juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Bump for exposure.
morality within evolution
- Thread starter juantoo3
- Start date
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
I came across a quote today that better expresses an idea I was driving at on page 13 of this thread:
"Men of pure will operate beyond the realm of judgment. They are like forces of nature...feral and oblivious. They have the morality of an avalanche."
The idea being: Many of the driving forces behind the big events of human history have been persons who acted out the power of will unchecked by the things we've discussed as part of a "universal morality."
As bloggers often say, "it's not how many read your blog, but who reads that matters." The same is true of morality. It's not how many people ascribe to a universal morality. It's who that matters.
The other thing about men and women of of pure will . . . they usually have little difficulty convincing the majority of the rest of us (those who act on pure will) to change our perceptions of what constitutes "morality." For example, can we overlook that a particular politician protects offshore sweatshop operators who force teenaged girls into indentured servitude, prostitution and mandatory abortion provided our politician takes a stand against gay marriage and abortion clinics on shore and talks a lot about the virtues of "free enterprise"?
Is "morality" just a matter of controlling information? When it plays the game of reason, is it just a matter of aligning perceptions by manipulating people's self-interest?
A person of pure will with control of information gets to act beyond what any of us would knowingly accept as "moral." And such people often do precisely that, while a large band of followers cheer them on. History is full of examples.
"Men of pure will operate beyond the realm of judgment. They are like forces of nature...feral and oblivious. They have the morality of an avalanche."
The idea being: Many of the driving forces behind the big events of human history have been persons who acted out the power of will unchecked by the things we've discussed as part of a "universal morality."
As bloggers often say, "it's not how many read your blog, but who reads that matters." The same is true of morality. It's not how many people ascribe to a universal morality. It's who that matters.
The other thing about men and women of of pure will . . . they usually have little difficulty convincing the majority of the rest of us (those who act on pure will) to change our perceptions of what constitutes "morality." For example, can we overlook that a particular politician protects offshore sweatshop operators who force teenaged girls into indentured servitude, prostitution and mandatory abortion provided our politician takes a stand against gay marriage and abortion clinics on shore and talks a lot about the virtues of "free enterprise"?
Is "morality" just a matter of controlling information? When it plays the game of reason, is it just a matter of aligning perceptions by manipulating people's self-interest?
A person of pure will with control of information gets to act beyond what any of us would knowingly accept as "moral." And such people often do precisely that, while a large band of followers cheer them on. History is full of examples.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Abogado! Good to see you back!
I would have to return to page 13 to find out what you are referring to, but I am still trying to account for Doestoyevski (sp?).
People of pure will?...hmmm, do you mean like Jesus, Mohammed or Gandhi? Or like Napolean, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, or Adolph Hitler? Or both groups alike?
I think we can see morality is relative (or subjective, as contrasted with objective) across cultures. And with time, and what I call "fashion," the morality of a culture can shift somewhat. And I agree, cultural icons tend to instigate and promulgate those shifts.
Even so, I still think there is an underlying tendency among the far greater part of all of us, to do "right" by each other. Sometimes we disagree on what exactly constitutes "right," but we still have that tendency. And there are some components of morality that never seem to go out of style. So morality isn't exactly like superstition. There really seems to be something there, even if we aren't exactly sure quite how to express it.
I would have to return to page 13 to find out what you are referring to, but I am still trying to account for Doestoyevski (sp?).
People of pure will?...hmmm, do you mean like Jesus, Mohammed or Gandhi? Or like Napolean, George Washington, Robert E. Lee, or Adolph Hitler? Or both groups alike?
I think we can see morality is relative (or subjective, as contrasted with objective) across cultures. And with time, and what I call "fashion," the morality of a culture can shift somewhat. And I agree, cultural icons tend to instigate and promulgate those shifts.
Even so, I still think there is an underlying tendency among the far greater part of all of us, to do "right" by each other. Sometimes we disagree on what exactly constitutes "right," but we still have that tendency. And there are some components of morality that never seem to go out of style. So morality isn't exactly like superstition. There really seems to be something there, even if we aren't exactly sure quite how to express it.
