Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No, Fredo, just you. You're the only patsy I've seen on JPP.
God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist
- Thread starter Publius
- Start date
Yes, I think the scientific consensus is that gene mutation altered our brains, giving rise to language and higher abstract reasoning powers in later humans. That is why I limit my speculations to humans of the Neolithic and beyond. Where we actually have written sources.The Chinese did the same when the elections were held there. It's not that they knew they were in the wrong, it's that they knew of the international condemnation should their oppression of religion were openly revealed.
Again, I disagreed on there being a universal morality. Trump cheating on his wives is immoral in a Christian sense. Other societies, not so much.
Criminals are often remorseful when caught. Not so much before they are caught. If they were, then they wouldn't be criminals.Consider MAGAts who believe "Might makes Right". That's a belief, not a genetic imperative.
Again, I've never seen evidence of a genetic moral imperative in humans. All we have to do is study two-year-olds to see the basic nature of human beings. LOL
Mentally ill humans exist. In such cases their social indoctrination doesn't work.
Anatomically modern humans have been around for 300,000 years. Modern thinking humans are harder to study since human bones or fossils don't show what or how they were thinking. You and I have discussed the collapse of the Bronze Age and the rise of the Axial Age. It's still not understood why the collapse of the Bronze Age gave way to the Axial Age. What we do know is that a mental change did happen about 3000 years ago but not the why. Again, humans have been around for 300,000 years but the Axial Age only happened 3000 years ago. To me, that's a social change, not a genetic one.
I think anatomically modern homo sapiens are only 50k years old, although we have quite similar anatomy to archaic humans of 300k years ago.
I think betrayal is universally recognized as objectively wrong, although specific expectations of marriage traditions vary by culture
What Confucius, Jesus, Plato, the authors of the Baghavad Gita seemed to be saying is there is an innate recognition of a moral law buried within us that can be accessed by the conscience, or can be appealed to. That makes more sense to me than the postmodernist moral relativism that came into vogue during the 20th century
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Homo sapiens (anatomically modern human) have been around for 300,000 years. Homo sapiens sapiens (modern thinking man), which is harder to pin down, for 160,000–60,000 years.
Again, I've seen no evidence that betrayal is genetically recognized as wrong. What can be seen is the reaction of those who are betrayed. That's more innate as even two-year-olds recognize if another two-year-old takes their toy. Obviously the one taking the toy has no problem with their actions.
Homo sapiens sapiens | Characteristics & Facts | Britannica
Homo sapiens sapiens, subspecies of Homo sapiens that consists of the only living members of genus Homo. Traditionally, this subspecies designation was used to separate modern humans from more-archaic members of H. sapiens. It is thought to have evolved sometime between 160,000 and 90,000 years...
www.britannica.com
An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens
Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species
www.smithsonianmag.com
Human - Wikipedia
You're probably right about homo sapiens. I thought I read that our skull and skeletal shapes changed slightly from the earliest homo sapiens, although genetically we remained the same speciesHomo sapiens (anatomically modern human) have been around for 300,000 years. Homo sapiens sapiens (modern thinking man), which is harder to pin down, for 160,000–60,000 years.
Again, I've seen no evidence that betrayal is genetically recognized as wrong. What can be seen is the reaction of those who are betrayed. That's more innate as even two-year-olds recognize if another two-year-old takes their toy. Obviously the one taking the toy has no problem with their actions.
Homo sapiens sapiens | Characteristics & Facts | Britannica
Homo sapiens sapiens, subspecies of Homo sapiens that consists of the only living members of genus Homo. Traditionally, this subspecies designation was used to separate modern humans from more-archaic members of H. sapiens. It is thought to have evolved sometime between 160,000 and 90,000 years...
An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens
Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species
Human - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Society always sides with the one who is genuinely betrayed. It is an almost involuntary psychological reaction. That seems to be the nearly universal reaction of the human conscience.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
The Nazis, Soviets and Chinese societies seem to disagree. Same for the MAGAts. All claim to be the ones betrayed and sought/seek to rectify that betrayal through the oppression of others.
IMO, this is all sociology, not biology.
This is what I was thinking of when I thought there were supposedly anatomical differences between modern Homo-sapiens and the earliest Homo-sapiens:
The 160,000-year-old skulls of two adults and a child at Herto, Ethiopia, were classified as the subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu because of slight morphological differences including larger size. But they are otherwise so similar to modern humans that some argue they aren’t a subspecies at all.
A skull discovered at Ngaloba, Tanzania, also considered Homo sapiens, represents a 120,000-year-old individual with a mix of archaic traits and more modern aspects like smaller facial features and a further reduced brow.
Debate over the definition of which fossil remains represent modern humans, given these disparities, is common among experts.
www.smithsonianmag.com
The 160,000-year-old skulls of two adults and a child at Herto, Ethiopia, were classified as the subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu because of slight morphological differences including larger size. But they are otherwise so similar to modern humans that some argue they aren’t a subspecies at all.
A skull discovered at Ngaloba, Tanzania, also considered Homo sapiens, represents a 120,000-year-old individual with a mix of archaic traits and more modern aspects like smaller facial features and a further reduced brow.
Debate over the definition of which fossil remains represent modern humans, given these disparities, is common among experts.
An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens
Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species
www.smithsonianmag.com
Lao Tse
Verified User
why do you think there is jealousy in relationships, betrayal of an assumed loyalty.Homo sapiens (anatomically modern human) have been around for 300,000 years. Homo sapiens sapiens (modern thinking man), which is harder to pin down, for 160,000–60,000 years.
Again, I've seen no evidence that betrayal is genetically recognized as wrong. What can be seen is the reaction of those who are betrayed. That's more innate as even two-year-olds recognize if another two-year-old takes their toy. Obviously the one taking the toy has no problem with their actions.
Homo sapiens sapiens | Characteristics & Facts | Britannica
Homo sapiens sapiens, subspecies of Homo sapiens that consists of the only living members of genus Homo. Traditionally, this subspecies designation was used to separate modern humans from more-archaic members of H. sapiens. It is thought to have evolved sometime between 160,000 and 90,000 years...
An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens
Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species
Human - Wikipedia
its at the genetic level. the anger is real, and righteous to a degree.
the genes know.
mate guarding. etc. you ignore evidence and majored in ignorance at school.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
The mass extinction event of Mount Toba's eruption over 70,000 years ago is thought to have nearly brought about the extinction of modern thinking humans. No doubt it did cause the extinction of other species including any human relatives.This is what I was thinking of when I thought there were supposedly anatomical differences between modern Homo-sapiens and the earliest Homo-sapiens:
The 160,000-year-old skulls of two adults and a child at Herto, Ethiopia, were classified as the subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu because of slight morphological differences including larger size. But they are otherwise so similar to modern humans that some argue they aren’t a subspecies at all.
A skull discovered at Ngaloba, Tanzania, also considered Homo sapiens, represents a 120,000-year-old individual with a mix of archaic traits and more modern aspects like smaller facial features and a further reduced brow.
Debate over the definition of which fossil remains represent modern humans, given these disparities, is common among experts.
An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens
Scientists share the findings that helped them pinpoint key moments in the rise of our species
Mount Toba | Eruption, Volcano, Activity, & Map | Britannica
Mount Toba, ancient volcano located in north-central Sumatra, Indonesia. An eruption between 71,000 and 74,000 years ago expelled roughly 2,800 cubic km (about 670 cubic miles) of ash and lava, which, according to some scientists, plunged the planet into an ice age that nearly caused the...
www.britannica.com
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Jealousy is genetic. People don't like being taken from even if it wasn't theirs in the first place.
What @Cypress and I are discussing is from the other end: whether or not refraining from betraying others is genetic.
You have no problem killing off or oppressing Jews and African-Americans but is there any doubt they'd disagree with you?
