So I recently discovered Principa Discordia. Being a stridently individual malcontent, and also an Asker of Pesky Questions, I have always had trouble identifying with any established framework of religion or philosophy. Because of this I have found the Discordian idea of generally disassembling the framework that confines our thinking to be quite attractive.
As I take my first tentative steps into the pool, I'm having trouble resolving a particular question: How does Discordianism relate to morality?
One could say that morality is a useful form of order that allows us to (generally) live without the constant threat of violence. However, would it not be valid for to suggest that morality is simply a construct designed to function within this particular time/place, and that it too can be deconstructed to suit ones purpose?
If that is true it would leave us wading in the stagnant swamp of moral relativism, which I consider to be more or less an abdication of our responsibility as rational being, an idea that causes me indigestion.
My brain requires additional input to resolve this problem. I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas or poop jokes that you might have.
Thanks!
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 07:47:57 PM
So I recently discovered Principa Discordia. Being a stridently individual malcontent, and also an Asker of Pesky Questions, I have always had trouble identifying with any established framework of religion or philosophy. Because of this I have found the Discordian idea of generally disassembling the framework that confines our thinking to be quite attractive.
As I take my first tentative steps into the pool, I'm having trouble resolving a particular question: How does Discordianism relate to morality?
One could say that morality is a useful form of order that allows us to (generally) live without the constant threat of violence. However, would it not be valid for to suggest that morality is simply a construct designed to function within this particular time/place, and that it too can be deconstructed to suit ones purpose?
If that is true it would leave us wading in the stagnant swamp of moral relativism, which I consider to be more or less an abdication of our responsibility as rational being, an idea that causes me indigestion.
My brain requires additional input to resolve this problem. I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas or poop jokes that you might have.
Thanks!
An excellent question. Recall the Sermon on Ethics and Love in the PD?
First, Welcome
Second, The pool is up on The Roof.
Third, the issue of morality is tricky. Especially if you run it through the "Reality Grids" part of Discordia. In other words, if you were to plot out "morality" and then overlay your grid upon another's, you obviously are going to find areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. And then, there's the effort to sell one vision of morality to others. And that can of course turn to violence. (see also: Abortion Clinic Bombings).
I think in a perfect world, morality is a "to each their own proposition", until you realize you have to live with other monkeys. And then there is the push to find agreement so that we can somehow coexist without the constant threat of violence. And I think it mostly works, kinda. I mean, we aren't living in complete madness and awfulness. But, it seems like more improvements can be made.
Hold on a second.
Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?
Quote from: A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVEI am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain.
Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with
injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers
imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO?
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
This leads into my issue... What if someone keeps kicking other people in the groin, because he thinks its really really funny? Or a pedophile, who really really wants to have sex with children? Can a Dischordianism show that they are wrong?
Does it even want to?
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:02:42 PM
Hold on a second.
Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?
most people feel some responsibility to employ thier intellect in discerning the universal and godly morality....
Mmm hmmm.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:04:18 PM
Quote from: A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVEI am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain.
Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with
injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers
imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO?
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
This leads into my issue... What if someone keeps kicking other people in the groin, because he thinks its really really funny? Or a pedophile, who really really wants to have sex with children? Can a Dischordianism show that they are wrong?
Does it even want to?
Eventually he runs into someone with the morality of "Punch groin-kicker inna face." Or, "Stab pedo in the nuts and the face"
So, eventually, the person learns that these activities are "wrong" in terms of maintaining personal freedom and safety in the long term.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:02:42 PM
Hold on a second.
Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?
Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.
The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.
In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.
Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:04:18 PM
Quote from: A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVEI am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain.
Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with
injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers
imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO?
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
This leads into my issue... What if someone keeps kicking other people in the groin, because he thinks its really really funny? Or a pedophile, who really really wants to have sex with children? Can a Dischordianism show that they are wrong?
Does it even want to?
If the only reason you want a morality is so you can tell other people that they're doing it wrong, then, um... you're doing it wrong.
If you want to protect the groins and children of the world, then I suggest you stop trying to get a religion to do it for you and invest in some automatic weaponry.
from what I can tell, the Principia doesn't give much advice about how to act (in a moral sense). If anything, the Principia tells you not to take your moral cues from musty old written texts, and to come up with rules for yourself.
I'll note that this stance has caused a lot of Discordians to acquire "questionable" moral stances on things like crime, pedophilia, and civil disobedience... but if I combat them on those issues, I'm doing so as an individual and not as a Discordian.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:12:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:02:42 PM
Hold on a second.
Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?
Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.
The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.
In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.
Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.
Again, that sounds like a personal problem. It also sounds like you're venturing into either/or territory.
"Either morals are universal and good, or they're meaningless and evil!"
Fuzzy logic, buddy.
First premise is good: A person from a different culture will have different morals than you.
Second premise is off base: A different set of morals must be fully accepted.
What Moral Relativism allows is for the realization that
both YOU and THE FOREIGN GUY have different belief systems, and that YOU might but just as fucked up as you see HIM to be.
It allows for a middle ground, and it allows for objective discussion of morals.
While it removes UNIVERSAL right and wrong, it also doesn't throw RELATIVE right and wrong out the window.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:12:28 PM
Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.
I am a relativist in every sense.
If you rephrase your comment "rape is wrong. it is always wrong" in E-Prime I suspect you will find that the certitude vanishes. The only way something is 'always wrong' is if a set of Objective Values exists, and as far as I have been able to discover, it simply doesn't. I'm not claiming I am pro-rape, far from it, I consider it to be a heinous and disgusting action, but I understand that my view is exactly that, my personal view, not the view of some Objective Value of the universe.
When a male gorilla mounts a smaller female who isn't interested in him, this could be classified as rape, but who says its wrong? The other gorillas? The monkeys watching? The birds and the bees? God? You?
If you find it to be an abdication of responsibility, that's completely fine, but you should understand that this too is simply your view and not some objective fact.
To me, Discordianism is about taking personal responsibility of our thoughts and actions, and not needing some fairy tale objective value to define our world for us, which is basically what the entire idea of "God" is... passing the buck for your own views and actions on to a 'higher power'. It's one of the central concepts that I loathe about AA.
That, to me, is an abdication of responsibility, and
not the other way around.
Perhaps Randian Objectivism is more your speed?
Well, I don't think that Discordians will necessarily agree on the answer to that question (its more a meta-system than a system). In my opinion, if some guys likes to kick people in the balls... the people getting kicked in the balls should probably hit him in the head with a brick.
The sermon on ethics and love, IMO, tells us one very important thing. Ethics, morals etc are a problem that must be solved by the humans living with the issues... not by magical systems that always produce the right answer, or fickle deities that love to lay down the laws, but then are nowhere to be found when a miracle is required to stop some horrible amoral event. ;-)
I think 'relativism' and 'post modern' get a bad rap, because so many people get a taste of the idea and then run off to do anything that they want, as though it was a free pass to 'Do Ill as Thou Will'...
That, IMO is not what relativism is about. Rather, its about taking the conditions, the society etc into account when considering morality and realizing that morals may vary based on the social background etc. NOT THAT ALL MORAL SYSTEMS ARE EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS.
So, in a society where 14 year old girls are expected to get married... it would be inappropriate to call the husbands of those girls pedophiles. We may argue that the custom is unhealthy for the girl (if we have medical/psych evidence to support it) or we might argue that its a impact on their freedom, since they have no choice... but it becomes a fundamentally different argument than the one used against Bob The Happy Pedophile who gets his rocks off by using his power and position to trick little girls into sex, or abuse the trust he has to manipulate little girls.
Random dude in far off land is just getting a wife the way his society thinks best... Bob the Happy Pedophile, PROBABLY has some psychological issues and may be far more interested in the power than in a future wife/mate/mother of his children.
Doesn't mean either is a Good Idea... but to think they're identical seems silly to me.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:12:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:02:42 PM
Hold on a second.
Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?
Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.
The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.
In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.
Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.
Again, that sounds like a personal problem. It also sounds like you're venturing into either/or territory.
"Either morals are universal and good, or they're meaningless and evil!"
Fuzzy logic, buddy.
First premise is good: A person from a different culture will have different morals than you.
Second premise is off base: A different set of morals must be fully accepted.
What Moral Relativism allows is for the realization that both YOU and THE FOREIGN GUY have different belief systems, and that YOU might but just as fucked up as you see HIM to be.
It allows for a middle ground, and it allows for objective discussion of morals.
While it removes UNIVERSAL right and wrong, it also doesn't throw RELATIVE right and wrong out the window.
Really? I dont see how there can be an objective discussion of morals if we accept both sets as equally valid. You say in your last sentance, we are left with relative right and wrong. Im really quite curious as to how you can have any sort of objective discussion or make any possible judgement under those circumstances.
As far as the personal problem you keep referring to, it burns when I pee. Im going to see my doctor on thursday.
Please point out when I said each were equally valid.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:43:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:12:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:02:42 PM
Hold on a second.
Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?
Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.
The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.
In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.
Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.
Again, that sounds like a personal problem. It also sounds like you're venturing into either/or territory.
"Either morals are universal and good, or they're meaningless and evil!"
