Discordianism and Morality

[hooplala]

Malcoid, why are you so concerned about the morals or ethics of others?

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Malcoid, why are you so concerned about the morals or ethics of others?

I wouldnt use the word concered. I find morality to be an interesting topic because it has such a wide variance and is often the cause of unresovable differences between people.

I also find that attempting to understand other peoples perceptions of reality to be a useful tool in examining and challenging my own.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Malcoid, why are you so concerned about the morals or ethics of others?

I wouldnt use the word concered. I find morality to be an interesting topic because it has such a wide variance and is often the cause of unresovable differences between people.

I also find that attempting to understand other peoples perceptions of reality to be a useful tool in examining and challenging my own.

Good answer, though your initial posts led me to consider you as a bit more actively opinionated on the status of morals as objectively true/false.

I think you'll find that this place has no shortage of opinions and perceptions that will challenge you. At least, that seems to be the case for me.

[Vene]

Again, at this stage, this far removed from our biological origins, we have sufficent brain power to make these decisions for ourselves. We can chose to love, to hate, to lust, to laugh, to cry. But this didnt just magically poop its way into our species.

The roots of our rather complicated selves lies in our biological origin. If you are proposing some form of Dualism, whatever the hell you think it might be, thats fine. I fundamentally disagree with you.

However, if you accept that we are phyiscal creatures, and that our subjective sense of reality and our concept of self is generated by our phyiscal components, then you should accept that all of this complicated ethical nonsense was initially generated by those physical components.

...

My second point is that I am refering to macro-evolution. Within a group, or between two groups, indeed, the strongest is often the victor, and that is dependant moreso on phyiscal stature and aggresion.

What Im talking about is the evolution of the human being in general. Humans never had some great phyiscal advantage. Whatever form we may have evolved from, a vicious saber-tooth tiger would have still been able rip our guts out.

I would speculate that humans became the dominant species on the planet due to our unique level of social cooperation and brain power. I would further speculate that some general rules of operating within that social group (ie ethics) would further develop the advantage and helped make it possible for us to get our sticky hands on ever part of the planet.

I am not an evolutionary expert. In arguing against the idea of a divinely given sense of morality, some notable atheists and evolutionary scientists have speculated on the biological origin of morals. I think its an interesting idea, and this is what I was attempting to suggest earlier.

Just stop, please stop.  Evolution says shit all about our morality.  Biology says shit all about morality.  Science says shit all about morality.  Not to mention you are applying evolutionary biology to an area it was never meant for.  In this case it is a useless model.  Not to mention you are oversimplifying the entire thing so much it's not even useful in a biological sense.

[hooplala]

Wait until Kai reads this...

[Elder Iptuous]

Just stop, please stop.  Evolution says shit all about our morality.  Biology says shit all about morality.  Science says shit all about morality.  Not to mention you are applying evolutionary biology to an area it was never meant for.  In this case it is a useless model.  Not to mention you are oversimplifying the entire thing so much it's not even useful in a biological sense.

Ok. i understand that the line of thinking represented here can be uncomfortable, but i don't understand how you can make the superlative separations that you just did.
Biology deals with social behaviors, right?
and morality is simply social behavior patterns, right?
and since when is it unallowed to crib some model and modify it for purposes other than it was originally intended for?  I understand that the 'usefulness' might be pretty dystopian, but...
where am i messing it up?

[Triple Zero]

cause social "evolution" is an entirely different beast than biological evolution.

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Just stop, please stop.  Evolution says shit all about our morality.  Biology says shit all about morality.  Science says shit all about morality.  Not to mention you are applying evolutionary biology to an area it was never meant for.  In this case it is a useless model.  Not to mention you are oversimplifying the entire thing so much it's not even useful in a biological sense.

No, I wont stop. You have failed to even attempt to rebut my idea with anything but condescension.

Besides, I find your assertion that morality arises 'out of nowhere, out of Chaos' to be as unsatisfactory as those who claim it is directed by God.

Why is this idea so offensive too you? Does the prospect that your ideas and beliefs today could have arisen from ancient biological drives and pressures rob you of that feeling youre a special and unique snowflake?

[Golden Applesauce]

Just stop, please stop.  Evolution says shit all about our morality.  Biology says shit all about morality.  Science says shit all about morality.  Not to mention you are applying evolutionary biology to an area it was never meant for.  In this case it is a useless model.  Not to mention you are oversimplifying the entire thing so much it's not even useful in a biological sense.

No, I wont stop. You have failed to even attempt to rebut my idea with anything but condescension.

Besides, I find your assertion that morality arises 'out of nowhere, out of Chaos' to be as unsatisfactory as those who claim it is directed by God.

Why is this idea so offensive too you? Does the prospect that your ideas and beliefs today could have arisen from ancient biological drives and pressures rob you of that feeling youre a special and unique snowflake?

Are we talking about the map or the territory here?  I'd agree that what people think of as moral might have something to do with sociobiology, but to say that something is objectively Wrong or objectively Good because of how animo acids happened to work out seems to be the height of stupidity.

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Are we talking about the map or the territory here?  I'd agree that what people think of as moral might have something to do with sociobiology, but to say that something is objectively Wrong or objectively Good because of how animo acids happened to work out seems to be the height of stupidity.

I thought we had already cleared up that misconception. No, I certainly do not suggest we have specific morals, or any objective sense of morality because of biology.

Im simply speculating that the need for morals grew out of some combination of biological evolution and the increasingly complex social interactions that arose from higher brain functions.

Seems like a fairly reasonable idea to me...

[Golden Applesauce]

Are we talking about the map or the territory here?  I'd agree that what people think of as moral might have something to do with sociobiology, but to say that something is objectively Wrong or objectively Good because of how animo acids happened to work out seems to be the height of stupidity.

I thought we had already cleared up that misconception. No, I certainly do not suggest we have specific morals, or any objective sense of morality because of biology.

Im simply speculating that the need for morals grew out of some combination of biological evolution and the increasingly complex social interactions that arose from higher brain functions.

Seems like a fairly reasonable idea to me...

How do you feel about metaphysics?

[hooplala]

I believe morals were invented by man to fulfill the intense need people have to tell others how they should behave.

End of story.

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Are we talking about the map or the territory here?  I'd agree that what people think of as moral might have something to do with sociobiology, but to say that something is objectively Wrong or objectively Good because of how animo acids happened to work out seems to be the height of stupidity.

I thought we had already cleared up that misconception. No, I certainly do not suggest we have specific morals, or any objective sense of morality because of biology.

Im simply speculating that the need for morals grew out of some combination of biological evolution and the increasingly complex social interactions that arose from higher brain functions.

Seems like a fairly reasonable idea to me...

How do you feel about metaphysics?

I had a strong interest in exploring metaphysics in high school. Im more inclinded these days to accept that much about reality is unknowable, and that our attempts to define our exsistence are all flawed to some degree.

That being said, I still enjoy reading and discussion on such matters.

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

I believe morals were invented by man to fulfill the intense need people have to tell others how they should behave.

End of story.

Heres a question for you:

Why do you think we have the intense need to tell others how they should behave?

[Golden Applesauce]

I believe morals were invented by man to fulfill the intense need people have to tell others how they should behave.

End of story.

Heres a question for you:

Why do you think we have the intense need to tell others how they should behave?

Because people are stupid interfering busybodies, which allows even the dumbest of chimps the opportunity to catch on to societal rules?