Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Animals generally can't help but act the way their genes dictate. Humans think about what they do (not everything, all the time though), even going against what might be considered natural behaviour.
Richard Hawkes :
... Absolute is simply the wrong word to use IMO. It implies a higher power or purpose which, for many people, simply doesn't exist.
I think Darwinian forces also shape religion. It may be that in a religious society more people will respect the group's moral code even when no one is looking (because they believe God is looking). After all, a moral code is only as useful as it is obeyed. It also may make a moral code easier to spread when the negative consequences of immoral behavior are not obvious.Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Now if morals were purely arbitrary, there would not be such similarities. Perhaps there are survival benefits, for the group, if certain moral codes exist. So Darwinian forces could be shaping moralities. Those groups with less internal dissension, due to certain standardized behaviors (morals), may obtain competitive advantages over other groups with inferior (from a survival standpoint) morals. Survival vs extermination could be seen as a type of absolute.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I think Darwinian forces also shape religion. It may be that in a religious society more people will respect the group's moral code even when no one is looking (because they believe God is looking). After all, a moral code is only as useful as it is obeyed. It also may make a moral code easier to spread when the negative consequences of immoral behavior are not obvious.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I think Darwinian forces also shape religion. It may be that in a religious society more people will respect the group's moral code even when no one is looking (because they believe God is looking). After all, a moral code is only as useful as it is obeyed. It also may make a moral code easier to spread when the negative consequences of immoral behavior are not obvious.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
FS: "We cannot judge the morality of capital punishment in Texas -- they have different notions of morality, and it would be wrong for us to impose our concept upon them."
Either something is moral or it isn't.
Originally posted by Max Habibi:
That's not really a nuanced definition.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Joe King:
[qb]I think a vast amount of what we do is because of animal instincts. Although we like to think of ourselves as being highly advanced creatures who do everything based upon our wonderful thought processes, but a lot of what we do in everyday life is down to instincts and emotions...
I don't deny our biological instincts, they are important. I just think people give them more credit than they deserve. We are more creatures of habit (learned behaviour) than instinct. Beyond eating, breathing and vacating my bowels, nothing I did yesterday could be put down to "natural" instincts; I got up early even though I was tired, I dressed smartly to go to an office where there are no females, I went outside even though it was pretty cold, I sat at a desk for hours even though my back was a little twitchy and I could have done with a nice walk. After getting home, I did the laundry, went to the gym, watched the latest Battlestar Galactica and then made myself go to bed early even though I wasn't tired!
I do believe some of our more widely accepted and valuable morals are based on some of our natural instincts (those to do with alleviating suffering for example), but some moral values have little to do with survival. Also some moral values seek to enhance some natural instincts while others seek to curb them. Historically, whichever instincts are promoted or curbed by moral instruction seems to have more to do with who gets to decide the rules of behaviour.
On another note, definitions of beauty change over place and time and so to some extent beauty is socially constructed. If attraction were simply down to the most suitable reproductive mate, supermodels would never get a date because anyone who fancied them would be regarded as a fetishist [/QB]
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
This assumes also that the meaning of the word "blue" is absolute and universal, which it isn't. The term "light radiated or refracted between the frequency ranges of x and y" might be closer to an absolute term, but "blue" by itself is necessarily insufficient.
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
That's OK, I thought the blue box analogy (as stated) served as an unexpectedly accurate analogy for your belief in moral absolutes.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
Joe King, how do you think, religion fits into the picture. Do you think each religion implements social control methodology,in the same way each programming lanugages implement OOP and design patterns.
Some people like sun's Java but hate microsoft VB but because they are implement OOP in more or less the same way, they have more in common then they would like to believe( especialy if ther is any materal gain to be made). On the same token, do you think religion is like this.
Anxiety does not empty tomorrow of its sorrows, but only empties today of its strength. – Charles Spurgeon
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
...
Globalisation is the only force at work here... Morals exist to preserve societies, not humanity.
...
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
If globalization is the only force at work, how do you account for similarities in morals between groups who have never had contact, direct or indirect ?
If morals do "preserve" societies in any degree, then why wouldn't there be Darwinian forces at work?
The Darwinian argument cannot be dismissed out of hand. Morals influence behavior, behavior influence survival....