Fuzzy logic, buddy.
First premise is good: A person from a different culture will have different morals than you.
Second premise is off base: A different set of morals must be fully accepted.
What Moral Relativism allows is for the realization that both YOU and THE FOREIGN GUY have different belief systems, and that YOU might but just as fucked up as you see HIM to be.
It allows for a middle ground, and it allows for objective discussion of morals.
While it removes UNIVERSAL right and wrong, it also doesn't throw RELATIVE right and wrong out the window.
Really? I dont see how there can be an objective discussion of morals if we accept both sets as equally valid. You say in your last sentance, we are left with relative right and wrong. Im really quite curious as to how you can have any sort of objective discussion or make any possible judgement under those circumstances.
As far as the personal problem you keep referring to, it burns when I pee. Im going to see my doctor on thursday.
Hang on a second. How do you propose that we have an objective discussion of morals to begin with?
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 09, 2008, 08:41:24 PM
Random dude in far off land is just getting a wife the way his society thinks best... Bob the Happy Pedophile, PROBABLY has some psychological issues and may be far more interested in the power than in a future wife/mate/mother of his children.
Doesn't mean either is a Good Idea... but to think they're identical seems silly to me.
while i agree with you, essentially, i wouldn't be willing to say they are completely different.
the morals of an individual and the morals of a society can be argued against in the same way.
'everybody does it' seems to get more credibility in your wording than i would give it...
i dunno. i could probably be found inconsistent in my morality with very little probing.
...
just try to remain aloof and not unduly torque anybody off, and you should be alright. that's what i do.
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:50:30 PM
Please point out when I said each were equally valid.
Eh, you said a different set of morals must be fully accepted. Close enough.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:04:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 09, 2008, 08:50:30 PM
Please point out when I said each were equally valid.
Eh, you said a different set of morals must be fully accepted. Close enough.
He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?
The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"
Quote from: Iptuous on December 09, 2008, 08:56:43 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 09, 2008, 08:41:24 PM
Random dude in far off land is just getting a wife the way his society thinks best... Bob the Happy Pedophile, PROBABLY has some psychological issues and may be far more interested in the power than in a future wife/mate/mother of his children.
Doesn't mean either is a Good Idea... but to think they're identical seems silly to me.
while i agree with you, essentially, i wouldn't be willing to say they are completely different.
the morals of an individual and the morals of a society can be argued against in the same way.
'everybody does it' seems to get more credibility in your wording than i would give it...
i dunno. i could probably be found inconsistent in my morality with very little probing.
...
just try to remain aloof and not unduly torque anybody off, and you should be alright. that's what i do.
I would argue that they're different in intent and that is where the moral question lies. If I am raised to believe that its perfectly natural and acceptable to marry a 14 year old. Then my intent is different than the guy who is abusing his power/responsibility/respect etc to victimize innocent/helpless kids.
Youse guys are confuzzling morals and ethics.
Quote from: Nigel on December 09, 2008, 09:10:50 PM
Youse guys are confuzzling morals and ethics.
NO YUO!
I'm confusing ethics and love!
:boot:
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 09, 2008, 08:24:48 PM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 08:12:28 PM
Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.
I am a relativist in every sense.
If you rephrase your comment "rape is wrong. it is always wrong" in E-Prime I suspect you will find that the certitude vanishes. The only way something is 'always wrong' is if a set of Objective Values exists, and as far as I have been able to discover, it simply doesn't. I'm not claiming I am pro-rape, far from it, I consider it to be a heinous and disgusting action, but I understand that my view is exactly that, my personal view, not the view of some Objective Value of the universe.
When a male gorilla mounts a smaller female who isn't interested in him, this could be classified as rape, but who says its wrong? The other gorillas? The monkeys watching? The birds and the bees? God? You?
If you find it to be an abdication of responsibility, that's completely fine, but you should understand that this too is simply your view and not some objective fact.
To me, Discordianism is about taking personal responsibility of our thoughts and actions, and not needing some fairy tale objective value to define our world for us, which is basically what the entire idea of "God" is... passing the buck for your own views and actions on to a 'higher power'. It's one of the central concepts that I loathe about AA.
That, to me, is an abdication of responsibility, and not the other way around.
You make a good point in that no, we cannot define a set of objective values. And I agree with you, attributing ones ideas to a higher power is an abdication of personal responsiblity.
Your gorilla example is hardly compelling though... animals are not moral creatures, humans are. Consider the evolution from creature of instinct to a rationale thinking being. At some point along the way, complex social cooperation became one of our fundamental advantages over other creatures. As brains developed, so did more complex social interactions. From this arose a generally accepted standard of conducting ourselves in those interactions. Those that cooperated better, thrived to pass on their genes. This is the root of our morals.
Now we have reached a point where our brains are capable of making complex abstract decisions, and we can affect a change to what we consider right and wrong. But, as I wrote above, we have good cause to reason that morals have biological origins.
This would lead me to suggest that there is some biologically dervied inherent sense of morality. Sure, there is that whole 'is the red you see the same red I see' argument, but at some point we have to find common ground. You and I may not see the same red, but we both have two eyes, and can probably agree that someone that has only one eye and insists there are only two colors is abnormal.
Shouldnt we be able to do that with morals as well?
No, because you are assuming that all cultures have the same set of morals, which is not true.
Malcoid, did we answer your question about how Discordia relates to morality? (and to be more specific, we're really talking about the Principia - The PD isn't technically the authority on Discordia, the individual is)
I just want to be sure we're somewhat clear, because the path we're going down is about how some discordians relate to morality, which is an interesting conversation, but an entirely separate one from the original question.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 09, 2008, 09:36:05 PM
Malcoid, did we answer your question about how Discordia relates to morality? (and to be more specific, we're really talking about the Principia - The PD isn't technically the authority on Discordia, the individual is)
I just want to be sure we're somewhat clear, because the path we're going down is about how some discordians relate to morality, which is an interesting conversation, but an entirely separate one from the original question.
Very good point.
I would think the PD's argument about morals would be the exact same as its argument about order/disorder.
Quote from: Ratatosk
He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?
The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"
Oh. Uh... I misread the post in question. Opps. :oops:
Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?
I shall think a while and come back.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk
He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?
The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"
Oh. Uh... I misread the post in question. Opps. :oops:
Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?
I shall think a while and come back.
Yes. The trick is, if your personal opinion is a little too out there, society will let you know with a pitchfork up your ass.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?
Yes.
My personal opinion supersedes anyone else's opinion. My morals are the only morals that matter to me.
QuoteYour gorilla example is hardly compelling though... animals are not moral creatures, humans are. Consider the evolution from creature of instinct to a rationale thinking being. At some point along the way, complex social cooperation became one of our fundamental advantages over other creatures. As brains developed, so did more complex social interactions. From this arose a generally accepted standard of conducting ourselves in those interactions. Those that cooperated better, thrived to pass on their genes. This is the root of our morals.
That seems like quite a claim. You appear willing to assume that the morally correct choice is also the choice that makes people more likely to pass on their genes, yet, I'm not sure I agree with that at all, particularly given the history of our species. The strongest, far more often than the most moral, seem traditionally to be the most likely to pass on their genes.
Further, doesn't this argument also rely on morals being subjective... that is they would be subjectively based on what prompted survival among our ancestors (at that point in history), rather than some objective list of what is and is not moral? Aren't you just pushing the 'relative' state off to some long dead monkeys, rather than dealing with it head on? This seems true of most of your statements in this post... even the idea that somehow we have a biological standard of morality. Because, at that point, all morals would appear to become relative to the genetics of the society. Unless you're arguing that these genetically codified morals are the only bits of the human genome that are not prone to mutation, variation, genetic drift etc.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk
He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?
The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"
Oh. Uh... I misread the post in question. Opps. :oops:
Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?
I shall think a while and come back.
Just because morals may be relative, doesn't mean I have no right to my opinion of the actions of others. Let us not confuse the nature of morals with the practical application of existing in society together. The point of relativism is to rid ourselves of the dogmatic view that X is the Moral Standard (where X = Judeo-Christian Western Morals or Any Number of other systems).
For me personally, that means that rather than a moral/immoral touchstone by which I judge the acts of others... I base my judgment ON THE ACT in Context. So, a priest that diddles the alter boys, IMO, exists in an entirely different spectrum than someone that meets his new 14year old wife on their wedding day. So too, a person that kidnaps a pregnant woman and induces abortion exists in a completely different moral situation than a doctor that aborts a fetus because the pregnant woman has decided for some reason that it is not a good idea to have the child.
In and of themselves, I don't think there's a moral/not moral position... Dead fetus... sex with young human... in and of themselves are simply acts, taken in context... they become relative morals.
Further I agree with BAWHEED's comments too :)
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 09, 2008, 09:33:10 PM
No, because you are assuming that all cultures have the same set of morals, which is not true.
well, if you accept evolution, its all dervied from the same source, which likely had some set of morals to govern complex social interaction before racial differentiation took place.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 09, 2008, 09:36:05 PM
Malcoid, did we answer your question about how Discordia relates to morality? (and to be more specific, we're really talking about the Principia - The PD isn't technically the authority on Discordia, the individual is)
I just want to be sure we're somewhat clear, because the path we're going down is about how some discordians relate to morality, which is an interesting conversation, but an entirely separate one from the original question.