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
juantoo3 said:
The point relates back to the earlier discussion. Specifically, that what we regard as "universal morality" is not, in fact, universally held. You suggested that there were few exceptions to this and therefore people still seemed to have a "universal morality." However, there are many exceptions to it, and those exceptions commonly occur in those of great will and power (and, like you said, so does a dedication to sacrifice and service occassionally). Moreover, those exceptional exceptions rarely have much difficulty in redefining "morality" for the masses who follow them. And for those that buy into whatever vision of "morality" is being endorsed, there is no argument that their decisions are immoral so long as they jibe with their own new perceptions.
Morality as a motivating force for human behavior pales in comparison to emotion and self-interest. Indeed, for some (our exceptional exceptions), it is just another symbol that can be used to manipulate people.
In short, is "morality" simply another of the many clever diguises for cognitive dissonance?
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Wow, an oldie but a goodie revived here. 
I understand what you are saying, AdD, or at least mostly. No denying that it has been sheer force of will by powerful individuals, regardless of their ethics, that have shaped history.
I have been thinking about this whole control of morality thing with respect to religion a lot lately. I wonder why religions so much want to control the morality, especially the sexual mores, of their adherants. I can certainly see the social and healthwise fall-out of things like having children out of wedlock, adultery, and promsicuity. But, when it gets to things like homosexuality (where it makes no sense) and denouncing birth control, even vasectemies and barrier method types, that prevent any conception from occurring (where it seems downright problematic in an overpopulated world), I really wonder what is going on. Making morality the focus of a religion seems to be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
I understand what you are saying, AdD, or at least mostly. No denying that it has been sheer force of will by powerful individuals, regardless of their ethics, that have shaped history.
I have been thinking about this whole control of morality thing with respect to religion a lot lately. I wonder why religions so much want to control the morality, especially the sexual mores, of their adherants. I can certainly see the social and healthwise fall-out of things like having children out of wedlock, adultery, and promsicuity. But, when it gets to things like homosexuality (where it makes no sense) and denouncing birth control, even vasectemies and barrier method types, that prevent any conception from occurring (where it seems downright problematic in an overpopulated world), I really wonder what is going on. Making morality the focus of a religion seems to be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
AdD, where is that quote (in green) from?
Sounds kind of like Objectivism.
lunamoth
Sounds kind of like Objectivism.
lunamoth
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
lunamoth said:
It's from an article by Arriana Huffington. She attributes it to the script from an upcoming John Cusack movie called "Pipe Dream."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/chillin-with-chalabi-my_b_10651.html
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
lunamoth said:
This is what led me to ask as well. Could it be that profound spiritual truths cut to the core of our identity and we hide behind the veneer of "morality" as a substitute for confronting those truths? Is this a way of avoiding getting to know ourselves? Couldn't someone who knows that about the nature of human identity use it?
I'm leaning toward "yes" as the answer to all three of those questions.
The "rules" are impossible to live up to, but they are much easier to conceptualize aren't they? And, going back to cognitive dissonance for a moment, it would seem that that combination is a dangerous one.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Thank you Abogado. (In reply to the post before the one immediately above.)
It seems to me that pure competition, survival of the fittest/most powerful, perhaps even pure reason (ala objectivism), is ultimately a cruel tactic for social development, and likewise trying to enforce any pure ideology leads to abuse and breakdown as well. The "best" ideas with the best intentions always go astray.
It reminds me of a sailboat tacking into the wind--if you head directly into it you go nowhere, but you go right, then left, etc. (I am not a sailor, i just kind of have the gist of the it). Anyway, it seems to come down to a balance of ideologies, but always shifting, never static, that allows for advancement of cultures and civilizations (if you can consider us any more advanced! I often wonder!).
Sorry! This probably doesn't make much sense. It's the cold medicine.