Margot
Verified User
Cypress has never once claimed to be Christian, let alone a "fundamentalist Christian"!
He's a seeker of truth.
MAGA morons know Trump is a sleazebag, and they don't defend his infidelity. They just have a political agenda that they decided supercedes morality. Making that choice does not invalidate an objective moral standard they know innately exists
The Nazis and Stalinist went to great lengths to hide their most hideous crimes from outside observers, in obvious recognition they themselves knew they were violating a universal standard of decency. Nikita Kruschev's communist party themselves admitted Stalin went way beyond the pale.
Lao Tse
Verified User
well, I think we can recognize the impulse and attenuate it with logic.
that's a win. that's enough for a better civilization.
sometimes jealousy is warranted, sometimes it's an overreaction.
we all decide for ourselves, like free will, and Jesus. and goodness, and God.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed in part. I think many JPP MAGAts support his infidelity as a "man's right" and that it's women who have to be loyal. This is demonstrated by their hatred of "feminazis" and women's rights to their own bodies. Same goes for their racism: white man's rights over everyone else's.
I prefer the term "mutually agreed upon standards of decency" over "universal" since universal connotates genetics or even extraterrestrial civilizations.
I can see why Stalin's murder of 39M Russians through famine and force would be frowned upon by even staunch communists.
Daylight63
Verified User
Not sure I'm following the reasoning here. If, as you and I both agree, there is an advantage to an animal to care for others within it's group then it would seem reasonable to know that murdering a fellow being is probably going to be wrong.
Is the thinking here that we needed someone like a moral philosopher of some sort telling us that this action is wrong? That otherwise, without any training, humans would murder with aplomb and ease?
I don't necessarily think that is the case. I know, for my own personal self, that I have a visceral reaction to the thought of murdering someone. And I doubt very highly it had to be trained into me. Of course I don't know. But what I do know is reports of people whose job it is to enforce things against others (like police) who occasionally shoot and kill someone, it takes a LOT out of them as a person. The only ones for whom it is easy to take a life are the TV police.
I think these rules are far more inbuilt than that.
Daylight63
Verified User
The concept of the Golden Rule would seem to enshrine reciprocity.
So in a moral system built entirely INDEPENDENT of the more base, instinctual self-regulating behaviors, what is the motivation that the moral philosophers and sages used to ensure compliance with the rules?
Often (but not all the time) it was done through the promise of supernatural benefit or punishment for breaking the rules. It is a very strong argument for the existence of religion. It binds a group together without having to appeal to some deeper reasoning.
I'm fine with wordsmithing the concepts, and I think many cultural values are indeed subject to opinion or fiat.
I don't thinkI will change my mind that a certain moral agency can appeal to something in the human conscience beyond the institutions of legislation, opinion, or popular vote.
Slavery and ritual child sacrifice were mutually agreed upon values at one time, and they seemed to make perfect sense. The fact that human moral evolution trends in one direction - towards more egalitarian and benevolent standards - and does not trend back the opposite direction seems to me to point to something important - that our conscience is predisposed towards a certain objective moral truth and absolute standards of right and wrong at some level
It doesn't say act decently towards someone only if you can expect to be repaid or to receive something of reciprocal value.
The most rudimentary reading of the Gospels reveals that Jesus taught there was an absolute universal moral truth that went well beyond family, friends, neighbors, or anything to do with mutual advantage or reciprocity. Self-knowledge of this truth was supposed to set you free.
Margot
Verified User
Morals are very relative! What's immoral in one culture is cheered in the next culture!
Slavery, child abuse, human sacrifice, lying, cheating , sexual immorality, betrayal, stealing, murder, false pride, arrogance, hate, avarice, greed are uniformly condemned by all major world religions and ethical thought systems
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It doesn't take much to strip human beings who were raised within egalitarian and benevolent standards down to their animal natures. Post-Katrina New Orleans, 1/6 and the George Floyd riots are examples from this century. The genocides in Croatia is another example of humans at their most natural and violent state.