Yes, I believe so.
I suppose the conversation has meandered, but it has also been useful. Thanks for the comments everyone... I shall return after further brain processing.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 09, 2008, 09:33:10 PM
No, because you are assuming that all cultures have the same set of morals, which is not true.
well, if you accept evolution, its all dervied from the same source, which likely had some set of morals to govern complex social interaction before racial differentiation took place.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:29:29 PM
Your gorilla example is hardly compelling though... animals are not moral creatures, humans are. Consider the evolution from creature of instinct to a rationale thinking being. At some point along the way, complex social cooperation became one of our fundamental advantages over other creatures. As brains developed, so did more complex social interactions. From this arose a generally accepted standard of conducting ourselves in those interactions. Those that cooperated better, thrived to pass on their genes. This is the root of our morals.
Um, what? You are aware that apes other than humans have complex social interactions right? You know, like gorillas.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 09, 2008, 09:59:22 PM
For me personally, that means that rather than a moral/immoral touchstone by which I judge the acts of others... I base my judgment ON THE ACT in Context. So, a priest that diddles the alter boys, IMO, exists in an entirely different spectrum than someone that meets his new 14year old wife on their wedding day. So too, a person that kidnaps a pregnant woman and induces abortion exists in a completely different moral situation than a doctor that aborts a fetus because the pregnant woman has decided for some reason that it is not a good idea to have the child.
In and of themselves, I don't think there's a moral/not moral position... Dead fetus... sex with young human... in and of themselves are simply acts, taken in context... they become relative morals.
Sorry to repeat myself, but morals are, kind of by definition, not very grey. You are talking ethics.
Quote from: Nigel
Sorry to repeat myself, but morals are, kind of by definition, not very grey. You are talking ethics.
Can you elaborate on this? Morals, by definition, are the basic distinctions between right and wrong. Ethics are a set of behavioral standards based on morals.
How do you define morals as being 'not very grey'?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 09, 2008, 09:42:39 PM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?
Yes. The trick is, if your personal opinion is a little too out there, society will let you know with a pitchfork up your ass.
This is starting to make more sense. I suppose the practical application of being moral within a functioning society is really an easy one.
I think that the crux of my question was whether or not Discordianism could be used to determine immoral actions. The answer I have concluded is no, I can do that quite capably on my own. Conversely, I think it could used to justify rather questionable behavior, but that doesnt really matter because I would disagree with their actions regardless of the justification they provided.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 11:57:24 PM
I think that the crux of my question was whether or not Discordianism could be used to determine immoral actions. The answer I have concluded is no, I can do that quite capably on my own. Conversely, I think it could used to justify rather questionable behavior, but that doesnt really matter because I would disagree with their actions regardless of the justification they provided.
I would agree with this, but the same can be said of most interesting ideas.
Ethical relativism is just as much an excuse to do whatever you want as ethical righteousness.
Quote from: some guy
It is my firm belief to not hold firm beliefs.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 10:02:31 PM
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 09, 2008, 09:33:10 PM
No, because you are assuming that all cultures have the same set of morals, which is not true.
well, if you accept evolution, its all dervied from the same source, which likely had some set of morals to govern complex social interaction before racial differentiation took place.
waitwaitwait stop the presses
Explain how the application of probability to imperfect self-replication, which tends to result in things better at self-replication, can generate normative statements. Just because my genes are less likely to be passed on if I kill my children doesn't make killing my children wrong. If it did then it would also make murdering those who make my children less likely to reproduce right.
Actually, that's not absurd enough.
If morality is based on biology, then we could genetically engineer a bio-ubermensch with different morality genes. It would be his moral duty to torture and rape in the most horrible way possible anyone with "Mal" in their names, and it would be objectively right for him to do so.
It's just moral relativity, only by species instead of by culture.
Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97944783)
Interestingly, this just came up in my friendslist on LJ.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 11:45:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel
Sorry to repeat myself, but morals are, kind of by definition, not very grey. You are talking ethics.
Can you elaborate on this? Morals, by definition, are the basic distinctions between right and wrong. Ethics are a set of behavioral standards based on morals.
How do you define morals as being 'not very grey'?
Dude, I...
just fucking look it up, OK.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 07:47:57 PM
How does Discordianism relate to morality?
Quote from: ErisI am chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are free.
Quote from: GA on December 10, 2008, 05:34:27 AM
It would be his moral duty to torture and rape in the most horrible way possible anyone with "Mal" in their names
:x
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 11:45:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel
Sorry to repeat myself, but morals are, kind of by definition, not very grey. You are talking ethics.
Can you elaborate on this? Morals, by definition, are the basic distinctions between right and wrong. Ethics are a set of behavioral standards based on morals.
How do you define morals as being 'not very grey'?
Morals, by definition, are the standards of right and wrong as determined by a given society or religion. Ethics are your personal philosophy--
you choose to guide yourself by x, y, and z because you've determined that they work best
for you. When you conform to a set of morals, you're subscribing to someone else's idea of right and wrong. (Note that doing so isn't necessarily a Bad Thing.) Morals are "not very grey" because they have been defined, standardized, and accepted. The ethical application of those morals, or lack thereof, is the grey space.
This (http://ezinearticles.com/?Morals-vs-Ethics---According-to-the-Pragmatic-Thinker&id=802720) breaks it down pretty well.
Either way, Discordianism isn't going to answer it for you.
Right, because the whole point is for YOU to answer it for YOU.
NO YUO!
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 09, 2008, 09:59:22 PMQuoteYour gorilla example is hardly compelling though... animals are not moral creatures, humans are. Consider the evolution from creature of instinct to a rationale thinking being. At some point along the way, complex social cooperation became one of our fundamental advantages over other creatures. As brains developed, so did more complex social interactions. From this arose a generally accepted standard of conducting ourselves in those interactions. Those that cooperated better, thrived to pass on their genes. This is the root of our morals.
That seems like quite a claim. You appear willing to assume that the morally correct choice is also the choice that makes people more likely to pass on their genes, yet, I'm not sure I agree with that at all, particularly given the history of our species. The strongest, far more often than the most moral, seem traditionally to be the most likely to pass on their genes.
THIS.
Fuckgoddamnit, morals aren't "grown" or "evolved" or "born". They appear because you use your fucking brain! Not because your parents caused your fleshy shell to survive up to this point. They are here because YOU are here, right now, playing the Game of the Universe. They appear out of nowhere, out of Chaos, they appear because all the others are playing as well. Not because they or their parents survived either, but because they too are right there, right then, playing the same Game. And there's WAY more to that Game than merely evolution or survival.
Gorillas can play too, btw. And so can airplanes.
Quotewell, if you accept evolution, its all dervied from the same source, which likely had some set of morals to govern complex social interaction before racial differentiation took place.
NO. this is fucking bullshit. You're confusing biological evolution with cultural evolution. Especially on the topic of morality this is bunk. You may get raised with a certain set of morals from your parents or tribe, but as so many people on this forum have proven by example, you don't need to stick with those like you're stuck with, say, the colour of your eyes.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk
He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?
The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"
Oh. Uh... I misread the post in question. Opps. :oops:
Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?
I shall think a while and come back.
Deliniation: There is a difference between Moral Relativism
Malcoid and Moral Relativism
LMNO.
You asked about Discordian Morals (possible existence thereof), not about what Discordians thought about Moral Relativism
Malcoid.
As a Discordian, and thinking for myself {as a schmuck}, I have defined the issue in my own terms, that being Moral Relativism
LMNO. Which goes as follows:
1. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL CODE OF MORALS.
A) There are some morals that many people agree with, most of the time.
2. MORALS ARE A HUMAN CREATION.
A) They are not genetic, holy, nor sacred.
3. REGIONAL CULTURE INFLUENCES AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORALS.
A) However, and indiviual can make their own choices as to their personal moral code.
4. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS DIFFERENT MORALS THAN YOU DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE WRONG.
A) But that doesn't mean they're
right, either.
B) And it
certainly doesn't mean
you're right.
5. FIFTH POINT.
Anyway, what this basically means is that individual morality is subjective and variable. What this also means is that you judge other people's morals through
your own morality.
Even though your morality is mutable, it's still
yours. It still creates taboos towards certain things. What that means is that if you have Orthodox Jewish morals, it's
okay to find eating pork repulsive. But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.
Of course, there's nothing saying you can't try and
convince me that bacon is shameful. But you can't start your argument claiming some Universal Mandate.
In this way, you can create your
own moral code, one that makes sense to
you, and you can tweak it as you see fit to make your mind a better place to live.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2008, 01:55:27 PM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 09, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk
He did? Are you reading posts from LMNO on principiadiscordia.com or are you in a different conversation somewhere else?
The only time I see LMNO say "fully accepted" is where he pointed to the premise as being "off base"
Oh. Uh... I misread the post in question. Opps. :oops:
Im still having trouble seeing how one can accept moral relativism and still make any judgement on right and wrong. Isnt it then just a matter of personal opinion?
