can achieve that with fascism. Italians liked Mussolini because he made Italian society more orderly.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I do not think self-interest, self-preservation, mutually beneficial cooperation are the underlying basis of morality. You do.

 

[Daylight63]

There are no examples of Oscar Schindler Giorgio Perlasca, or Jesus in the animal world.

You have now been shown numerous cases of sacrifice of one animal for the greater good. I can do no more.

If you want to point to mutual cooperation as the definition of morality, then it all just comes down to self-interest. Self-interest is not the underlying basis of any morality described by traditional religious and philosophical writers.

Why does it matter what "philosophical writers" say?

I know that for people who are not familiar with or comfortable with science that science can seem to rob the "mystery" and "awe" from these concepts. You seem to be one of those people who seems to feel that science somehow cheapens the experience you have of being alive.

That isn't how scientists see it. Not by a long shot. Sure it often removes the "supernatural" and "mysterious" but it's something we've seen happen so often over the last several hundred years.

As things that people could ONLY ascribe to some supernatural phenomena or some mysterious "something" beyond all of reality are shown to be nothing more than plain physical things.

But don't see it as losing the "awe". In fact the awe-factor actually INCREASES when you look at the world as it likely is, as opposed to simply as you would wish it to be.

If your goal is just to have a "stable society", you can achieve that with fascism. Italians liked Mussolini because he made Italian society more orderly.

Your points always veer to extremes of emotional appeal. As if you can't make your point without demonizing the opposing point with charged language like this. It's a weakness of your argument.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I do not think self-interest, self-preservation, mutually beneficial cooperation are the underlying basis of morality. You do.

Yes, agreed. I can point to the science and the facts as we know them. I am not wired to want to invoke mysterious things no one can understand to explain the data. And it doesn't remove the awe or the interest from the topic. But I also understand that not all are fond of that approach. As history has shown time and again.

 

[Daylight63]

Its painfully clear that morals separated from God dont do us any good.

Couple of questions for you:

1. Is murder wrong because murder is wrong OR is it wrong because God said it was wrong?

2. If someone annoys you do you have to talk yourself down from murdering them or do you automatically NOT think about murder because intrinsically you "know" it is not an option?

3. What if you found out that pagans were originally responsible for Luke 6:31? Would it change the value of Luke 6:31?

4. Why did God fail to alert the various religious right activists who murdered doctors for God that it was wrong?

 

[ZenMode]

That's not morality, that's a statement about instinct.

Observe: Once you have a bell curve of emotional responses, objectively observed by brain activity, then the option for modification arises. Either through genetic engineering or other less fundamental intervention.

There is what most of us feel, but what ought most of us to feel?

I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about the potential science behind morality. That science is based on the experience of conscience animals, like humans. For example, research shows the many negative effects of corporal punishment. Those negative effects are the result of what happens in the brains of children as a result of adults hitting children.

 

[Scut Farkus]

That's not morality, that's a statement about instinct.

Observe: Once you have a bell curve of emotional responses, objectively observed by brain activity, then the option for modification arises. Either through genetic engineering or other less fundamental intervention.

There is what most of us feel, but what ought most of us to feel?

no.

morality is not about what you ought to feel..

it's about how you behave to real other people.

how you treat them matters; what you think of them is not as important as long as you DO THE RIGHT THING.

lying to yourself about your impulses helps nobody.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Like of course I love me some man anus, but as I deny myself I can still go to heaven.

that's morality my friends.

I can love man anus in my mind as much as I want, and that's why Jesus died for us.

 

[Cypress]

You have now been shown numerous cases of sacrifice of one animal for the greater good. I can do no more.



Why does it matter what "philosophical writers" say?

I know that for people who are not familiar with or comfortable with science that science can seem to rob the "mystery" and "awe" from these concepts. You seem to be one of those people who seems to feel that science somehow cheapens the experience you have of being alive.

That isn't how scientists see it. Not by a long shot. Sure it often removes the "supernatural" and "mysterious" but it's something we've seen happen so often over the last several hundred years.

As things that people could ONLY ascribe to some supernatural phenomena or some mysterious "something" beyond all of reality are shown to be nothing more than plain physical things.

But don't see it as losing the "awe". In fact the awe-factor actually INCREASES when you look at the world as it likely is, as opposed to simply as you would wish it to be.



Your points always veer to extremes of emotional appeal. As if you can't make your point without demonizing the opposing point with charged language like this. It's a weakness of your argument.




Yes, agreed. I can point to the science and the facts as we know them. I am not wired to want to invoke mysterious things no one can understand to explain the data. And it doesn't remove the awe or the interest from the topic. But I also understand that not all are fond of that approach. As history has shown time and again.

An animal mother self sacrificing for their offspring is not comparable to Oscar Schindler, and it's not even about morality. It's about preservation and propagation of one's own genetic information.

That kind of altruism is perfectly expected within the scientific framework of evolution.

I don't consider actions based on self interest, based on protecting one's own genetic information, based on mutually beneficial cooperation to be examples of morality. I don't subscribe to utilitarianism as the basis of all ethical actions, I am on team deontology. Just accept that.

The only one talking about awe and mysticism is you. I'm of the opinion science doesn't know the answers to everything yet. At the end of the 19th century there was a widespread feeling science had basically answered all the main questions. You probably would have been one of them. And they were in for a major surprise as the 20th century unfolded.

 

[Cypress]

That's not morality, that's a statement about instinct.

Agree with that statement.

This thread can't seem to shake a Doctor Doolittle view of the animal world.

There are no laws of evolution, biology, or chemistry that dictate an animal is programmed to protect the species as a whole - to ensure every member of the species is defended and nurtured.

Biological evolution is about the survival and propagation of one's own genetic information, even at the expense of weaker members of the species.

If you're going to pick a word to describe biological evolutionary instinct, it is selfishness. Not morality.

 

[Scut Farkus]

An animal mother self sacrificing for their offspring is not comparable to Oscar Schindler, and it's not even about morality. It's about preservation and propagation of one's own genetic information.

That kind of altruism is perfectly expected within the scientific framework of evolution.

I don't consider actions based on self interest, based on protecting one's own genetic information, based on mutually beneficial cooperation to be examples of morality. I don't subscribe to utilitarianism as the basis of all ethical actions, I am on team deontology. Just accept that.

The only one talking about awe and mysticism is you. I'm of the opinion science doesn't know the answers to everything yet. At the end of the 19th century there was a widespread feeling science had basically answered all the main questions. You probably would have been one of them. And they were in for a major surprise as the 20th century unfolded.

why cant morality be pro survival?

it definely has proven that it is.

is you because you work for the war machine and must villainize peace?

 

[Cypress]

why cant morality be pro survival?

Survival and protection of offspring and siblings is instinct, and can completely be explained by the scientific laws of evolutionary biology. Natural instinct is not morality.

Risking your own life to save thousands of strangers from Nazi death camps is an objectively admirable act of morality.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Survival and defense of offspring and siblings is instinct, and can completely be explained by the scientific laws of evolutionary biology. Natural instinct is not morality.

Risking your own life to save thousands of strangers from Nazi death camps is an objectively admirable act of morality.

not for reptiles.

it's an evolved thing. like the rest of morality.