It seems to me that pure competition, survival of the fittest/most powerful, perhaps even pure reason (ala objectivism), is ultimately a cruel tactic for social development, and likewise trying to enforce any pure ideology leads to abuse and breakdown as well. The "best" ideas with the best intentions always go astray.
It reminds me of a sailboat tacking into the wind--if you head directly into it you go nowhere, but you go right, then left, etc. (I am not a sailor, i just kind of have the gist of the it). Anyway, it seems to come down to a balance of ideologies, but always shifting, never static, that allows for advancement of cultures and civilizations (if you can consider us any more advanced! I often wonder!).
Sorry! This probably doesn't make much sense. It's the cold medicine.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Abogado del Diablo said:
Well, it seems I'm following a similar path in my thinking. But what you describe seems so cold and pessimistic at the end of the day. I know there is something that pushes against that in my life, and I call it God, Something More, and Love.
It can't reach me if I don't reach for It.
But, I have to answer yes to all your questions above.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Abogado!
OK, I think I see a little better what you are getting at. I looked back at the reference on page 13, Nietzche, right? I haven't read much Nietzche, but I did stumble on a biography of him recently. "Pure will" is his, right?
At any rate, by this point in the development of human moral constructs, I am inclined to think it is only natural that what we deem "morality" can be "changed," sometimes violently, sometimes with a whimper, sometimes in silence known only to the individual.
I have come a long way since that discussion. I am not so certain I see such an empirical universal morality anymore, yet there is still a persistent underpinning that conscience will not allow me to surrender. Perhaps the "universal" element is not the overarching component so much as the underlying component, if that makes sense.
And then there is the factor of free will, or what in some circles is termed free moral agency. Even though a matter may be moral, it is our choice to abide by that morality or not. In that sense, and assuming a person is not mentally ill, I can see where a person can make a paradigm shift in their understanding of the concept of morality. If that person is a cultural icon or influential leader of one stripe or other, then others may be swayed to that "new" way of thinking.
People are cattle, after all. In my experience there are few that bother to think for themselves. I have found more thinkers here than all other places I have been. Even a thinker can be hoodwinked from time to time, or by political necessity and expediency. (Galileo comes to mind) For example (having just watched a great program tonight about Isaac Newton), Newton apparently had some rather controversial views that he held very close to his vest until he died, otherwise all he had achieved would have been lost and dismantled. He could possibly have faced prison, even possibly death, for his personal interpretation of the Bible. And Newton was, if anything, a cultural icon, but he was not in a position of political influence over the masses. So will is, of itself, insufficient I would think. Yet, without will, what you (and Nietzche) suggest could not take place either. Will, political influence (power), and timing, I think are all important components to a successful paradigm shift in a cultural commodity such as morality.
I would slow to consider "manipulation" of the masses for a moment, in that the thought occured that sometimes that manipulation is for the better of all involved, as in the altruistic examples I presented. It is when the motivation of the cultural icon is personal glory or greed that things get a bit vague and fuzzy. Depending on perspective, George Washington either was a brilliant patriot and father of his country (to an American) or a traitorous rebel (to a Brit). Need we use the example of Napolean or Hitler? Both of whom I am fairly certain promoted their respective peoples, even had the "best" of motivation for their peoples, yet perspective notes how moral their actions ultimately were. Or does it? I mean, there are war crimes, and there are heinous crimes against humanity. No amount of sugar coating, including intellectual moral persuation of the masses (eugenics comes to mind), can morally justify heinous crimes in any real sense.
I guess what I am trying to say, is there are morals, and there are morals. I am not sure how to distinguish between them yet. Other than there are subjective, relative morals that do change with the season. And there is an underlying constant moral that cannot rationally be denied, what I relate to conscience, presuming an individual is still in touch with that inner voice.