I shall think a while and come back.
Deliniation: There is a difference between Moral RelativismMalcoid and Moral RelativismLMNO.
You asked about Discordian Morals (possible existence thereof), not about what Discordians thought about Moral RelativismMalcoid.
As a Discordian, and thinking for myself {as a schmuck}, I have defined the issue in my own terms, that being Moral RelativismLMNO. Which goes as follows:
1. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL CODE OF MORALS.
A) There are some morals that many people agree with, most of the time.
2. MORALS ARE A HUMAN CREATION.
A) They are not genetic, holy, nor sacred.
3. REGIONAL CULTURE INFLUENCES AN INDIVIDUAL'S MORALS.
A) However, and indiviual can make their own choices as to their personal moral code.
4. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS DIFFERENT MORALS THAN YOU DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE WRONG.
A) But that doesn't mean they're right, either.
B) And it certainly doesn't mean you're right.
5. FIFTH POINT.
Anyway, what this basically means is that individual morality is subjective and variable. What this also means is that you judge other people's morals through your own morality.
Even though your morality is mutable, it's still yours. It still creates taboos towards certain things. What that means is that if you have Orthodox Jewish morals, it's okay to find eating pork repulsive. But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you.
Of course, there's nothing saying you can't try and convince me that bacon is shameful. But you can't start your argument claiming some Universal Mandate.
In this way, you can create your own moral code, one that makes sense to you, and you can tweak it as you see fit to make your mind a better place to live.
:mittens:
Quote from: Telarus on December 10, 2008, 05:59:33 AM
Dogs Understand Fairness, Get Jealous, Study Finds (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97944783)
Interestingly, this just came up in my friendslist on LJ.
Precisely the study I was thinking of! Thanks Telarus :)
I have enjoyed this conversation very much!
This reminds me of the conversations we used to have in university.
And the ethics vs. morals thing is only fun when there's no religious fanatics involved. Or strike that and reverse it if you're an asshat.
I thought I had a witty one-line way of explaining "Discordian morality." But then, as it turns out, I didn't.
Guess I'll have to read the thread and try to make a meaningful contribution to the existing discussion, then.
Isn't a 'moral code' that thing leaders insist their follows adhere to, while they ignore it totally?
Snarky one liners are a categorical imperative. Or they would have been, if Kant had a sense of humour.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 03:19:31 PM
Isn't a 'moral code' that thing leaders insist their follows adhere to, while they ignore it totally?
Snarky one liners are a categorical imperative. Or they would have been, if Kant had a sense of humour.
So true. So true.
Also,
I have a moral code.
You have a fucked-up irrational belief system.
I have a fucked up irrational belief system. You have a fucked up irrational belief system.
Shit, I copied and pasted that wrong.
I have a fucked up irritable belief system.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 03:31:58 PM
I have a fucked up irrational belief system. You have a fucked up irrational belief system.
Shit, I copied and pasted that wrong.
:mittens:
And
that, ladies and gentlemen, is Moral Relativism.
Whole New Definition for IBS... ITT!
Stay away from Scientologists with IBS.
Explosive Dianetics FTL.
Some notes:
the main problem with moral relativism is that it can often fall prey to the idea of normality being the highest ideal. By locating the moral centre at accepted cultural norms, fairly disgusting practices, such as female genital mutilation, slavery and genocide can be acceptable. For instance, can one argue against racism in 18th century America without reference to some sort of non-relativistic moral code? After all, it was mostly accepted by white Americans, who made up the vasy majority of the society at the time.
The problems of universalistic moral codes relate more to epistemology. How can we know if the moral codes that have been posited are correct? What if we were to discover, for example, that homosexuality was objectively wrong? Universalism tends to lead to crusading zealots and dogma. Because these moral codes lack any form of legitimacy, being as they are based on a metaphysical fantasy, they must be enforced by strict 'education' and by force.
More in a bit.
I do have to say that I do NOT agree with Moral RelativismMalcoid, which Malcoid was also disagreeing with.
That is to say, the idea that "because your culture tells you to cut off a girl's clitoris, that's ok with me."
No, that is not ok with me. And I will do all I can to change your morals. But I can't say that my moral code is somehow cosmically "better". I can, however, say my moral code is more humane and compassionate.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2008, 04:31:00 PM
I do have to say that I do NOT agree with Moral RelativismMalcoid, which Malcoid was also disagreeing with.
That is to say, the idea that "because your culture tells you to cut off a girl's clitoris, that's ok with me."
No, that is not ok with me. And I will do all I can to change your morals. But I can't say that my moral code is somehow cosmically "better". I can, however, say my moral code is more humane and compassionate.
THIS!
Well said LMNO.
By what standards? Your own definition confuses relativism with subjectivism. Not to mention you are making up your own definition. Now thats fine, if you want to do that, but you cannot complain when your own ideas get mistaken for another, well known theory.
Moral relativism
does state that morality is dictated by the culture. The individual, tabula rasa-like, then accepts that code. Not only is this utterly repugnant, its descriptively false as well. For example, Ruth Benedict, a well known American anthropologist:
QuoteThe concept of the normal is a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society.
Furthermore:
QuoteIn a society that values trance, as in India, they will have supernormal experience. In a society that institutionalizes homosexuality, they will be homosexual. In a society that sets the gathering of possessions as the chief human objective, they will amass property. The deviants, whatever the type of behavior the culture has institutionalized, will remain few in number.
People who do not agree with the majority are morally incorrect. That is moral relativism, rule of the mob. Now, I know that is not your theory, and you know that is not your theory, so why do you persist in referring to your idea as moral relativism? Its like saying you have a great political concept and calling it Fascism. Its not fascism, but you call it that because you like the name or whatever.
Good point.
Perhaps I should call it "The Holy Transmission Of What Is Good From Our Lady What Done It All To LMNO, So Step To It, Spags."
Or THTOWIGFOLWDIATLMNOSSTIS for short.
I have a fucked up irritable bowel system.
I'd like to add that in addition to Universalism and Relativism, there is a third option, that of skepticism.
Davey Hume?
QuoteReason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relationship of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact.
Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason. Now 'tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement. 'Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.
QuoteThus on the whole 'tis impossible that the distinction between moral good and evil can be made by reason; since that distinction has an influence upon our actions, of which reason alone is incapable. But reason and judgment may be the mediate cause of an action, by prompting or directing a passion.
If the thought and understanding were alone capable of fixing the boundaries of right and wrong, the character of virtuous and vicious either must lie in some relations of objects, or must be a matter of fact. This consequence is evident. As the operations of human understanding divide themselves into two kinds, the comparing of ideas and the inferring of matters of fact, were virtue discovered by the understanding it must be an object of one of these relations.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 04:55:24 PM
By what standards? Your own definition confuses relativism with subjectivism. Not to mention you are making up your own definition. Now thats fine, if you want to do that, but you cannot complain when your own ideas get mistaken for another, well known theory.
Moral relativism does state that morality is dictated by the culture. The individual, tabula rasa-like, then accepts that code. Not only is this utterly repugnant, its descriptively false as well. For example, Ruth Benedict, a well known American anthropologist:
QuoteThe concept of the normal is a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society.
Furthermore:
QuoteIn a society that values trance, as in India, they will have supernormal experience. In a society that institutionalizes homosexuality, they will be homosexual. In a society that sets the gathering of possessions as the chief human objective, they will amass property. The deviants, whatever the type of behavior the culture has institutionalized, will remain few in number.
People who do not agree with the majority are morally incorrect. That is moral relativism, rule of the mob. Now, I know that is not your theory, and you know that is not your theory, so why do you persist in referring to your idea as moral relativism? Its like saying you have a great political concept and calling it Fascism. Its not fascism, but you call it that because you like the name or whatever.
Maybe I'm wrong... but in my reading 'Moral Relativism' at its base, claims that there is no Universal standard of Morality... taken to an extreme position it can hold that any judegment of another society's moral position is not possible. So I'd say that the basic claim of moral relativism is correct, there exists no Universal Moral Truth.
However, perhaps you're arguing more for moral pluralism which argues that there may be many moral systems and that those systems may be in conflict. It, though, draws a line at basic human needs. So while it will say I can't comment on the practice of polygamy in culture X, it can comment on the treatment of women in that culture (things like female circumcision etc).
No, moral relativism states that society dictates the morality, and that you have no outside standards of judgement, not that there is no Universal standard. There is a Universal standard in relativism, and that is society sets the rules.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 05:10:56 PM
I'd like to add that in addition to Universalism and Relativism, there is a third option, that of skepticism.
Davey Hume?
QuoteReason is the discovery of truth or falsehood. Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement or disagreement either to the real relationship of ideas, or to real existence and matter of fact.
Whatever, therefore, is not susceptible of this agreement or disagreement, is incapable of being true or false, and can never be an object of our reason. Now 'tis evident our passions, volitions, and actions, are not susceptible of any such agreement or disagreement. 'Tis impossible, therefore, they can be pronounced either true or false, and be either contrary or conformable to reason.
