"Morally' violent?

[pErvinalia]

Wouldn't it be great if one day you could learn how logic works?

[Seth]

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'.

Remember that so far I'm simply proposing that at the most basic level of analysis there is an objective morality based in nature and natural behavior. Don't waterboard and anally rehydrate the analysis quite yet. I'm not suggesting that self-interest is the ONLY moral act, merely that it is the objective moral basis from which all other morality flows. The purpose of the statement is to begin at the beginning and to challenge the claim that "morality" is entirely subjective. The obvious problem with subjective morality is that being subjective, it becomes impossible to judge the morality of any act because the morality of an act is not founded in some fundamental objective principle. Theists resort to claims that God dictates morality as a means of stating an objective (to them) basis for moral decision making. If God is the supreme being that makes all the rules, then rules of morality announced by God are by their very nature objectively moral.

I'm arguing that there is a non-theistic organic basis for morality, but that's just the foundation, not the entire edifice.

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'.

This is a bit circular. Moral acts are moral because they are moral because society decides that they are moral.

If there is no objective basis of morality then the entire moral spectrum is cut adrift and becomes entirely subjective to the group within which the morality of actions is judged. This commonly leads to moral decisions like "Jews are animals and we should exterminate them" that is judged to be entirely moral within one group, but is judged immoral by another. Without an objective basis for morality, how are objections to such moral decisions defended logically and rationally?

[Seth]

Wouldn't it be great if one day you could learn how logic works?

You've run out of ideas already I see.

Fuck off.

[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...

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.

That is a very big logical stretch. Sure, deliberately interfering with someone else to their detriment (legal processes aside) fits the "immoral category". But that does not mean that the everyday actions we take such as eating, drinking and breathing can be described as moral. I'm leaning towards BG's view of morality as being inextricably bound up with people's actions to others (and possibly animals as well).

[Blind groper]

Yes, I agree with Jim. I do not think that there is any objective component to 'morality'. Morals, like courtesy, human rights, and principles, are arbitrary. They evolve socially as a part of the human experience. The basis of morality is the suggestion that people should care for each other, and this arises from the fact that humans are a gregarious species of ape that cooperates.

Mind you, the fact that these facets of our existence are arbitrary does not mean they lack value. Morals, courtesy, human rights and principles are vitally important. They help human survival, and they help our social structure to hang together.

[Hermit]

I'm not suggesting that self-interest is the ONLY moral act, merely that it is the objective moral basis from which all other morality flows.

Let's see now. Rape reproduces my DNA. If I need to kill a rival over it, so be it. Self interest in action. Added bonus: killing weaker rivals increases the average strength of the rest of the cohort. All good. I have moral justification.

Wearing glasses is not natural. Myopic individuals would not survive for long in the wild. That they do with the use of artificial means weakens the genetic pool and hence the chances of survival of the species. Glasses are morally wrong.

[laklak]

Rape was perfectly moral back in the day, hell, Yahweh ordered it. So was murder, slavery, infanticide, genocide, and incest. Morality is a moveable feast. We live in a society where we have the luxury of refining our moral sense, but you strip it down to basics and the only imperative is survival. You'll do whatever it takes to survive, or you'll die. Then you call that "moral", because it makes you feel better about yourself.

I find it "moral" to give a few bucks to homeless people, I find it "moral" not to rape or murder. But I've got that luxury, eh? Roof over my head, electricity in the mains, water comes out of the faucet when I turn it on, shit I've got cans of fucking French snails in the pantry. I'm one spoiled motherfucker, if you look back at all of human history. You take all that away from me and my morality is going to be at the end of my gun barrel. I might find it moral to gut you and eat you, assuming I get the drop on you. At that point any whinging about morality is so much hot air.

[Hermit]

Ayup. I was just having fun with the ridiculous notion that there's a necessary connection between morality and survival. It's a big reason why I can't stand Sam Harris's philosophical output. He claims that there are objective morals and that they originate from the need to survive. He expresses the argument a bit better than Seth does, but fundamentally it's just as nonsensical.

[Seth]

I'm not suggesting that self-interest is the ONLY moral act, merely that it is the objective moral basis from which all other morality flows.

Let's see now. Rape reproduces my DNA. If I need to kill a rival over it, so be it. Self interest in action. Added bonus: killing weaker rivals increases the average strength of the rest of the cohort. All good. I have moral justification.

Objectively true I believe. Dawkins insists that we are nothing more than a wet bag of genes purposed with reproducing itself, and therefore it seems logical to say that whatever fosters or improves the chances that my genes will be reproduced is objectively "right" or "correct" or "moral." If rape is what is required to reproduce my genes, then my attempts to do so are moral, at least at the primitive level of objective morality, for me. On the other hand self defense in preserving its life is also a moral act of the rival, and resistance (or acquiescence) to "rape" is an intrinsically moral act for a female. Thus, two mutually opposed acts can both be moral for the instigator of the act while being immoral as applied to the subject of the act.

Wearing glasses is not natural. Myopic individuals would not survive for long in the wild. That they do with the use of artificial means weakens the genetic pool and hence the chances of survival of the species. Glasses are morally wrong.

That's a valid argument. However, the question is not whether myopic individuals are worse survivors in the wild, it's whether they are better survivors in the environment in which they exist. If the trade off for myopia is higher intelligence that better facilitates survival and reproduction of that particular person, then glasses are morally correct.

It is true that morality only comes into play on a functional basis when there is competition for survival, either interspecies or intraspecies. Considering the individual in isolation for a moment, the individual organism has absolute freedom to do anything at all and so long as the purpose of the act is to prolong its life, it acts morally. Logically however, this definition of objective morality makes self-destructive acts objectively immoral.

[Seth]

Yes, I agree with Jim. I do not think that there is any objective component to 'morality'. Morals, like courtesy, human rights, and principles, are arbitrary. They evolve socially as a part of the human experience. The basis of morality is the suggestion that people should care for each other, and this arises from the fact that humans are a gregarious species of ape that cooperates.

Mind you, the fact that these facets of our existence are arbitrary does not mean they lack value. Morals, courtesy, human rights and principles are vitally important. They help human survival, and they help our social structure to hang together.

So then non-ape species have no morals? That seems to be a very anthropocentric view of morality? Is that what you're suggesting, that morality only applies to human beings?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yes, I agree with Jim. I do not think that there is any objective component to 'morality'. Morals, like courtesy, human rights, and principles, are arbitrary. They evolve socially as a part of the human experience. The basis of morality is the suggestion that people should care for each other, and this arises from the fact that humans are a gregarious species of ape that cooperates.

Mind you, the fact that these facets of our existence are arbitrary does not mean they lack value. Morals, courtesy, human rights and principles are vitally important. They help human survival, and they help our social structure to hang together.

So then non-ape species have no morals? That seems to be a very anthropocentric view of morality? Is that what you're suggesting, that morality only applies to human beings?

Seeing as it is an intrinsically human construct, yes! Other animals may act in a way that we consider "noble", "moral" or "altruistic" but they have no concept of morality. except cats, of course. THey know the difference between good and evil, they just don't give a shit, because evil is far more fun.

[Hermit]

So then non-ape species have no morals? That seems to be a very anthropocentric view of morality? Is that what you're suggesting, that morality only applies to human beings?

If one understands morals as constructs of humans and agreed upon to a greater or lesser extent in human societies, that would have to be the inescapable conclusion. I think Blind groper has made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that he regards morals in much the way I just summarised. As for me, I see a lot of behaviour patterns concerning cooperation as well as competition and conflict in animal societies, but I am not convinced that morality factor in any of them, basically because I agree with Blind groper's take on morality.

[Hermit]

...except cats, of course. THey know the difference between good and evil, they just don't give a shit, because evil is far more fun.

Totally bullshit, that. Mayhem has not a scintilla of evil in her. The light of unadulterated benevolence and pure altruism shines out of her very eyes.



QED!

[JimC]

...except cats, of course. THey know the difference between good and evil, they just don't give a shit, because evil is far more fun.

Totally bullshit, that. Mayhem has not a scintilla of evil in her. The light of unadulterated benevolence and pure altruism shines out of her very eyes.



QED!

To me, that is a look directed at other cats, basically saying:

"Fuck off, this is my own personal human slave. Come any closer and I will disembowel you..."

[JimC]

So then non-ape species have no morals? That seems to be a very anthropocentric view of morality? Is that what you're suggesting, that morality only applies to human beings?

If one understands morals as constructs of humans and agreed upon to a greater or lesser extent in human societies, that would have to be the inescapable conclusion. I think Blind groper has made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that he regards morals in much the way I just summarised. As for me, I see a lot of behaviour patterns concerning cooperation as well as competition and conflict in animal societies, but I am not convinced that morality factor in any of them, basically because I agree with Blind groper's take on morality.

I basically agree, with the proviso that the behavioural complexity inherent in primates living in social groups provides the underlying structure to whatever systems of morality we have developed. Also, morality as a concept is not an all or nothing proposition. Perhaps the glimmerings of it exist in chimp society, and I would expect that as hominim brain size increased, some form of basic cognitive reflection involving compassion, guilt and other emotions to slowly emerge. It did not spring fully formed from, for example, the ancient greeks...

An alien race that developed intelligence as they evolved from, for example, more solitary predators, would probably have a very different moral framework...