Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread
- Thread starter QUALTHWAR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
That’s an interesting quote, and not just because of the mushroom thing.oosyxxx said:
The defense system seems to describe the annihilation of free thought. That seems to imply that people should all think the same way. When I think of a bunch of people all acting and thinking the same way, I think of cult.
Analyzing this differently: one of mankind’s greatest resource is the ability to question things. You only have to look as far as children to know it’s a basic, primordial instinct. Children are always questioning things. If we are supposed to be made by a god, you would think that instincts are inherited from this god. Instincts bypass all free thought and a belief system.
With that in mind, why would a god oppose this basic instinct and insist we don’t question his/her/its existence? Of course, that’s not what’s really happening. It’s not a god, but man that tells us we shouldn’t question god.
I'm sure this has probably been said in one of the 54 other pages, but as I haven't read them all I don't know...
Isn't the reason religion has a defense mechanism built in because it has historically been used as a means of controlling people in a society. Without religion to impress "good" values of altruism how could any social order exist?
It would not be economically viable when you're a state probably in competition with several others for superiority in your region to have a massive draconian law enforcement agency. The best way to prevent people deviating would be to tell them there's a guy up there who'll punish them if they do. All you need to do is fund a church rather than have two massive standing armies - one for the outside and one for your people. It also takes some of the light off whoever the man up top is, you won't think of him as the head honcho if you believe there's some supernatural being who put him there. Religions like some Christian denominations also breed fatalism (and a sort of political apathy) which is a ruler's best friend. I don't think it's any coincidence that the most successful societies have all been proprietors of some kind of religion.
I'm not trying to knock people for believing in a faith, as they've got a right to believe in what they will.
Darwinism also has it's problems as it breeds the same kind of fatalism if misinterpreted. Sometimes it can give people a "she'll be right" attitude because they assume the good will always come out on top or that things will naturally adapt to suit any problem. Thinking this obviously ignores all life experiences people have had but because Darwin is prettymuch revered in science we go by what his writings are interpreted as.
Is this becoming a rant? Perhaps I'm completely off topic!
I think people are realising that without some kind of religion to enforce altruistic ideology a society faces serious problems. Some people might call it the "evil of capitalism" but I think this is just human nature coming to the fore as industrialised societies become more secular.
Just to clear things up I am not saying than religions are necissarily constructed for state purposes, but they have certainly been exploited and have flourished due to state endorsement.
Isn't the reason religion has a defense mechanism built in because it has historically been used as a means of controlling people in a society. Without religion to impress "good" values of altruism how could any social order exist?
It would not be economically viable when you're a state probably in competition with several others for superiority in your region to have a massive draconian law enforcement agency. The best way to prevent people deviating would be to tell them there's a guy up there who'll punish them if they do. All you need to do is fund a church rather than have two massive standing armies - one for the outside and one for your people. It also takes some of the light off whoever the man up top is, you won't think of him as the head honcho if you believe there's some supernatural being who put him there. Religions like some Christian denominations also breed fatalism (and a sort of political apathy) which is a ruler's best friend. I don't think it's any coincidence that the most successful societies have all been proprietors of some kind of religion.
I'm not trying to knock people for believing in a faith, as they've got a right to believe in what they will.
Darwinism also has it's problems as it breeds the same kind of fatalism if misinterpreted. Sometimes it can give people a "she'll be right" attitude because they assume the good will always come out on top or that things will naturally adapt to suit any problem. Thinking this obviously ignores all life experiences people have had but because Darwin is prettymuch revered in science we go by what his writings are interpreted as.
Is this becoming a rant? Perhaps I'm completely off topic!
I think people are realising that without some kind of religion to enforce altruistic ideology a society faces serious problems. Some people might call it the "evil of capitalism" but I think this is just human nature coming to the fore as industrialised societies become more secular.
Just to clear things up I am not saying than religions are necissarily constructed for state purposes, but they have certainly been exploited and have flourished due to state endorsement.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pseudo Safari said:
Because morality occurs independently of religion. All codes of ethics eventually devolve to a concept of human needs and cooperation. Conscience is innate, and altruism happens automatically between cognates (in the widest possible sense, not just "family" or "race"); it usually doesn't have to be taught.
It is sometimes the "principles" taught by cultures, as manifest in religions, poltical alignments, etc, that f*ck with this and cause unethical acts.
The idea that humans are innately bad is an old saw, but not a correct one. Human necessities are not inherently selfish, we have massive social needs and incorporated in those is a sense of equity. Those traits are not learned environmentally, nor are they conditioned; they're pan-human and social exposure has profound, even biological, effects on humans from birth. Moral acts are often motivated by an innate sense of personal and social health that has nothing to do with fear or authority. Empathy cannot be instilled with a stick or a carrot. Nothing that transcends culture can.
People can learn to overcome altruistic tendencies, but pure selfishness is an isolated state, not a ubiquitous one. If the latter were the case, we wouldn't be a social species.
Good societies are made of good people. Essentially, I don't think religion and authority are an indispensable condition in the formation of a healthy, balanced, ethical group of people. That's not to say they're completely unnecessary or that they don't have an effect on mass ethics.
I posted something similar. I don’t remember exactly what it was, but the gist of it was: Long ago, people seemed to be more lawless. They would murder people without trials, rape, pillage, etc.; not that they don’t do that now, but more people are civilized now. If I was a scholar at the time, I would put together a book that tells people about God and how he could be vengeful if we don’t behave and loving if we do behave.Pseudo Safari said:
(I'm aware that this reply may become slightly off-topic but I think it is relevant to this part of the discussion. )
I think to an extent altruism is biological, and this is relevant to small-scale communities where individuals will co-operate. However in the kind of societies we have today (or any large-scale community, where things are infinitely more complex I'm not sure that the argument is as relevant. In a society where you have no real bonds with 99% of people (because you will most likely never come into contact with them) a kind of social bonding does have to be enforced. Religion serves to unite people through having a shared value system even if they have never happened to meet.
For example during the Industrial Revolution in England, there was widespread crime in the new satellite cities like Birmingham and Manchester. Partially because the people were displaced and partially because they were generally poor. These were village people who would act ethically in small communities because they were integrated and felt part of their small society, or by necessity. Why then do they suddenly have double standards in terms of ethics because there is a greater volume of people in the cities?
I think it was no coincidence that protestant Christianity became the main religion in these regions (as it encouraged people to accept their lot) and that with the spread of religion the cities became more orderly.
I think ethics do need to be taught for people to act ethically. For example curious children will steal without a sense of social guilt unless told off. I think human nature is inherently selfish. Not in an "evil" sense but in that we have an ability to tune out to the humanity of others, or see them in a less intense way than ourselves. In times of prosperity people are naturally altruistic I'll agree but it's strange how when you're acting frantically the ethical checks going on in your brain don't seem to be as stringent. If we were all truly ethical noone would want to kill another person even if it meant they themselves had to suffer harm. We wouldn't eat anything with a conscience because it meant inflicting pain etc.
It's great how we can justify to our conscience for example when eating or killing an animal. The process involves a 'dehumanisation' if you will of the subject being eaten (out of neccesity). We convince ourselves animals don't feel pain or have emotions, and that because they have a different biological makeup we therefore have no need for guilt in inflicting pain upon them, because for other animals it's just a series of electronic messages not a true feeling of pain like we experience. Our whole reflective view of our species as a whole tells us we're different and that they don't matter. We wouldn't be able to think ethically and eat if we treated other species on an emotional par with ourselves, but lacking the skills of language etc. and observing some social differences. To counter this paradox you either forgo eating or treat animals as sub-human rather than different. If you look at humanity in the same way as you view an animal though there's no difference. Eg. People who genuinely can treat pain as just an electric signal to the brain have a far greater tolerance.
In a few words, what I'm trying to say is that any ethical system is something that is there out of necessity, and that if ethics were consistently applied to everything we'd appear to be monsters. In context if people only thought of themselves rather than ethics the law of the jungle would be even more prevalent than it is now amongst our own species.
Ethics and morality take the backseat when necessity is involved.
I think that judgement should be used in determining what is necessity though, considering we're sharing the planet with others.
Sorry for all who had to read through that.
EDIT: I didn't realise this was a dead thread. How embarrasing...