QuoteThus on the whole 'tis impossible that the distinction between moral good and evil can be made by reason; since that distinction has an influence upon our actions, of which reason alone is incapable. But reason and judgment may be the mediate cause of an action, by prompting or directing a passion.
If the thought and understanding were alone capable of fixing the boundaries of right and wrong, the character of virtuous and vicious either must lie in some relations of objects, or must be a matter of fact. This consequence is evident. As the operations of human understanding divide themselves into two kinds, the comparing of ideas and the inferring of matters of fact, were virtue discovered by the understanding it must be an object of one of these relations.
Ooh! I forgot about RAW's "True, False, Game Rule, or Meaningless?" classifications in QP and PR.
Morals seem to be either Game Rules or Meaningless in this sense, yeah?
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 05:17:27 PM
No, moral relativism states that society dictates the morality, and that you have no outside standards of judgement, not that there is no Universal standard. There is a Universal standard in relativism, and that is society sets the rules.
Is it ok if I agree with part of the premise, but find the rest of it completely ridiculous?
I suppose it would depend what part. Society dictates rules, but rules in and of themselves are not moral.
Also, subjective but universal morals are entirely possible. Kierkgaard and Sartre both excelled at explaining these distinctions.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 05:17:27 PM
No, moral relativism states that society dictates the morality, and that you have no outside standards of judgement, not that there is no Universal standard. There is a Universal standard in relativism, and that is society sets the rules.
That seems to be a much more simplistic position than the one laid on in what I've read. In almost everything I've read on the concept, either metaethical or descriptive moral relativism both make the claim that there is no universal standard of morality. Taken in some forms, it also claims that there is no standard of judgment outside of the culture... but at least based on what I've read, that's a position (and an extreme one) within a broader philosophical argument.
Here's a quote I recalled from Stanford's entry on the topic:
QuoteIt is important to note several distinctions that may be made in formulating different metaethical relativist positions. First, it is sometimes said that the truth or justification of moral judgments may be relative to an individual person as well as a group of persons. In this article, the latter will be assumed, as in the definition of MMR, unless otherwise noted. Second, that to which truth or justification is relative may be the persons making the moral judgments or the persons about whom the judgments are made. These are sometimes called appraiser and agent relativism respectively. Appraiser relativism suggests that we do or should make moral judgments on the basis of our own standards, while agent relativism implies that the relevant standards are those of the persons we are judging (of course, in some cases these may coincide). Appraiser relativism is the more common position, and it will usually be assumed in the discussion that follows. Finally, MMR may be offered as the best explanation of what people already believe, or it may be put forward as a position people ought to accept regardless of what they now believe. There will be occasion to discuss both claims below, though the latter is probably the more common one.
I'm simplifying because whenever I try and deal with something in a complex manner, I either get ignored or told "I don't understand". Make your damn minds up.
Oh, and as it happens, appraiser relativism is by far the more common position in real life application, but rarely ever within philosophical texts. Anthropology is full of texts that argue nothing but society dictates what is right and we have no right to judge anything another culture does because their standards are different from ours and that is all there is to it.
Which is neatly summed up in my original explanation.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 05:42:21 PM
I'm simplifying because whenever I try and deal with something in a complex manner, I either get ignored or told "I don't understand". Make your damn minds up.
Oh, and as it happens, appraiser relativism is by far the more common position in real life application, but rarely ever within philosophical texts. Anthropology is full of texts that argue nothing but society dictates what is right and we have no right to judge anything another culture does because their standards are different from ours and that is all there is to it.
Which is neatly summed up in my original explanation.
Ah, see, I had a little knowledge and it just confused me.
However, I think the Appraiser Relativism seems a far more defensible position than either complete moral relativism, or moral objectivism.
So, what's it called when the individual chooses their own moral code?
[edit: it appears to be "appraiser".]
Also, I have to look into subjective universal morals more.
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 10, 2008, 05:44:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 05:42:21 PM
I'm simplifying because whenever I try and deal with something in a complex manner, I either get ignored or told "I don't understand". Make your damn minds up.
Oh, and as it happens, appraiser relativism is by far the more common position in real life application, but rarely ever within philosophical texts. Anthropology is full of texts that argue nothing but society dictates what is right and we have no right to judge anything another culture does because their standards are different from ours and that is all there is to it.
Which is neatly summed up in my original explanation.
Ah, see, I had a little knowledge and it just confused me.
However, I think the Appraiser Relativism seems a far more defensible position than either complete moral relativism, or moral objectivism.
Appraiser relativism is also about making judgements. Which distinguishes it from the theories of what is moral, or where morality is derived from. I would consider it to be more subjective than relative, since it can be applied equally while holding universal moral principles (as defined by the agent in question). Therefore it becomes a question of interpretation, not relativism.
I like this.
Cain, I applaud you for sticking with this after it became apparent that most of us had no idea as to what we were talking about.
Quote from: LMNO on December 10, 2008, 05:45:44 PM
So, what's it called when the individual chooses their own moral code?
[edit: it appears to be "appraiser".]
Also, I have to look into subjective universal morals more.
Nietzscheanism.
Sartre sez:
QuoteWhen we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean that in making this choice he also chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. To choose is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.
Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed, because it involves all mankind. If I am a workingman and choose to join a Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a member I want to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the kingdom of man is not of this world, I am not only involving my own case—I want to be resigned for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. To take a more individual matter, if I want to marry, to have children; even if this marriage depends solely on my own circumstances or passion or wish, I am involving all humanity in monogamy and not merely myself. Therefore, I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man.
QuoteThe existentialists say that man is anguish. What that means is this: the man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a lawmaker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, can not help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility. Of course, there are many people who are not anxious; but we claim that they are hiding their anxiety, that they are fleeing from it. Certainly, many people believe that when they do something, they themselves are the only ones involved, and when someone says to them, "What if everyone acted that way?" they shrug their shoulders and answer, "Everyone doesn't act that way." But really, one should always ask himself, "What would happen if everybody looked at things that way?" There is no escaping this disturbing thought except by a kind of double-dealing. A man who lies and makes excuses for himself by saying "not everybody does that," is someone with an uneasy conscience, because the act of lying implies that a universal value is conferred upon the lie.
QuoteWhen I declare that freedom in every concrete circumstance can have no other aim than to want itself, if man has once become aware that in his forlornness he imposes values, he can no longer want but one thing, and that is freedom, as the basis of all values. That doesn't mean that he wants it in the abstract. A man who belongs to a communist or revolutionary union wants concrete goals; these goals imply an abstract desire for freedom; but this freedom is wanted in something concrete. We want freedom for freedom's sake and in every particular circumstance. And in wanting freedom we discover that it depends entirely on the freedom of others, and that the freedom of others depends on ours. I can take freedom as my goal only if I take that of others as a goal as well. Consequently, when, in
all honesty, I've recognized that man is a being in whom existence precedes essence, that he is a free being who, in various circumstances, can want only his freedom, I have at the same time recognized that I can want only the freedom of others.
For example.
QuoteIn fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be.
This just hit me in the face like a flying barstool.
:barstool:
LMNO
-learned something today.
Quote from: Malachite on December 10, 2008, 10:41:22 AM
Quote from: GA on December 10, 2008, 05:34:27 AM
It would be his moral duty to torture and rape in the most horrible way possible anyone with "Mal" in their names
:x
TAKE IT LIKE A MAN!
\\
(http://mike.files.wordpress.com/2006/02/mal.jpg)
The above is why I usually laugh at the thought of true isolationism or original thought. *shrug*
Excellent explanations, Cain!
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 03:31:58 PM
I have a fucked up irrational belief system. You have a fucked up irrational belief system.
Shit, I copied and pasted that wrong.
I am so fucking stealing this.
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 05:50:19 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 10, 2008, 05:44:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on December 10, 2008, 05:42:21 PM
I'm simplifying because whenever I try and deal with something in a complex manner, I either get ignored or told "I don't understand". Make your damn minds up.
Oh, and as it happens, appraiser relativism is by far the more common position in real life application, but rarely ever within philosophical texts. Anthropology is full of texts that argue nothing but society dictates what is right and we have no right to judge anything another culture does because their standards are different from ours and that is all there is to it.
Which is neatly summed up in my original explanation.
Ah, see, I had a little knowledge and it just confused me.
However, I think the Appraiser Relativism seems a far more defensible position than either complete moral relativism, or moral objectivism.
Appraiser relativism is also about making judgements. Which distinguishes it from the theories of what is moral, or where morality is derived from. I would consider it to be more subjective than relative, since it can be applied equally while holding universal moral principles (as defined by the agent in question). Therefore it becomes a question of interpretation, not relativism.
This distinction really helps clarify the point I was stuck at. The idea of considering morality to be a universal subjective, rather than relative, makes a hell of a lot of sense to me.
Thanks for the input everyone!
(as defined by the agent in question).
Also, a number of people have taken exception with my idea of relating morality to biological evolution, so I want to elaborate a little bit on that.
Firstly, I dont mean to suggest we can determine why people have
certain moral ideas, and especially not today. As we can all easily see, people are free to determine this for themselves.