I want to be certain I understand what you mean with this term. I seem to recall from chapters in my business leadership classes in the chapter(s) on communication that this relates to the "noise" and misinterpretation between individuals. If the implication is that the herds can be duped into one belief or another, I have no argument. I have long held that belief on my own. Morality as applied to this part of the conversation is only one of many methods. Perhaps the most important across the centuries, lending the air of authority from the pulpit, "God said it! so it must be!" kind of thing. But I sense that Nietzche, in what very little I know of him, had a relatively myopic view of what fully constitutes morality. I do not see, yet, where he accounts for "conscience," the basically untaught part of morality.
Abogado del Diablo said:
OK, I think I see a little better what you are getting at. I looked back at the reference on page 13, Nietzche, right? I haven't read much Nietzche, but I did stumble on a biography of him recently. "Pure will" is his, right?
At any rate, by this point in the development of human moral constructs, I am inclined to think it is only natural that what we deem "morality" can be "changed," sometimes violently, sometimes with a whimper, sometimes in silence known only to the individual.
I have come a long way since that discussion. I am not so certain I see such an empirical universal morality anymore, yet there is still a persistent underpinning that conscience will not allow me to surrender. Perhaps the "universal" element is not the overarching component so much as the underlying component, if that makes sense.
And then there is the factor of free will, or what in some circles is termed free moral agency. Even though a matter may be moral, it is our choice to abide by that morality or not. In that sense, and assuming a person is not mentally ill, I can see where a person can make a paradigm shift in their understanding of the concept of morality. If that person is a cultural icon or influential leader of one stripe or other, then others may be swayed to that "new" way of thinking.
People are cattle, after all. In my experience there are few that bother to think for themselves. I have found more thinkers here than all other places I have been. Even a thinker can be hoodwinked from time to time, or by political necessity and expediency. (Galileo comes to mind) For example (having just watched a great program tonight about Isaac Newton), Newton apparently had some rather controversial views that he held very close to his vest until he died, otherwise all he had achieved would have been lost and dismantled. He could possibly have faced prison, even possibly death, for his personal interpretation of the Bible. And Newton was, if anything, a cultural icon, but he was not in a position of political influence over the masses. So will is, of itself, insufficient I would think. Yet, without will, what you (and Nietzche) suggest could not take place either. Will, political influence (power), and timing, I think are all important components to a successful paradigm shift in a cultural commodity such as morality.
I would slow to consider "manipulation" of the masses for a moment, in that the thought occured that sometimes that manipulation is for the better of all involved, as in the altruistic examples I presented. It is when the motivation of the cultural icon is personal glory or greed that things get a bit vague and fuzzy. Depending on perspective, George Washington either was a brilliant patriot and father of his country (to an American) or a traitorous rebel (to a Brit). Need we use the example of Napolean or Hitler? Both of whom I am fairly certain promoted their respective peoples, even had the "best" of motivation for their peoples, yet perspective notes how moral their actions ultimately were. Or does it? I mean, there are war crimes, and there are heinous crimes against humanity. No amount of sugar coating, including intellectual moral persuation of the masses (eugenics comes to mind), can morally justify heinous crimes in any real sense.
I guess what I am trying to say, is there are morals, and there are morals. I am not sure how to distinguish between them yet. Other than there are subjective, relative morals that do change with the season. And there is an underlying constant moral that cannot rationally be denied, what I relate to conscience, presuming an individual is still in touch with that inner voice.
I want to be certain I understand what you mean with this term. I seem to recall from chapters in my business leadership classes in the chapter(s) on communication that this relates to the "noise" and misinterpretation between individuals. If the implication is that the herds can be duped into one belief or another, I have no argument. I have long held that belief on my own. Morality as applied to this part of the conversation is only one of many methods. Perhaps the most important across the centuries, lending the air of authority from the pulpit, "God said it! so it must be!" kind of thing. But I sense that Nietzche, in what very little I know of him, had a relatively myopic view of what fully constitutes morality. I do not see, yet, where he accounts for "conscience," the basically untaught part of morality.