You're right in that humans are not innately selfish. I don't think I was specific enough when I mentioned human nature and society.Nachimir said:
I think to an extent altruism is biological, and this is relevant to small-scale communities where individuals will co-operate. However in the kind of societies we have today (or any large-scale community, where things are infinitely more complex I'm not sure that the argument is as relevant. In a society where you have no real bonds with 99% of people (because you will most likely never come into contact with them) a kind of social bonding does have to be enforced. Religion serves to unite people through having a shared value system even if they have never happened to meet.
For example during the Industrial Revolution in England, there was widespread crime in the new satellite cities like Birmingham and Manchester. Partially because the people were displaced and partially because they were generally poor. These were village people who would act ethically in small communities because they were integrated and felt part of their small society, or by necessity. Why then do they suddenly have double standards in terms of ethics because there is a greater volume of people in the cities?
I think it was no coincidence that protestant Christianity became the main religion in these regions (as it encouraged people to accept their lot) and that with the spread of religion the cities became more orderly.
I think ethics do need to be taught for people to act ethically. For example curious children will steal without a sense of social guilt unless told off. I think human nature is inherently selfish. Not in an "evil" sense but in that we have an ability to tune out to the humanity of others, or see them in a less intense way than ourselves. In times of prosperity people are naturally altruistic I'll agree but it's strange how when you're acting frantically the ethical checks going on in your brain don't seem to be as stringent. If we were all truly ethical noone would want to kill another person even if it meant they themselves had to suffer harm. We wouldn't eat anything with a conscience because it meant inflicting pain etc.
It's great how we can justify to our conscience for example when eating or killing an animal. The process involves a 'dehumanisation' if you will of the subject being eaten (out of neccesity). We convince ourselves animals don't feel pain or have emotions, and that because they have a different biological makeup we therefore have no need for guilt in inflicting pain upon them, because for other animals it's just a series of electronic messages not a true feeling of pain like we experience. Our whole reflective view of our species as a whole tells us we're different and that they don't matter. We wouldn't be able to think ethically and eat if we treated other species on an emotional par with ourselves, but lacking the skills of language etc. and observing some social differences. To counter this paradox you either forgo eating or treat animals as sub-human rather than different. If you look at humanity in the same way as you view an animal though there's no difference. Eg. People who genuinely can treat pain as just an electric signal to the brain have a far greater tolerance.
In a few words, what I'm trying to say is that any ethical system is something that is there out of necessity, and that if ethics were consistently applied to everything we'd appear to be monsters. In context if people only thought of themselves rather than ethics the law of the jungle would be even more prevalent than it is now amongst our own species.
Ethics and morality take the backseat when necessity is involved.
I think that judgement should be used in determining what is necessity though, considering we're sharing the planet with others.
Sorry for all who had to read through that.
EDIT: I didn't realise this was a dead thread. How embarrasing...
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s not a dead thread. I brought it back because we end up discussing religion in other threads. I actually brought it back to suggest that we already covered all this, but, in fact, there’s always room for more discussion on the matter.
Never mind it being a dead thread. It has actual discussion in it as of now, which is good enough.
I should clarify here that I'm an atheist, but will be quoting bits of Christianity below where they're relevant.
I'll shrink the asides
It's obviously a hugely complex and interdependent system. Many things, including learned behaviour and cultural standards, do of course have an effect on morality. To some extent I think your post is dead on, but I think you underrate the scope and strenth of what we have innately.
Altruism is relevant to all human interaction. I think talking about "large" and "small" communities is a fairly arbitrary distinction, and the only principle operating is an organic one: The more established a relationship between two people is, the more likely they are to behave ethically toward each other. Also, the deeper a bond between two people is, the greater the dissonance it can tolerate.
Dissonance in a relationship between two individuals is inevitable. It exacts an energy cost proportionate to its severity (subjectively perceived by the participants), which is tolerable on the basis of established trust, predictability, desirability, and conflated values. Operating on this principle, a family member can generally get away with more than a stranger, but by the same principle an attractive stranger would be allowed to get away with more than an unattractive stranger. This is exactly what happens when people interact Conversely, people who have just met will have lower tolerances for teasing, differences of opinion, etc. while attempting to establish a relationship.