...All humans, as members of the same species, share the same basic nature. We could call that fundamental, unchanging human nature an absolute. Certain behaviors both on an individual level and within a group, are more or less in harmony with that human nature than others. Perhaps we could say those behaviors in harmony with thtat nature are moral. If so, then we have taken steps towards establishing a morality based on an absolute.
Originally posted by Joe King:
I think the moralities that are written in religious texts reflect the views of the authors of the text, and fall into several rough categories:....
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
Originally posted by Gerald Davis:
[qb]You go to work so you can eat, the same as a seal has to hunt in cold water for fish. The cold is only a warning telling you to take care, the cold will not kill you will it. You dress up to impress someone, the costs involved in being smart don�t outweigh the possible benefits, would you dress up smartly if you was not going to leave the house and you expected no visitors? I think not.
I didn't go to work to eat. It's only through the weird abstractions of modern society that I have to go through the long-winded process of exchanging hours of my time to get credits in order to exchange them for food. It's a long way from instinct I think.
Actually, I do shower and wear clean clothes even if I'm not expecting to meet anyone [/QB]
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
It's only through the weird abstractions of modern society that I have to go through the long-winded process of exchanging hours of my time to get credits in order to exchange them for food. It's a long way from instinct I think.
Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
I would take issue with the statement that we all share the same nature. Even within one society, people have different "natures".
I see what you're saying and I agree that behaviour across many cultures is shared. I can only explain it, clumsily, as being down to *most* people generally wanting not to die or be in pain and wanting an easier existence.
We all "feel" the same in some respects, therefore it's not too hard to see how some values are similar between seemingly alien cultures.
Societies exist because they make most people's lives easier, but easier isn't the same as something being absolutely necessary for survival.
Sure, lets attempt to find values that make as many people as happy as possible, but as far as I'm concerned, moral values are not out there waiting to be discovered like physical laws, because they are all made up.
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
These categories might help define what Herb referred to as "non-arbitrary" and "arbitrary" moral values.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Well, no. The whole point of every post thus far is to posit a non religous basis for morality.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
No, all people have exactly the same nature. Human nature, by definition, is that which we all share in common; our essential and distinguishing human characteristics....Humans, although more complex than our current ability to completly understand, still have a number of definite chacteristics that are held in common by everyone in our species. This sum of our unique and common characteristics, is our nature. It is absolute and essentially unchanged since our species began. This is the basis for a rational and absolute morality.
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Can you expand on what you mean by this? In my experience, people who say they want a global value system tend to mean they want others to adopt their value system, and not vice versa. Would you like a global value system even if it meant you had to give up your own most cherished values, and perhaps adopt some of the stranger ones that Herb mentions?
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Joe, I think your classification has some validity. I'd like to pick a few nits, though....
Are you saying they codify instincts, or counteract them? I think attacking something that you're mad at, or taking something you want, is quite instinctual. It seems to me rules in this category are there to restrict those instinctual impulses, so as to prevent a breakdown od society.
This is especially true for unobvious good advice. Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches has a good analysis of why religions that started in arid regions tend to ban pork consumption, for example; it's not so much that it's unhealthy for the individual - that kind of advice doesn't need religious weight for people to take it - but that it's unhealthy for societies in such regions.
Yes. Religions without such rules presumably lose more adherents than they gain, and die out. An interesting test will be to see if the Unitarians are still around a few centuries from now.
Secondly it leads towards a dualistic view point of the world where by things are divided into two camps - right/wrong, good/evil, us/them.
I personally, agree - I'd rather see tolerance and diversity. It's possible that may viewpoint can't survive cultural selection, though.
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
It might seem daft trying for something that's probably impossible, but since society (and evolution) are dynamic forces anyway, I think it's a pretty a good policy.
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
The farthest you can take this shared nature idea, IMO, is that *most* people share aspects of various natures, not the same as all of us sharing one. I don't think we'll ever ... pin down any "essence" of humanity.
Among American Jews it seems to me that the theologically liberal Reform and unaffiliated Jews are far more likely to believe in definitive rights and wrongs in areas such as economics and foreign policy. It seems even more true about many gentile non-fundamentalists in Hollywood and the media such as Michael Moore and Sean Penn.Originally posted by Joe King:
It seems to me that people who have a more fundamentalist religious point of view also have a more dualistic view point of political issues - they see things as being more politically good or politically evil.
... It appears as if the religious background that teaches definitive rights and wrongs has lead to a belief in definitive rights and wrongs in areas such as economics and foreign policy.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips
A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi