Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

Daylight63 said:
You have already established that these are arrived at by reason
Click to expand...
No, that was Litmus.
I wrote that strict rationality is not the basis of morality.

Cypress said:
If you were calculating the best decision based on the established rational principles of game theory, you would never choose to do what Georgio Perlasca or Oskar Schindler did.

Strictly rational decisions are based on utility and risk, not on morality.
Click to expand...
 
From: Darwin and Morality (Wm Irons, PhD Professor of Anthropology)

"One biologist, Richard Alexander (1967), presented the theory that, in human evolution, competition between groups favored the formation of larger and larger groups, but the formations of such groups was difficult. As groups became larger, they were increasingly prone to internal conflict. A sense of morality was therefore favored by natural selection because it dampened competition and enhanced cooperation within competing social groups. Somewhat later the primatologist Robin Dunbar (1996) developed a similar theory to the effect that language developed as a way of enhancing cooperation and limiting conflict within social groups in contexts of extensive inter-group competition. Language and morality are of course closely intertwined. The primatologist Frans de Waal (1996) addressed the question of the whether our close relatives the chimpanzees have morality. His conclusion, based on very extensive observation of chimpanzees was that they have many of the elements of human morality. They have a sense of reciprocity, that is the idea that good deeds should be reciprocated and that bad deeds should as well. They have a sense of compassion for other members of their group, a sense that there are social rules that group members must obey, and older dominant chimpanzees often behave in ways, such as breaking up fights, that help to maintain peace within the group. Finally, he concludes that language is the one crucial element of human morality they lack. Without language they cannot teach, advocate and debate moral principles the way humans do. Language, of course, serves many functions among human beings, but one of the more important ones is the ability to formulate and discuss moral principles." (Emphasis added)​

One Book One Northwestern

One Book One Northwestern - The Reluctant Mr. Darwin
www.northwestern.edu
 
Daylight63 said:
But you also clearly defined the point in time when humans invented the idea that murder was wrong at the Axial Age.
Click to expand...
Murder defined as being objectively and absolutely wrong in all cases, as articulated by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, at al. and premised on the theological belief that all human life - whether kings, aristocrats, slaves, or children - have an intrinsic value.

In contrast, Plato, Aristotle, the Cannanites, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians all found reasons when it might be perfectly sensible for state policy to discard weak children, sacrifice orphan children and adults on the altars of pagan gods, or dispose of physically handicapped babies.
 
Cypress said:
Murder defined as being objectively and absolutely wrong in all cases, as articulated by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, at al. and on the basis that all human life - whether kings, aristocrats, slaves, or children - have an intrinsic value.

In contrast, Plato, Aristotle, the Cannanites, the Aztecs, the Greeks all found reasons when it might be perfectly sensible to for state policy discard weak children, sacrifice orphan children and adults on the altars of pagan gods, or dispose of physically handicapped babies.
Click to expand...

I remain skeptical of your unevidenced claim that murder was only decreed to be morally wrong at about the 16th century BCE.
 
Cypress said:
Murder defined as being objectively and absolutely wrong in all cases, as articulated by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, at al. and premised on the theological belief that all human life - whether kings, aristocrats, slaves, or children - have an intrinsic value.

In contrast, Plato, Aristotle, the Cannanites, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Greeks, the Phoenicians all found reasons when it might be perfectly sensible for state policy to discard weak children, sacrifice orphan children and adults on the altars of pagan gods, or dispose of physically handicapped babies.
Click to expand...
They give you metals for the right murders! Call you a Patriot! received_1171839119501061.jpg
 
Daylight63 said:
I remain skeptical of your unevidenced claim that murder was only decreed to be morally wrong at about the 16th century BCE.
Click to expand...
Read some ancient history and ancient literature. There was certainly utility in not murdering the right kinds of people: family members, fellow adult citizens, the aristocracy, productive laborers. They generally only found excuses to murder/sacrifice/dispose of those without utility: orphans, prisoners, babies, sacrificial children, slaves.

The moral imperative defining an intrinsic value of each and every human life seems to be a fairly late development in the blossoming of human conscience.
 
Cypress said:
Read some ancient history and ancient literature. There was certainly utility in not murdering the right kinds of people: family members, fellow adult citizens, the aristocracy, productive laborers. They generally only found excuses to murder/sacrifice/dispose of those without utility: orphans, prisoners, babies, sacrificial children, slaves.

The moral imperative defining an intrinsic value of each and every human life seems to be a fairly late development in the blossoming of human conscience.
Click to expand...

So I guess all those anthropologists and biologists I've been citing all along were just mistaken?
 
Daylight63 said:
So I guess all those anthropologists and biologists I've been citing all along were just mistaken?
Click to expand...
So after Christian Nation SCOTUS Fourth Reich July jolly fat men coming down chimneys bearing reinforcement for human reproduction medical pseudoscience in survival of the fittest fascists “serve the Pope or die” sociopsychopathogical homicidal human farming of Federal Lynching Klues Klucks dud Klans not so master race not so master plan of “one nation under God with equal justice under law”……
 
Daylight63 said:
So I guess all those anthropologists and biologists I've been citing all along were just mistaken?
Click to expand...
Anyone can spend ten minutes googling to find sources that support a preconceived conclusion.

That's called confirmation bias.

I'm not even sure they "support" you, without further investigation.

I have actually read the ancient literature and spent countless hours reading and listening to a wide range of subject matter experts. I did not approach this with a preconceived notion. I had to be convinced after much study and reflection.
 
Cypress said:
If you were calculating the best decision based on the established rational principles of game theory, you would never choose to do what Georgio Perlasca or Oskar Schindler did.

Strictly rational decisions are based on utility and risk, not on morality.
Click to expand...
you don't fucking get it.

it's rational to be moral.

high trust societies have heightened cooperation.

hight trust comes from basic morality.... you fucking cretin.

you just hate peace and cooperation. you're a demented war machine shill.
 
Cypress said:
Looking in the rear view mirror three thousand years later makes it seem like common sense, but the reason the Decalouge was fairly radical at the time is because ritual child and adult sacrifice made perfect sense to many Bronze Age Near Eastern civilizations. Anyone who has actually read the Code of Hammurabi knows it is based on religion too.
Click to expand...
morality isn't based on religion.
 
Cypress said:
Anyone can spend ten minutes googling to find sources that support a preconceived conclusion.

That's called confirmation bias.

I'm not even sure they "support" you, without further investigation.

I have actually read the ancient literature and spent countless hours reading and listening to a wide range of subject matter experts. I did not approach this with a preconceived notion. I had to be convinced after much study and reflection.
Click to expand...
you're such a douche.
 
Daylight63 said:
Interesting. So any civilization earlier than the Israelites were OK with murder as a morally neutral thing?

May I ask why the Israelites and many other societies were reluctant to accept that murder was wrong after they were informed of it?
Click to expand...
fucking idiotic bullshit.
 
Litmus said:
you don't fucking get it.

it's rational to be moral.

high trust societies have heightened cooperation.

hight trust comes from basic morality.... you fucking cretin.

you just hate peace and cooperation. you're a demented war machine shill.
Click to expand...
Nietzsche calls it higher morality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top