The idea that ethics arise from familiarity is not absolute, because from spousal abuse to low pay, human relationships can easily drift into an unequitable stability. Even the smallest of groups still have to deal with unethical behaviour. Additionally, all groups throughout history have had to deal with things such as murder, regardless of size.
At the opposite end of the scale, most of us don't go around f*cking strangers over. Again, it's not just out of fear or obedience to a social order that we do this, but out of respect for the strangers themselves. What does happen though, is that the less familiar a person is to us, the less we're generally willing to give to or do for them.
Again, conflated values can distort that, e.g. if something we want is contingent on giving to them, we'll be more willing. So whether it "hot dog stand guy" or "kidnapper of your child", we're more willing to give to such people than "kidnapper of someone elses child" or "homeless alcoholic dude".
"Taking more" is not a consequence of unfamiliarity. Separated from culture, we don't automatically "behave like savages" in the absence of interpersonal bonds. As the examples you give from the Industrial Revolution show, unfamiliarity makes unethical behaviour easier to commit. However, I don't think those examples prove it is the cause.
I think it happens naturally on the basis of humanness - to an extent, and any effort to enforce particular standards is generally polluted with extraneous values that cause antipathy among groups that could otherwise get along. I'm not advocating that "humans are inherently moral" or that "cultures are inherently immoral", just that many forces we look to, such as humanness, culture, institutions, religion, politics, policing, education, etc, are in their fundamental form morally unbiased. Everything, from a person to a corporation or nation, acquires morals in becoming a manifestation of an idea.
Again, I think those morals can only ever be drawn relative to human needs, which gives them a stability and consistency that outlasts any nation, empire, religion or ideology.
Despite any rationality, empathy is an automatic, largely unconscous process. Because people have that, they have the capacity for ethics long before they can understand "law".
Pre-lingual children exhibit ethical social behaviour. During the second year of life, a child can be very responsive to distress and, uncoerced, will make attempts to comfort people. A study done very recently showed that even 18 month old children (and chimpanzees) exhibit helping behaviour. Play is often cooperative rather than competitive (By extension, fully grown gamers also enjoy coop games greatly, not just competitive ones, and team sports are as cooperative as they are competitive).
At the same time as a child is behaving in all these ways, you can bet your scrotum they're also learning to decieve and compete.
Again, on this basis I think humanity is morally inert. Further to that, I do think ethics are scalable, it just depends on whether or not your concept of a human outreaches your own particular group. Admittedly, for many people it does not. Beyond that, there is also the potential for accidental exploitation borne from ignorance. Many of the goods enjoyed in the developed world, and their prices, are borne from distinctly unethical labour practices, but often these aren't known by consumers or even the corporations behind the goods (once production is outsourced, even with the best of intentions a company can't constantly monitor manufacturers).
Education/enlightenment/conditioning/fear etc. passed down from institutions and cultures is one somewhat flawed way of trying to bring ethical conduct about, but luckily it's not the only one.
Um, from the start of the same post:
There is a lot of evidence for both the viewpoints you posit
You're absolutely right about dehumanisation. That process is a critical part in the construction of any kind of tyranny, and that is indeed lent momentum by lack of familiarity. Tyranny is often instigated by the very social constructs that claim to impart morality though.
I respect your viewpoint, but I think that ethics are thrust to the fore and created by necessity. Nothing tests (or breaks) them more than scarcity. In the developed world, however, very few ethical issues are actually instigated by scarcity. For the most part, we have plenty.
Additionally, hunger is not an adequate archetype for all human needs. Only our most basic physiological needs centre on the consumption of a resource. Psychological needs operate in a very different way.
The way to test whether or not something is a need or not is to see if the denial of it causes mental or physical illness. Maslow pretty much led the theoretical field on human needs, though his complex, self confessedly flawed theory is usually boiled down to the "simple answer" contained in the pyramid figure used to summarise his work.
Most of the criticisms raised in relation to his work were first brought up by the author himself in his own books; he discovered and drew attention to a number of problems that remain unsolved. If you want to read more of his owrk, I highly recommend Motivation and Personality.