But this doesnt address why we even have the concept of morality. Im speculating on why we even have a choice to accept or reject a certain set of morals.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 10, 2008, 01:42:06 PMFuckgoddamnit, morals aren't "grown" or "evolved" or "born". They appear because you use your fucking brain! Not because your parents caused your fleshy shell to survive up to this point. They are here because YOU are here, right now, playing the Game of the Universe. They appear out of nowhere, out of Chaos, they appear because all the others are playing as well.
Abso-fucking-lutely not. This is just as much a cop-out as saying that we have morals because God gave them to us, or because the Universe loves us and wants us to behave nicely.
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk
That seems like quite a claim. You appear willing to assume that the morally correct choice is also the choice that makes people more likely to pass on their genes, yet, I'm not sure I agree with that at all, particularly given the history of our species. The strongest, far more often than the most moral, seem traditionally to be the most likely to pass on their genes.
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.
Our social dynamics are still largely based on primate pack behavior.
A large amount of "morals" seem to run counter to this, creating cognitive dissonence, and guilt (some here call it The Machine™).
Many "morals" seem to be how we wish other people would act, not how they actually act.
This would appear to make "morals" fall into the same set of impossible and imaginary ideals as in Plato's cave.
Malcoid, why are you so concerned about the morals or ethics of others?
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 10, 2008, 08:29:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 10, 2008, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 10, 2008, 08:29:27 PM
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. ;-)
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 10, 2008, 08:06:23 PM
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.
Wait until Kai reads this...
:popcorn:
Quote from: Vene on December 10, 2008, 10:31:52 PM
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?
cause social "evolution" is an entirely different beast than biological evolution.
Quote from: Vene on December 10, 2008, 10:31:52 PM
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?
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 10, 2008, 11:31:37 PM
Quote from: Vene on December 10, 2008, 10:31:52 PM
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.
Quote from: GA on December 10, 2008, 11:50:19 PM
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...
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 10, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
Quote from: GA on December 10, 2008, 11:50:19 PM
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 believe morals were invented by man to fulfill the intense need people have to tell others how they should behave.
End of story.
Quote from: GA on December 11, 2008, 12:04:48 AM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 10, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
Quote from: GA on December 10, 2008, 11:50:19 PM
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.
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 11, 2008, 12:06:31 AM
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?
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 11, 2008, 12:13:08 AM
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 11, 2008, 12:06:31 AM
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?
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 10, 2008, 10:47:02 PM
Wait until Kai reads this...
:popcorn:
Hate will be shat.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 10, 2008, 11:31:37 PMBesides, 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.
I never fucking said that you motherfucking twat. I don't give a shit what you think about morals, just don't misapply biology when you figure them out. I have more respect for fundamentalist Christians because at least they try to understand their theology.
QuoteWhy 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?
(http://i36.tinypic.com/210x2sh.jpg)
I've forgotten more biology than you know.
Just so you're clear, here's an example of you fucking up evolutionary biology.
QuoteMy 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.
That is not evolution, that is a creotard strawman. Actual evolutionary theory states that those who live long enough to fuck and have offspring will spread more of their traits into the general population. They
could do it by being the biggest badass, until a bigger predator kills and eats it. A lot of times the pretty boy has a greater fitness, because he got laid unlike mister badass who fights every motherfucking thing he sees. Or you have a badass lone wolf, who gets chased out of the pack by the weaker members for being a dick. He's not getting laid, he's working too hard to sustain himself on rats.
Also, I fucking hate it that species-centric fucks always focus on animals. Your strawman means nothing in the world of plants. An aggressive flower is just fucking moronic and I don't care which flower is the most imposing, if bees aren't attracted to it's petals it ain't reproducing. The REAL theory applies to these circumstances, your idiotic version where the tough guys always win fails.
:lol:
ah, one of my favorite forum landmines. Inaccuracy in discussing evolution.
:love:
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 10, 2008, 11:07:33 PM
cause social "evolution" is an entirely different beast than biological evolution.
why is social behavioral patterns, and their changes over time an entirely different beast than biological evolution? it seems they would be intimately linked?
Quote from: Vene on December 11, 2008, 12:33:48 AM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 10, 2008, 11:31:37 PMBesides, 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.
I never fucking said that you motherfucking twat.
I got you confused with another poster. Sorry, when people are being arrogant pricks they all tend to sound the same.
Quote
That is not evolution, that is a creotard strawman. Actual evolutionary theory states that those who live long enough to fuck and have offspring will spread more of their traits into the general population. They could do it by being the biggest badass, until a bigger predator kills and eats it. A lot of times the pretty boy has a greater fitness, because he got laid unlike mister badass who fights every motherfucking thing he sees. Or you have a badass lone wolf, who gets chased out of the pack by the weaker members for being a dick. He's not getting laid, he's working too hard to sustain himself on rats.
Also, I fucking hate it that species-centric fucks always focus on animals. Your strawman means nothing in the world of plants. An aggressive flower is just fucking moronic and I don't care which flower is the most imposing, if bees aren't attracted to it's petals it ain't reproducing. The REAL theory applies to these circumstances, your idiotic version where the tough guys always win fails.
Yes I know, the tough guy doesnt always win. If that was the case, humans probably would not be the dominant species on the planet. Its more likely that higher brain function and better social cooperation allowed us to claim the top of the shit pile. So, I would suggest its possible that the concept of morality and ethics arose in conjunction with the evolution of our brain.
To be honest, I dont know that much or care that much about this particular topic. I definitely do not give a shit about how evolution relates to plants. I just dont feel inclined to let you be a condescending dick towards me and not say anything.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 11, 2008, 01:55:01 AMYes I know, the tough guy doesnt always win. If that was the case, humans probably would not be the dominant species on the planet. Its more likely that higher brain function and better social cooperation allowed us to claim the top of the shit pile. So, I would suggest its possible that the concept of morality and ethics arose in conjunction with the evolution of our brain.
You think we're the dominant species :lulz: Various insects and bacteria have got us beat.
QuoteTo be honest, I dont know that much or care that much about this particular topic. I definitely do not give a shit about how evolution relates to plants. I just dont feel inclined to let you be a condescending dick towards me and not say anything.
If you don't fucking understand it, don't fucking apply it. You don't have an understanding of evolution, so don't try and apply it. That's what caused social darwinism.
Quote from: Vene on December 11, 2008, 02:18:20 AM
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 11, 2008, 01:55:01 AMYes I know, the tough guy doesnt always win. If that was the case, humans probably would not be the dominant species on the planet. Its more likely that higher brain function and better social cooperation allowed us to claim the top of the shit pile. So, I would suggest its possible that the concept of morality and ethics arose in conjunction with the evolution of our brain.
You think we're the dominant species :lulz: Various insects and bacteria have got us beat.
Hmmm, yeah right. I dont think being a bacteria or an insect would be terribley interesting. Desipte our problems and limitations, I consider humans to be a far superior form of life. Maybe that isnt 'dominant' in biological terms, but honestly, I dont give a shit about the insects or bacteria. Unless one with leathal poison bit me or infected me. Then multiple shits would be given.
Quote
If you don't fucking understand it, don't fucking apply it. You don't have an understanding of evolution, so don't try and apply it. That's what caused social darwinism.
In this case, the tide pulled me a bit deeper than I had intended to wade, however I dont see any reason why I should shy away from engaging myself with an idea I dont fully understand. Its a method of learning. Also, this method is tends to be more interesting than reading a book of someone elses thoughts.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 11, 2008, 12:13:08 AM
Quote from: BAWHEED on December 11, 2008, 12:06:31 AM
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?
1) Sadism
2) Inferiority complexes
3) Superiority complexes
4) Nosiness
5) Lulz
Quote from: Vene on December 11, 2008, 02:18:20 AM
If you don't fucking understand it, don't fucking apply it. You don't have an understanding of evolution, so don't try and apply it. That's what caused social darwinism.
I wouldn't be so hard on him. I'm sure that he meant to say "Human behavioral ecology" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavioral_ecology) rather than "evolution".
:FFF:
Someone wake me when Kai gets here.
Quote from: Malcoid the Malcontent on December 11, 2008, 01:55:01 AM
Yes I know, the tough guy doesnt always win. If that was the case, humans probably would not be the dominant species on the planet. Its more likely that higher brain function and better social cooperation allowed us to claim the top of the shit pile. So, I would suggest its possible that the concept of morality and ethics arose in conjunction with the evolution of our brain.
Currently the "dominant" species. Though, I'm not sure our "domination" is necessarily anything to be proud of. It certainly has had some less than stellar results. I tend to think the ideas of morality and ethics arose in conjunction with the evolution of society, not our brains. If we were all still living in disparate caves, our nearest neighbors a days journey away, morals and ethics would not be necessary. They became a necessity once we figured out we are going to be stuck swimming in a vast sea of humanity. It's the morals and ethics, in part, that allow us to tread that sea and keep us from drowning. In other words, sometimes you have to be nice to other people in order to make it anywhere in society.
QuoteTo be honest, I dont know that much or care that much about this particular topic. I definitely do not give a shit about how evolution relates to plants. I just dont feel inclined to let you be a condescending dick towards me and not say anything.