Hey Juan, I agree that to some degree morals have their relativistic, cultural element and lord knows situationally there are so many grey areas where well-intentioned folks have to do real soul-searching (in every sense of that word) to determine what the right thing of the moment might be. But I dare say the intention underlying the situational considerations is the "universal;" Love, Golden Rule, etc. Old Darwin probably had it right (he was the one the used that phrase, wasn't he?) when he spoke of survival of the fittest-given the technology of destruction that now exists, the only way humanity is likely to survive is to highly develop the morality of Love. So, perhaps "evil" is an assisting force in ever evolving humanity to more fully express its capacity for love. Take care, Earl
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, earl! Good to see you!
I think I see what you are saying, but do any of us, really, go into life with full knowledge and intent of being a ruse for "evil?"
I can believe we may justify our actions, whitewash them to assuage our conscience and try to allow us to sleep at night. But are there really people who "sell their soul" so to speak, to and for the express purpose of evil? Does a person willingly and wantonly seek "hell" as their reward?
Or is evil outside the human envelope, something we only allow in when we think we have it mastered? Same too, could be said of love.
My thoughts...
I think I see what you are saying, but do any of us, really, go into life with full knowledge and intent of being a ruse for "evil?"
I can believe we may justify our actions, whitewash them to assuage our conscience and try to allow us to sleep at night. But are there really people who "sell their soul" so to speak, to and for the express purpose of evil? Does a person willingly and wantonly seek "hell" as their reward?
Or is evil outside the human envelope, something we only allow in when we think we have it mastered? Same too, could be said of love.
My thoughts...
Actually, was using the term "evil" in the Buddhist sense of the adage quoted previously: "to do good, avoid evil, purify the mind-" Buddhism does not think of "evil" in the sort of metaphysical, absolutist manner that thesim, particularly Western theism tends to do. In the sense of this quote "evil" actually means any inclination, intentional or otherwise, which can cause harm to self or another, (Buddhism puts more emphasis on the intentional than unintentional apsect of an act however). I tend to think of humanity, "good" and "evil" as a bell curve: at the one end possibly exist a very small % of humanity "purely" good in the sense of quite saintkly behavior and, likewise, at the other end, an equally small % "purely" evil with the vast majority of us in the middle, sliding along the continuum one way, then the other from moment to moment. Just as a mirror can only reflect ever truer via "polishing" by abrasion in its development-its evolution, our ability to love, be compassionate, become wiser can only be brought forth via friction. It is in that sense that I meant "evil" can asist in evolution toward "the good." Take care, Earl
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
juantoo3 said:
Great questions. "Evil" is a symbol we use to assuage guilt. Thus, it's a moving target. When one gets too close, the symbol changes.
Nobody thinks they are doing evil. That's why it's called "evil."
There's no moral commandment (regardless of its source or the apparent clarity of its meaning) that can't be disregarded, glossed-over, or "interpreted" to maintain the psychological comfort of cognitive dissonance.
The real enemy is, and always will be . . . lying to ourselves.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Abogado!
Great to have your input!
Actually, I am leaning towards my "human envelope" comment, which at that moment I originally made it was a chance remark, but is now beginning to show itself. Perhaps the easiest explanation is like the old cartoons charactors of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other, both taking turns whispering in the "victim's" ears. The person listening to these outside influences makes a choice and goes with the advice of the one or the other. And then lives with the consequences, over which s/he has no further direct control.
I can think of a few reasons for a person submitting to "evil," not least because they believe they can get away with it, or because the benefits towards whatever "selfish" goal seem (for the moment) to outweigh the penalties. Same could be said regarding love.
So, a person does not seem to be inherently evil, just subject to it, of their own accord. The power evil holds over a person is the power that person surrenders to evil. Does that even make sense?
Great to have your input!
I think I see this.Abogado del Diablo said:
Yet, if "nobody" thinks they are doing evil, how is evil getting done?
Ah yes, the famous "legal loopholes."
Absolutely agreed. Yet, it leaves me to wonder, just which moral code is "correct," or if any of them are? So, the only "constant" I have available to me as an individual is my conscience. I have "chosen" the moral constructs of my faith, and I trust my interpretation of those moral constructs, but in the end it is my gut, my conscience, that lets me sleep at night (or not!).
Actually, I am leaning towards my "human envelope" comment, which at that moment I originally made it was a chance remark, but is now beginning to show itself. Perhaps the easiest explanation is like the old cartoons charactors of a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other, both taking turns whispering in the "victim's" ears. The person listening to these outside influences makes a choice and goes with the advice of the one or the other. And then lives with the consequences, over which s/he has no further direct control.
I can think of a few reasons for a person submitting to "evil," not least because they believe they can get away with it, or because the benefits towards whatever "selfish" goal seem (for the moment) to outweigh the penalties. Same could be said regarding love.
So, a person does not seem to be inherently evil, just subject to it, of their own accord. The power evil holds over a person is the power that person surrenders to evil. Does that even make sense?
Last edited:
Abogado del Diablo
Ferally Decent
juantoo3 said:
If it isn't "evil" then "evil" isn't getting done.
juantoo3 said:
None of the moral codes are "correct" except within their own internal logic. Compassion, love, and tolerance are another matter, however. The latter is "universal" and I think accouts for your conscience. "Morality" and ethics - reasoning processes designed to create abstract rules governing behavior - are at best redundant (if the purpose is to give meaning to conscience), and at worst, simply a device to help us ignore compasssion, love and tolerance.
juantoo3 said:
It's certainly possible that people knowingly and intentionally do what even they subjectively acknowledge to be "evil." But I think the human mind generally can't accept that, and will construct a moral universe to excuse or justify the conduct.
juantoo3 said:So, a person does not seem to be inherently evil, just subject to it, of their own accord. The power evil holds over a person is the power that person surrenders to evil. Does that even make sense?
A person is inherently a person with passions and emotions and desires, many of which are in conflict. Compassion often directly competes with self-preservation, ego and greed and creates conflicts that must be resolved.
Enter "morality" . . .
The problem is that moral reasoning employed to resolve a particular conflict may not be limited to simply resolving that one conflict once it is abstracted, but can and does become a device for stifling our natural feelings of compassion completely. Or worse yet, can be employed to direct and manipulate human behavior en masse.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Abogado!
). If we really think we shouldn't, then we sabotage our enjoyment of that naughtiness, and then regret our actions in the morning. These are wanton sins, what could be called lust of the flesh. (BTW, sex is only one element, it could just as easily be alcohol, pot, or any of a number of things)
There are mistakes we make that are unintended, the kind we hope we learn from, the ones we regret. These are not wanton or naughty, they are more accidental. Running over a kitten on the street, scolding your child when they didn't deserve it.
Then there are "crimes" we give ourselves over to completely (presuming a person can actually do so without, or perhaps because of, mentally conceiving a way out or rational justification of some kind). If, say, in the rise to power, the pure will to power, it is deemed expedient that a class of people must be obliterated to achieve one's ends, that is a heinous crime. I do not understand this level, I hope not to, I prefer my ignorance here. But somehow some "persons of pure will" are able to internally justify such a misguided personal morality, in the face of common reason screaming "NO!"
In short, I think Nietzche was on to something pertaining to formal morality. I still do not see where conscience or innate morality (which I still see not out of stubborness, as distinct yet complementary to love, compassion, tolerance, etc.) is fully subject to such foreign intrusion, at least not in the short term. Brainwashing and cultural indoctrination over time, especially with a new generation that knows no better, perhaps could be swayed into a new model of conscience, but I still think even then there will be an underlying element that remains out of the reach of other humans and their influence. It is a part of what makes each of us unique to each other. Maybe too, this is somewhat equivical with Jung's collective psyche, perhaps this portion of morality is the collection of our ancestor's morality, our genetic predisposition to the story of our collective past. Don't know if it is, but it sounds as plausible as Nietzche, and from my vantage more appealing.
Then again, maybe I am reaching to sustain my position. I don't know. The only mind I am privy to the inner workings of is my own.
