Atheism

[ultraspatial]

still not an argument for innate morality, just that we're more social as a species

Yeah its impossible to prove really, but I don't understand how it can't be innate. If its not, it must have been man made and it didn't exist before. Assume a time where there are no morals, no concept of right and wrong, what would be the reason be for creating morals/morality?

ensuring the survival of a tribe/community ?

[hubb]

toys out the pram imo

[magma]

still not an argument for innate morality, just that we're more social as a species

You know how you become "more social as a species" than other extremely social apes?

You trust strangers. Chimps don't trust strangers until they've proven themselves trustworthy. In order to trust strangers you have to be able to assume they have a compatible world view/morality with you.

Human civilisation could never have started if we couldn't assume each other to be innately moral creatures.

[ultraspatial]

or mutual interest ? i don't have to trust you if i can use you and you can use me

[hubb]

A society where everyone protect themselves individually is less progressive than one where they don't. That is a historical fact and the imperative in collective evolution. All of that coincides with what we are talking about but it doesn't prove it.

However, only science is based on proof and psychology is really not a science in the usual terms, so it turns discussions into discussions on either belief or philosophy.

In a philosofical sence it is exactly like the egg and morality must've been first.

Similar to what Magma ended up with in his equation.

But I would argue it goes slightly further in the sence that, the necessary cynicism needed to actively exclude moral in judgement, shows an experience in using moral.

[bennyfroobs]

interesting discussion

gr8 work

[scspkr99]

You know how you become "more social as a species" than other extremely social apes?

You trust strangers. Chimps don't trust strangers until they've proven themselves trustworthy. In order to trust strangers you have to be able to assume they have a compatible world view/morality with you.

Human civilisation could never have started if we couldn't assume each other to be innately moral creatures.

But there are societies we consider less moral than ours, on what grounds do we do that? What does it mean for there to be objective moral facts about the world? We can share certain moral positions but do we need a compatible moral outlook to trust someone? How do I know that a stranger I trust has a compatible moral outlook or worldview to mine?

[Muncey]

Yeah its impossible to prove really, but I don't understand how it can't be innate. If its not, it must have been man made and it didn't exist before. Assume a time where there are no morals, no concept of right and wrong, what would be the reason be for creating morals/morality?

ensuring the survival of a tribe/community ?

Did you read the bit after that? I find it hard to believe people created morals to ensure the survival of a tribe. I don't think there was ever a time in history that human survival was in grave danger to the point someone had to create this thing that never existed before called "good and evil", morals, morality ect.

I find it much more realistic that it was always innate, to a certain degree, and its development is our understanding not creating and fine tuning.

If you put survival aside could you think of an answer for why it was created that isn't based on morals? Even survival has to be moralistic to some degree? Our survival is good, we need to act a certain way to help our survival so we should act good. Even animals act in a way that helps their survival as a group or species, they've never needed to create this thing we call morality.

I'm certainly not claiming that people can be born angels and/or born evil (Hitler or something).. but we have a very basic understanding of good and bad imo. It seems more realistic to me that its a very complex abstract concept but its always existed.

[lovelydivot]

Are you sure it's not all a result of learned - cause and effect?

I think it may be more about conflict avoidance rather than pro-active survival…
..moralities function is penal…

...diffusing situation - is a more in your face, immediate issue - than offensive type building.


One may even be a luxury.


So I guess I'm saying - we can't even think of building while there are people tearing down.
We constantly have to stop and correct…
so a running system in place to deprogram in advance - prophylactically…

[ultraspatial]

^someting like that

you fuck up once so you create institutions to make sure you don't fuck up again

[lovelydivot]

not sure if it affects survival per say…but progress - yes


If I'm a homosapien australiopithicus….
It's actually in my best interest to exterminate any competeting tribes…
Because that means more berries for me/us…

But as a society - yeah - nope. INBREEDING.

[Samuel_L_Damnson]

I am an athieststs look how edgy I am

[lovelydivot]

next up - anarchy - and how fuckers will take everyones shit…


liberitatrians are gonna like this chapter - good excuse to use they guns.

[ultraspatial]

it does

say killing other people is bad/a sin w/e - you make sure you don't kill people in your own tribe -> more hunters, labourers, women etc
or tsecni is bad/a sin etc - healthier breeding results and you decreases the chance of violence within the tribe
etc

[Muncey]

it does

say killing other people is bad/a sin w/e - you make sure you don't kill people in your own tribe -> more hunters, labourers, women etc
or tsecni is bad/a sin etc - healthier breeding results and you decreases the chance of violence within the tribe
etc

Your views seem, and I'm not saying they're wrong I just disagree.. I don't think there is a definitive right or wrong and I'm certainly not claiming to be right, very based on survival and selfishness. The idea we're selfish and only do "good" if we benefit may hold true for the large majority but I don't think its a true reflection of 'humans'. If morals are based on survival whats stopping the older people in the group/tribe/society from demolishing the place? They have fuck all to live for, why should they do things that they won't see the benefits from?

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

The idea that we don't act like that quote and act based on our survival instincts and self interest seems like a bleak view on human beings as a whole. We may be mostly pieces of shit now but I'd like to think we're inherently good and have a vague sense of whats right or wrong. The idea that humans created a system in which we feel bad about slaughtering other people as a 'trial and error' doesn't make sense to me.

Again this trial and error may be right, I just don't believe there was a time in history when humanity was in grave danger from immoral acts which forced them to make such a system. In order to create a trial and error system you need an error to begin with, I can't imagine human survival was ever in a state where we had to go "things need to change this isn't working".

On the flip side to survival what about over population? Before we created these morals did tribes practice keeping the population under control by mass slaughter? I find it hard to believe they did, without feeling some sort of remorse or vague understand that this may not be right.

[lovelydivot]

That's what I'm saying….

I don't think morals are a result of survival necessity….
They are penal - They are mean't to punish disruption…

So morality wouldn't be based on "survival need" - it is to deal with detractors.

thus the example of murdering a competing tribe - an act of PRO-SURVIVAL…
-doesn't end up as moral.

Morality isn't driving progress.
Morality is correcting drag in the flow.

or trying to - at least…

This is one of the reasons I have such issues with dorfy evangelicals…
I don't need your santa angel to figure out what is right and wrong.
Your stupid ass can't even get it right and you're living that shit.

logic and reason - greek, classical

I don't kill people because it is not my right…
Not because Moses scribed it on some block.

[Muncey]

What disruption does it punish exactly?

I don't think its necessarily correcting, we know even today that people can take the piss with handouts.. people can be a drag on ourselves/tribe/society ect... yet we know its wrong to let someone suffer and wither away. I don't think a tribe with way more food than it could possibly attempt to consume would stand by and watch a neighboring tribe wither away in pain.

Or maybe they would.. I dunno, I'm quite a pessimistic person and we are pretty much pieces of shit but I'd like to think that's mostly thanks to TV, outside sources ect. but we're born with a rough idea of right and wrong. Maybe my pessimism isn't quite pessimistic enough for reality

[lovelydivot]

I like how you made the assumption of overabundance there…

The art of caning, pickling, charcuterie - didn't develop from perpetual abundance.
nor did grain stores - pottery - walls - churches - or banks.

weaponry.



I'm thinking of morality as a device…
Not as a sense that the device may be embodying…

Now I am getting confused…lol

Let me change gears here - see if I can bang through this….

It was common practice in ancient Latin and Central America…
to give a child to a traveling peadophile/child murderer…
If you couldn't support them.

The peados were considered holy men
- and they would kill your child for you
-while "pleasuring" them at the same time
It was considered to be the most humane way
to stop your child from starving to death.

..like bullfighting…you bleed the bull till he has no sense of pain
- then kill him perfectly…

moral - immoral...??!!?


serial killers - anyone….

Not me - I would be Jesus
- offering my sunday ham booty as sacriment to the children…
but could the children make it - with just the other children?
Lord of the Flies….

I don't know - I don't trust people that much.

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UuMspLxMGM" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

my conclusion - morality is not fixed and is subject to change.
- making this a very difficult topic for discussion.


morality without religion - absolutely possible


Do we or do we not - like christmas trees?

My cats love the christmas tree...
and they don't understand a single fucking thing about jesus…

That is so wrong of me - They probably know better than me…
I've never slept in the garage...

[Muncey]

my conclusion - morality is not fixed and is subject to change.
- making this a very difficult topic for discussion.

I agree our understanding of morality isn't fixed but the basic concept behind it, whats good and whats bad, is innate. Most things aren't so black and white as being "good or bad" and most things lie in the middle, we may perceive it to be closer to one end of the spectrum (good) at one point in human history and closer to the other end of the spectrum (bad) in another point in human history, it could very well vary from one person to another.. but that foundation, the spectrum, has always existed imo. Collectively we have a general idea of what belongs on either end of the scale without being told/taught. Morality has evolved and changed over time but its built on a foundation of good vs bad and that very basic foundation isn't a concept some man created one day because of survival or whatever.

morality without religion - absolutely possible

100%

[ultraspatial]

it does

say killing other people is bad/a sin w/e - you make sure you don't kill people in your own tribe -> more hunters, labourers, women etc
or tsecni is bad/a sin etc - healthier breeding results and you decreases the chance of violence within the tribe
etc

Your views seem, and I'm not saying they're wrong I just disagree.. I don't think there is a definitive right or wrong and I'm certainly not claiming to be right, very based on survival and selfishness. The idea we're selfish and only do "good" if we benefit may hold true for the large majority but I don't think its a true reflection of 'humans'. If morals are based on survival whats stopping the older people in the group/tribe/society from demolishing the place? They have fuck all to live for, why should they do things that they won't see the benefits from?

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

The idea that we don't act like that quote and act based on our survival instincts and self interest seems like a bleak view on human beings as a whole. We may be mostly pieces of shit now but I'd like to think we're inherently good and have a vague sense of whats right or wrong. The idea that humans created a system in which we feel bad about slaughtering other people as a 'trial and error' doesn't make sense to me.

Again this trial and error may be right, I just don't believe there was a time in history when humanity was in grave danger from immoral acts which forced them to make such a system. In order to create a trial and error system you need an error to begin with, I can't imagine human survival was ever in a state where we had to go "things need to change this isn't working".

On the flip side to survival what about over population? Before we created these morals did tribes practice keeping the population under control by mass slaughter? I find it hard to believe they did, without feeling some sort of remorse or vague understand that this may not be right.

institutions become internalized over time. most people would agree that it's "wrong" to kill others - even though it would probably be beneficial

old people in tribes had more power, why destroy something that benefits you?

"I'd like to think we're inherently good" - exactly why i don't buy into this whole innate primordial morality idea. i just think it's a far more likely scenario that humans created certain rules/laws over time to make life easier than being born with some morality gene or w/e