Hey, you're at pd.com. Strap on a helmet.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 01:38:49 PMQuoteTo be honest, I dont know that much or care that much about this particular topic. I definitely do not give a shit about how evolution relates to plants. I just dont feel inclined to let you be a condescending dick towards me and not say anything.
Hey, you're at pd.com. Strap on a helmet.
I've found one for him.
(http://i33.tinypic.com/k18fog.jpg)
Ok, maybe we're being a bit harsh.
Morals are the result of high-level thought processes (by "high-level" I mean meta thinking, the sort of thinking that separates us from most other primates and mammals).
The fundamental structure in our brain allows high-level thought.
Evolution somehow produced the fundamental structure in our brain.
So, it could be said that morals come from the evolutionary process. However, saying it like that implies a much more direct link than is actually there. I mean, you could take that line of thought and say that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a result of evolution; even though you can reason it out, it's essentially a meaningless statement.
Malcoid, did I read right that you're not in High School yet?
Yeah, the link seems somewhat tenuous at best, and could really be only useful in a descriptive sense (ie; how 'morals' operate) not a prescriptive one (this is right and this is wrong).
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:04:34 PM
Ok, maybe we're being a bit harsh.
Morals are the result of high-level thought processes (by "high-level" I mean meta thinking, the sort of thinking that separates us from most other primates and mammals).
The fundamental structure in our brain allows high-level thought.
Evolution somehow produced the fundamental structure in our brain.
So, it could be said that morals come from the evolutionary process. However, saying it like that implies a much more direct link than is actually there. I mean, you could take that line of thought and say that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a result of evolution; even though you can reason it out, it's essentially a meaningless statement.
TITCM
QuoteMalcoid, did I read right that you're not in High School yet?
That would explain a lot.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:04:34 PM
So, it could be said that morals come from the evolutionary process. However, saying it like that implies a much more direct link than is actually there. I mean, you could take that line of thought and say that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a result of evolution; even though you can reason it out, it's essentially a meaningless statement.
Separating
any behavior and patterns thereof from the evolutionary process that spawned them seems to be unduly elevating ourselves above the 'base natural order'. Why is it anything other than a direct link? (your example of music is an interesting question, when viewed from that angle, and i would imagine full of insight rather than meaningless) In regards to morality, that would seem even
more direct as they set the standards of social interaction for group, and thereby their success, no?
No.
It's like saying that the motherboard of a computer is directly responsible for the WOW software.
The brain structure allows for thought, and it does impose physical limitations on thought, but it doesn't direct what thoughts occur.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:21:51 PM
No.
It's like saying that the motherboard of a computer is directly responsible for the WOW software.
The brain structure allows for thought, and it does impose physical limitations on thought, but it doesn't direct what thoughts occur...
...in many, but not all, cases. I mean, we're pretty hardwired to think fap-inducing thoughts.
(I don't mean to be nitpicky, because I do agree with you, but someone who doesn't will try to call you on that.)
Let me try this again:
I tend to think the ideas of morality and ethics arose in conjunction with the evolution of society, not our brains. If we were all still living in disparate caves, our nearest neighbors a days journey away, morals and ethics would not be necessary. They became a necessity once we figured out we are going to be stuck swimming in a vast sea of humanity. It's the morals and ethics, in part, that allow us to tread that sea and keep us from drowning. In other words, sometimes you have to be nice to other people in order to make it anywhere in society.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2008, 02:17:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:04:34 PM
So, it could be said that morals come from the evolutionary process. However, saying it like that implies a much more direct link than is actually there. I mean, you could take that line of thought and say that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is a result of evolution; even though you can reason it out, it's essentially a meaningless statement.
Separating any behavior and patterns thereof from the evolutionary process that spawned them seems to be unduly elevating ourselves above the 'base natural order'. Why is it anything other than a direct link? (your example of music is an interesting question, when viewed from that angle, and i would imagine full of insight rather than meaningless) In regards to morality, that would seem even more direct as they set the standards of social interaction for group, and thereby their success, no?
Societal rules have changed at a much faster rate than biological evolution. At best evolution is one part of many influencing how we make decisions and set up our societies. We did evolve as social creatures, but to try and apply evolution to say what is and isn't moral is misapplying the theory.
To phrase it another way, evolution can explain why we have rules for dealing with other humans, but it can't tell use what the ideal set of rules are. If our morals were defined by natural selection it would follow evolutionarily stable stragegies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_stable_strategy) which is a far cry from having objective morality. I'd also hate to live in a society that gets its morals from such a cold and cruel theory.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 02:27:41 PM
Let me try this again:
I tend to think the ideas of morality and ethics arose in conjunction with the evolution of society, not our brains. If we were all still living in disparate caves, our nearest neighbors a days journey away, morals and ethics would not be necessary. They became a necessity once we figured out we are going to be stuck swimming in a vast sea of humanity. It's the morals and ethics, in part, that allow us to tread that sea and keep us from drowning. In other words, sometimes you have to be nice to other people in order to make it anywhere in society.
Yes.
Quote from: Vene on December 11, 2008, 02:28:55 PM
To phrase it another way, evolution can explain why we have rules for dealing with other humans, but it can't tell use what the ideal set of rules are.
Yes.
Not to mention that I doubt morality would give some humans a reproductive edge over other humans... Social rules, sure... morals I dunno about that.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:21:51 PM
No.
It's like saying that the motherboard of a computer is directly responsible for the WOW software.
The brain structure allows for thought, and it does impose physical limitations on thought, but it doesn't direct what thoughts occur.
Perhaps i didn't explain myself well. I'm not saying that the hardware is solely responsible for our behavior, as it is an emergent phenomenon. I was just saying that our behavior is largely responsible for our likeliness to stay alive, at the individual level, and at the social level. the governing patterns of behavior at the social level being 'morals'.
Quote from: Vene on December 11, 2008, 02:28:55 PM
Societal rules have changed at a much faster rate than biological evolution. At best evolution is one part of many influencing how we make decisions and set up our societies. We did evolve as social creatures, but to try and apply evolution to say what is and isn't moral is misapplying the theory.
To phrase it another way, evolution can explain why we have rules for dealing with other humans, but it can't tell use what the ideal set of rules are. If our morals were defined by natural selection it would follow evolutionarily stable stragegies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_stable_strategy) which is a far cry from having objective morality. I'd also hate to live in a society that gets its morals from such a cold and cruel theory.
Yes....i agree.
Quote from: LMNOMalcoid, did I read right that you're not in High School yet?
No sir/madam, you did not. But thats okay, I dont mind!
Quote from: Malcoid the Magnanimous ManateeI had a strong interest in exploring metaphysics in high school. Im more inclinded these days blah blah blah
Quote from: Ratatosk on December 11, 2008, 02:44:39 PM
Not to mention that I doubt morality would give some humans a reproductive edge over other humans... Social rules, sure... morals I dunno about that.
Yes, that was something that I sortof considered but did not really know how to express. According to Dawkins and the current biological consensus (AFAIK) evolution is geared towards individual selection and survival, not groups. While this is somewhat offset by the fact humans are pack animals, I think many biologists would suggest that individual selection would win out over group selection if purely biologica inputs were considered.
I'm not sure when I'm going with this, but hopefully someone can build on it /need coffee
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2008, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:21:51 PM
No.
It's like saying that the motherboard of a computer is directly responsible for the WOW software.
The brain structure allows for thought, and it does impose physical limitations on thought, but it doesn't direct what thoughts occur.
Perhaps i didn't explain myself well. I'm not saying that the hardware is solely responsible for our behavior, as it is an emergent phenomenon. I was just saying that our behavior is largely responsible for our likeliness to stay alive, at the individual level, and at the social level. the governing patterns of behavior at the social level being 'morals'.
Yes, but from a practical standpoint, morals are
unachievable ideals, not behaviors.
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:52:19 PM
Yes, but from a practical standpoint, morals are unachievable ideals, not behaviors.
Aaaaah.
that's the disconnect.
I was not considering/referring to morals as an objective external ideal in my statements, but rather the patterns of behavior that we, as societies, enforce upon ourselves...
my bad.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2008, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:21:51 PM
No.
It's like saying that the motherboard of a computer is directly responsible for the WOW software.
The brain structure allows for thought, and it does impose physical limitations on thought, but it doesn't direct what thoughts occur.
Perhaps i didn't explain myself well. I'm not saying that the hardware is solely responsible for our behavior, as it is an emergent phenomenon. I was just saying that our behavior is largely responsible for our likeliness to stay alive, at the individual level, and at the social level. the governing patterns of behavior at the social level being 'morals'.
This may or may not be true. But the "morals" are a two way street. In some ways they govern behavior in society, but also, behavior in society will govern the development of morals. So again, this is why I think the evolution of morals has more to do with social evolution, not biological.
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2008, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 11, 2008, 02:52:19 PM
Yes, but from a practical standpoint, morals are unachievable ideals, not behaviors.
Aaaaah.
that's the disconnect.
I was not considering/referring to morals as an objective external ideal in my statements, but rather the patterns of behavior that we, as societies, enforce upon ourselves...
my bad.
Maybe I should have stressed that more in my previous posts.