Just my thoughts for the evening. G'nite!
OK, but now I'm confused. Are we talking "naughty?" Or are we talking "heinous crime?" Or both? Or neither?Abogado del Diablo said:
I think I see and even agree with the "correct within internal logic" part, pertaining to formalized morality. I am not fully certain I agree with the part about associating conscience with compassion, love and tolerance. I do not see the one as a part of the three, I see them all as distinct. Even if you are correct, which I am open to the possibility, it does not negate the "natural" or "biological" source for conscientious morality. "God-given," as it were, from the point of view of a person who believes in a Creator.
I think I am beginning to see where we may be speaking at cross purposes. I see this, if I am interpreting correctly, as only one manifestation of morality, what I have been calling formal morality. And to a great degree I am in agreement with you. Perhaps for a person of exceptional ability, such formal morality is redundant. For a student, I think it is a necessary evil, to learn the ropes in a civil society. I agree that such a formal morality can be used improperly by those in authority, indeed, history is full of examples. Likewise, there are examples of formal morality being used for the benefit of a population. Here you can list any of a number of great spiritual leaders and teachers.
OK, I see where I goofed. Are we talking "naughty" or "heinous crime?" I was speaking of naughty, we (I will say as a Christian) have a tendency towards doing things we think we shouldn't. Now, because we think we shouldn't, we do not do these things all of the time, only on occasion (the devil made me do it!
). If we really think we shouldn't, then we sabotage our enjoyment of that naughtiness, and then regret our actions in the morning. These are wanton sins, what could be called lust of the flesh. (BTW, sex is only one element, it could just as easily be alcohol, pot, or any of a number of things)There are mistakes we make that are unintended, the kind we hope we learn from, the ones we regret. These are not wanton or naughty, they are more accidental. Running over a kitten on the street, scolding your child when they didn't deserve it.
Then there are "crimes" we give ourselves over to completely (presuming a person can actually do so without, or perhaps because of, mentally conceiving a way out or rational justification of some kind). If, say, in the rise to power, the pure will to power, it is deemed expedient that a class of people must be obliterated to achieve one's ends, that is a heinous crime. I do not understand this level, I hope not to, I prefer my ignorance here. But somehow some "persons of pure will" are able to internally justify such a misguided personal morality, in the face of common reason screaming "NO!"
Boy oh boy this sounds like Ayn Rand. And with this much of her philosophy I find myself in agreement.
I have not denied your supposition. I do think it is not the total, but I will concede it is the greater part of the whole. Unfortunately for humanity there have been more Hitlers and Napoleans than there have been Christs, Gandhis and Buddhas.
In short, I think Nietzche was on to something pertaining to formal morality. I still do not see where conscience or innate morality (which I still see not out of stubborness, as distinct yet complementary to love, compassion, tolerance, etc.) is fully subject to such foreign intrusion, at least not in the short term. Brainwashing and cultural indoctrination over time, especially with a new generation that knows no better, perhaps could be swayed into a new model of conscience, but I still think even then there will be an underlying element that remains out of the reach of other humans and their influence. It is a part of what makes each of us unique to each other. Maybe too, this is somewhat equivical with Jung's collective psyche, perhaps this portion of morality is the collection of our ancestor's morality, our genetic predisposition to the story of our collective past. Don't know if it is, but it sounds as plausible as Nietzche, and from my vantage more appealing.
Then again, maybe I am reaching to sustain my position. I don't know. The only mind I am privy to the inner workings of is my own.
Just my thoughts for the evening. G'nite!
DrFree
In Pluribus Unum
Abogado,
I just discovered this interesting thread. I apologize if I duplicate ideas you've already covered.
I was particularly struck by your remark that
It is clear that evolution takes place a multiple levels simultaneously: cells, tissues, organs, systems, individuals, families, tribes, cultures, etc. (See for example the works of Lynn Margolis - http://www.bio.umass.edu/faculty/biog/margulis.html).
