"Morally' violent?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yes. I was so bored that I went and googled "morel tea" just to make a seriously lame joke! Shoot me now.

[JimC]

Well, I've had magic mushroom tea...

A more revolting taste you could not find...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Well, I've had magic mushroom tea...

A more revolting taste you could not find...

It's passable if you add coffee. So I hear...

[piscator]

Partook of psilocybin, presently prefers pekoe. Heady.

[Seth]

Seth suggests that if there is any intrinsic morality, it is survival of the fittest.

What that view ignores is the fact that human survival since before we were Homo sapiens depends on social cooperation. Humans, whether in primitive hunter/gatherer tribal situations, or in the modern world, survive best by working with the people around us.

As a result of that, we have evolved a number of qualities to enhance social togetherness, including the need for human company, altruism, empathy, and caring for others.

Sadly, for primitive cultures (which includes city street gangs, and drug pushers) the cooperation and altruism is often confined to their local tribe. But the need to work together remains, and that includes helping others. Hence morality.

I would agree that humans are social creatures and that tribalism and cooperation are positive evolutionary traits, however, at the core is the individual's instinct to fight to survive even against members of his own tribe. This behavior is seen in all living creatures, all of which will at some point fall back to survival self-interest when challenged.

Therefore it seems to me that the will to survive is a universal and therefore intrinsic trait of all living creatures and that natural selection makes successful iterations of the will to survive intrinsically moral.

[JimC]

Something like a will to survive is an intrinsic part of human nature, sure, and exercising that part of our nature by proportionate self-defence is perfectly reasonable, but it's a stretch to call it "moral"

[Seth]

Something like a will to survive is an intrinsic part of human nature, sure, and exercising that part of our nature by proportionate self-defence is perfectly reasonable, but it's a stretch to call it "moral"

Well, you might begin by defining "moral." That would help.

Here's one: "of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:"

So now we must define "right conduct." Here's one definition of "right": "morally good, justified, or acceptable."

Tautological, neh?

So, at the most basic level, what conduct is "right" and therefor "moral" for the individual organism?

I say "continued existence" is the most fundamental "right conduct" of an organism (or DNA, as Dawkins suggests, if you prefer to go one step further), and therefore survival is inherently moral. This would make self defense in order to preserve the organisms continued existence an inherently moral act.

[pErvinalia]

No, that's circular as you intimate. Morality is not absolute.

[Seth]

No, that's circular as you intimate. Morality is not absolute.

Prove it.

[JimC]

Morality then becomes nothing more than behaving in a way that is in accordance with one's genes. Being thirsty, and doing something appropriate like drinking a glass of water would fit your definition of moral...

[pErvinalia]

No, that's circular as you intimate. Morality is not absolute.

Prove it.

FFS. How many times have we discussed the concept of proving a negative?? It's up to the person who makes the positive assertion to prove it. That would be you.

[Blind groper]

I think most people would not accept that action which is totally for the benefit of the individual is 'moral'. There is no easy definition for 'moral', of course. But whatever it is, it has something to do with helping the group, or the family at least, rather than simply helping yourself.

If selfishly doing stuff for your own survival (and reproduction) was 'moral', then we would add rape, murder and theft to the list of what was 'moral'.

Morality, in my view, began with the tribe, and meant action to benefit others in the family and in the tribe. Word meanings change, though, and today the idea of 'moral' includes more than just family and tribe, but people everywhere. In fact, it includes other animals, and the natural environment also.

Tribalism included some things that today we consider 'immoral'. Like the fact that hostile action against those not of the tribe is generally considered to be OK. This is still a part of tribal life in societies we consider primitive, such as certain tribes in the Amazon and in Papua New Guinea, and in isolated parts of Africa.

In much of the world, over the last 4,000 years, tribes have been amalgamated into nations, and the political concept of "the leviathon" now exists. This says that the collective of people (the nation, and more importantly, the government of that nation) forms a very very powerful force (the leviathon) which controls people's behaviour. It is certainly true that murder rates are lowest in those places where the nation is most powerful.

The comparison, however, is mostly over time, rather than geography. Past cultures with less powerful central governments were far more violent and nasty. Thus, less 'moral'.

[laklak]

And some with a strong central government, like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Imperial Japan were also violent and nasty.

[Seth]

No, that's circular as you intimate. Morality is not absolute.

Prove it.

FFS. How many times have we discussed the concept of proving a negative?? It's up to the person who makes the positive assertion to prove it. That would be you.

Then don't make positive statements about unprovable negatives. Morality may be absolute, or it may not be absolute. You are the one who is making the binary choice and affirmatively claiming that morality is not absolute, so it's up to you to prove your thesis.

Or quit making unprovable claims.

[Seth]

Morality then becomes nothing more than behaving in a way that is in accordance with one's genes. Being thirsty, and doing something appropriate like drinking a glass of water would fit your definition of moral...

At the most fundamental and organic level you are absolutely correct.

If drinking water when thirsty (in order to preserve one's life) is moral, then interfering with that act is inherently immoral because it jeopardizes the organisms life. I think that's a correct proof of the concept I bring forward.