The last person whose behavior matched his moral code got nailed to a tree by a bunch of Romans.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 02:58:15 PM
This may or may not be true. But the "morals" are a two way street. In some ways they govern behavior in society, but also, behavior in society will govern the development of morals. So again, this is why I think the evolution of morals has more to do with social evolution, not biological.
I'm saying you can't separate the two.
the social evolution of a group has a direct bearing on its survival...
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2008, 03:02:01 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 11, 2008, 02:58:15 PM
This may or may not be true. But the "morals" are a two way street. In some ways they govern behavior in society, but also, behavior in society will govern the development of morals. So again, this is why I think the evolution of morals has more to do with social evolution, not biological.
I'm saying you can't separate the two.
the social evolution of a group has a direct bearing on its survival...
But that's confusing the cause in effect. In this case social evolution is changing biological evolution.
By the way, human society has existed for ~10,000 years, that is not nearly enough time for anything significant to happen in human evolution.
Quote from: Vene on December 11, 2008, 03:10:34 PM
I'm saying you can't separate the two.
the social evolution of a group has a direct bearing on its survival...
But that's confusing the cause in effect. In this case social evolution is changing biological evolution.
By the way, human society has existed for ~10,000 years, that is not nearly enough time for anything significant to happen in human evolution.
[/quote]
We're essentially in agreement, it seems, so now i'm just blustering for fun. (ie. i'm not trying to be combative, and am not firmly stating things, if i was in the first place...)
re: cause/effect in evolution, wouldn't you say that the cause is the effect is the cause is the effect etc... ? i.e. if some group adopts some behavioral pattern (morals) that allows for self destructive actions, then they would have less likelihood of surviving as a group, and thus passing on that pattern, right? Although that is not the biology of the
individual organism affecting the behavioral patterns, it certainly shows the behavioral patterns affecting the biological makeup by selecting against a group, and it points out that you cannot separate the hardware from the software in your analysis, as i see it.
re: 10,000 years.... if you select against a group that has some behavioral pattern (morals) then any biological differences that that group has accumulated will be lost. isn't that significant? and can't/hasn't that happen(ed) in fairly short order? like a bonsai...
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2008, 04:39:02 PM
We're essentially in agreement, it seems, so now i'm just blustering for fun. (ie. i'm not trying to be combative, and am not firmly stating things, if i was in the first place...)
re: cause/effect in evolution, wouldn't you say that the cause is the effect is the cause is the effect etc... ? i.e. if some group adopts some behavioral pattern (morals) that allows for self destructive actions, then they would have less likelihood of surviving as a group, and thus passing on that pattern, right? Although that is not the biology of the individual organism affecting the behavioral patterns, it certainly shows the behavioral patterns affecting the biological makeup by selecting against a group, and it points out that you cannot separate the hardware from the software in your analysis, as i see it.
This assumes that the anatomy between the different groups is significantly different (actually genes that control anatomy, but whatever). And even then it would have to assume the two groups are reproductively separated (not that they can't breed, but that they don't).
To use the software/hardware analysis: A specific piece of hardware could run multiple software programs, and one software program could run on different pieces of hardware. As long as the hardware and software match, there's no problem and no need to upgrade the hardware.
To use a more human-centric train of thought: as individuals we can follow many different worldviews throughout our lives. After all, look at the number of people who convert between different religions, change political parties, and so forth. The physical structure of the brain doesn't change, but the societal construct entertained does. To go back to my 10k year point; society has changed a lot in that period, but we have barely evolved. Certainly our brain structure hasn't done anything significant.
Just so we're clear at what level of evolution humans can experience in this short time I'll bring up something that has changed. That something is lactose tolerance. The enzyme required appeared ~3000 years ago (link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html)). It's enough time for minor tweaking of biochemical processes, but not enough to alter brain structure.
Quotere: 10,000 years.... if you select against a group that has some behavioral pattern (morals) then any biological differences that that group has accumulated will be lost. isn't that significant? and can't/hasn't that happen(ed) in fairly short order? like a bonsai...
There is nothing that can be selected for as far as specific moral codes go. Something that can be selected is how morality is constructed. Easy example, the way our brains have evolved the sections that make decisions are largely emotion driven, but the sections that are more rational have a lot less influence. This can lead to a shitload of different moral ideals (and it has), but if some moral code is selected for (social evolution) any effect on brain evolution would be due to genetic drift and not selection.
Quote from: Vene on December 11, 2008, 05:26:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on December 11, 2008, 04:39:02 PM
We're essentially in agreement, it seems, so now i'm just blustering for fun. (ie. i'm not trying to be combative, and am not firmly stating things, if i was in the first place...)
re: cause/effect in evolution, wouldn't you say that the cause is the effect is the cause is the effect etc... ? i.e. if some group adopts some behavioral pattern (morals) that allows for self destructive actions, then they would have less likelihood of surviving as a group, and thus passing on that pattern, right? Although that is not the biology of the individual organism affecting the behavioral patterns, it certainly shows the behavioral patterns affecting the biological makeup by selecting against a group, and it points out that you cannot separate the hardware from the software in your analysis, as i see it.
This assumes that the anatomy between the different groups is significantly different (actually genes that control anatomy, but whatever). And even then it would have to assume the two groups are reproductively separated (not that they can't breed, but that they don't).
To use the software/hardware analysis: A specific piece of hardware could run multiple software programs, and one software program could run on different pieces of hardware. As long as the hardware and software match, there's no problem and no need to upgrade the hardware.
To use a more human-centric train of thought: as individuals we can follow many different worldviews throughout our lives. After all, look at the number of people who convert between different religions, change political parties, and so forth. The physical structure of the brain doesn't change, but the societal construct entertained does. To go back to my 10k year point; society has changed a lot in that period, but we have barely evolved. Certainly our brain structure hasn't done anything significant.
Just so we're clear at what level of evolution humans can experience in this short time I'll bring up something that has changed. That something is lactose tolerance. The enzyme required appeared ~3000 years ago (link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html)). It's enough time for minor tweaking of biochemical processes, but not enough to alter brain structure.
Quotere: 10,000 years.... if you select against a group that has some behavioral pattern (morals) then any biological differences that that group has accumulated will be lost. isn't that significant? and can't/hasn't that happen(ed) in fairly short order? like a bonsai...
There is nothing that can be selected for as far as specific moral codes go. Something that can be selected is how morality is constructed. Easy example, the way our brains have evolved the sections that make decisions are largely emotion driven, but the sections that are more rational have a lot less influence. This can lead to a shitload of different moral ideals (and it has), but if some moral code is selected for (social evolution) any effect on brain evolution would be due to genetic drift and not selection.
I disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox
Natural Selection =/= Artificial Selection
The biggest difference: Artificial selection can have a goal. Natural selection, not so much.
Remember, groups don't reproduce biologically, individuals do.
And usually, it's in the individual's interest for everyone else to play by the rules while he breaks them.
Quote from: Vene on December 12, 2008, 11:45:01 PM
Natural Selection =/= Artificial Selection
The biggest difference: Artificial selection can have a goal. Natural selection, not so much.
Imposition of order=escalation of disorder. The unexpected pops up, like easier-to-breed, but more loveable foxes.
Quote from: GA on December 13, 2008, 12:15:47 AM
Remember, groups don't reproduce biologically, individuals do.
And usually, it's in the individual's interest for everyone else to play by the rules while he breaks them.
Thus, moral rule zero: don't get caught.
QuoteIt's enough time for minor tweaking of biochemical processes, but not enough to alter brain structure.
A single generation can have just as big an effect on brain structure as anything else. For a data point, there are less than 60 known differences between humans and chimpanzees. One generation can produce a radical difference.
What really matters is how fast a mutation can spread, any real speed usually requires mass extinction of anything in the population who doesn't have it.
Quote from: Requiem on December 19, 2008, 04:04:41 AM
QuoteIt's enough time for minor tweaking of biochemical processes, but not enough to alter brain structure.
A single generation can have just as big an effect on brain structure as anything else. For a data point, there are less than 60 known differences between humans and chimpanzees. One generation can produce a radical difference.
What really matters is how fast a mutation can spread, any real speed usually requires mass extinction of anything in the population who doesn't have it.
You don't need a genetic difference to alter brain structure. Learn any novel skill and your brain changes slightly - people who are good at a task use their brain in a different way than those who aren't.
Oh, the rabbit whole goes deeper than that. :lulz:
Once trained by repeated practice, it is not your brain that remembers how to catch a football, it's your arm ("muscle memory"). The brain just works out relative positions, the act of catching and pulling to the body happens faster than the brain can react. Basically, the brain just "points and yells GO!"
:lulz:
my wife and i were talking about this in terms of serving. we put it in the context of wu-wei (non-interfearance) and pointed out a difference between servers that play the role of serving vs. just serving. when someone give a script it becomes contrived but if someone comes in and is simply natural it feels more sincere to those around him. She mentioned that really frusterated servers tend to just piss and moan all the time instead of simply being. it's like an effort to be spontaneous which, of course, isn't. after a while (hopefully) the poor server learns to give up and be himself as it makes more money. you just drop the training wheels. i'd call that an altered brain structure.