I would contend that morality, i.e., rules or principles that resolve conflict among the members of a group, is one factor that determines the survivability of the group. Moreover, especially in early, tribal cultures, not belonging to a healthy tribe was a serious disadvantage to individuals.
There is confirming evidence in computer simulations of simple societies. Many years ago, Doug Hofsteader (the author of the intriguing Godel, Escher, Bach) had a column in Scientific American called (I think) "MetaMathematical Themas". One installment in the column described some simulations of the so-called prisoner's dilemma. Without going into details, the result was that some of the "players" in the simulation won through behavior that was "immoral" according to the terms of the simulation (it involved violating a commitment). Nonetheless, when the simulation was repeated on the same population for several generations, that immoral behavior evolved out of the population. Subsequent generations apparently learned not to do business with those whose strategy was not to live up to agreements.
Of course these arguments say only that a culture have a workable set of rules. They say nothing about which morality, i.e., which set of rules, is right. When cultures with different rules collide, they can choose to live and let live, to try to impose their way on the other, or to negotiate a resolution of their conflict. For some reason, the first of these never seems to be an option, and the second has high risk. Thus from an evolutionary perspective, negotiation, i.e., legislating a common set of rules to resolve difference, is a good strategy.
By the way, virtually every religion enjoins some version of the Golden Rule, which is a kind of meta-rule for assessing our reasons for performing an action. So there might be a much broader foundation for a universal morality than I've seen so far in this thread.
I just discovered this interesting thread. I apologize if I duplicate ideas you've already covered.
I was particularly struck by your remark that
In the context of evolution (which was the original theme of this thread), this assertion is accurate only for individuals. I think there is reason to believe that it is essential to the evolution of cultures.
It is clear that evolution takes place a multiple levels simultaneously: cells, tissues, organs, systems, individuals, families, tribes, cultures, etc. (See for example the works of Lynn Margolis - http://www.bio.umass.edu/faculty/biog/margulis.html).
I would contend that morality, i.e., rules or principles that resolve conflict among the members of a group, is one factor that determines the survivability of the group. Moreover, especially in early, tribal cultures, not belonging to a healthy tribe was a serious disadvantage to individuals.
There is confirming evidence in computer simulations of simple societies. Many years ago, Doug Hofsteader (the author of the intriguing Godel, Escher, Bach) had a column in Scientific American called (I think) "MetaMathematical Themas". One installment in the column described some simulations of the so-called prisoner's dilemma. Without going into details, the result was that some of the "players" in the simulation won through behavior that was "immoral" according to the terms of the simulation (it involved violating a commitment). Nonetheless, when the simulation was repeated on the same population for several generations, that immoral behavior evolved out of the population. Subsequent generations apparently learned not to do business with those whose strategy was not to live up to agreements.
Of course these arguments say only that a culture have a workable set of rules. They say nothing about which morality, i.e., which set of rules, is right. When cultures with different rules collide, they can choose to live and let live, to try to impose their way on the other, or to negotiate a resolution of their conflict. For some reason, the first of these never seems to be an option, and the second has high risk. Thus from an evolutionary perspective, negotiation, i.e., legislating a common set of rules to resolve difference, is a good strategy.
By the way, virtually every religion enjoins some version of the Golden Rule, which is a kind of meta-rule for assessing our reasons for performing an action. So there might be a much broader foundation for a universal morality than I've seen so far in this thread.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, DrFree, and welcome to CR!
Thank you for your contribution to this thread. You raise some interesting things to consider, that I would like to look at in a bit more depth (when I have the time). The link you provided does not seem to work. I would also ask if you may have some link to research regarding the "prisoner's dilemma" experiment. It sounds like an interesting test of human psychology.
Thanks again, I look forward to more.
Thank you for your contribution to this thread. You raise some interesting things to consider, that I would like to look at in a bit more depth (when I have the time). The link you provided does not seem to work. I would also ask if you may have some link to research regarding the "prisoner's dilemma" experiment. It sounds like an interesting test of human psychology.
Thanks again, I look forward to more.