I think one of his most important observations was in relation to the human need for "love". People need to be "loved" not romantically, and not in the sense of being exclusively adored or given to, nor in the sense of having others who are attached to them. People need to love actively. The "need" for love is our strongest social one, and it is entirely equitable. In the simplest terms, people actually feel a need to give to others, and not just receive (Pegging this discussion back down to religion: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" and "Love your neighbor, as yourself" <-- that was extended in the gospel where it is quoted with "Who is my neighbor?" a question answered with the parable of the good Samaritan who helped a beaten Jew. There was complete enmity between Samaritans and Jews at the time).
If people are denied the opportunity to give back to their social surroundings, they either find a way to do so or become psychologically ill.
We are alienated from our own needs by many cultural structures. The "psuedo alpha male" culture of competition can alienate us from the need for positive social interaction. The culture of being no more than a jobs worth can alienate us from the need for self development. A distorted work ethic can cause burnout (or sloth). Expediency and economy can alienate us from aesthetics (that may seem like a strange and superfluous need. Noone seems to know why it is one, but some adults and all children become sick if denied an aesthetically pleasing and stimulating environment).
Resource shortages or not, ethical acts never mitigate basic needs. You might take issue with that, saying that it is highly moral for someone to concede scant resources to another, but: "Love your neighbor, as yourself". I think that such a sacrifice is to treat oneself unethically, whereas to force another into the same sacrifice is to treat them unethically. I'm not an idealist, and fully acknowledge that those situations are actually possible. However, most of the time in the developed world, neither self-sacrifice nor "law of the jungle" are called for.
There's a massive dualism in thought between nature and ethics, and I don't think it's valid. "Nature red in tooth and claw" is not an accurate portrait of nature, nor an accurate assessment of human society. Nature functions largely on symbiosis, not just predator prey relationships; competition is just one of many parts in a healthy ecosystem. The same goes for any human society. We hear about violence and exploitation because they are potentially threatening, it is interesting in the "Chinese" sense. Frankly, "good" is so mundane and fulfilling that it has no urgency when communicated. Like a "happy end", it is a desirable conclusion to pathos.
Relating this one more time to religion, it is a subject that has come up several times when talking to Christians: Why, as an atheist with an anarchic bent, do I choose to behave morally?
It's simple. Morality is not even a correlate of religiousness (history shows it is often the opposite). Socialisation is a reliable and solid strategy for leading a fulfilled life. It is short term, inadequate thinking that causes unethical behaviour. Partaking in equitable relationships of all kinds gives more security than any amount of exploitation or sacrifice. Interpersonal relationships are one of the most valuable, multipurpose resources our species has (not to mention unquantifiable). Building them is a strategy that has existed longer than recorded history, longer even than language as we know it.
So, I don't entirely disagree with you. Teaching has a vital role in the creation of ethical people. I also agree that if ethics were applied to everything, we would appear as monsters and a greater number of us would end up in monasteries, sweeping the bugs from our path with a soft broom. Technology will play a massive role in the convergence of expedience and ethics, but any such convergence is a way off, and impossible in any sense of "entirety".
However, we have a massive innate potential for ethical behaviour. Between humans, it does occur naturally, and is not just a philosophical construct thrust into the midst of consciousness.
Likewise, sorry for going on so long, but reading your post certainly wasn't a chore, and noone is obliged to read. Fascinating subject
I should clarify here that I'm an atheist, but will be quoting bits of Christianity below where they're relevant.
I'll shrink the asides
Pseudo Safari said:
It's obviously a hugely complex and interdependent system. Many things, including learned behaviour and cultural standards, do of course have an effect on morality. To some extent I think your post is dead on, but I think you underrate the scope and strenth of what we have innately.
Altruism is relevant to all human interaction. I think talking about "large" and "small" communities is a fairly arbitrary distinction, and the only principle operating is an organic one: The more established a relationship between two people is, the more likely they are to behave ethically toward each other. Also, the deeper a bond between two people is, the greater the dissonance it can tolerate.
Dissonance in a relationship between two individuals is inevitable. It exacts an energy cost proportionate to its severity (subjectively perceived by the participants), which is tolerable on the basis of established trust, predictability, desirability, and conflated values. Operating on this principle, a family member can generally get away with more than a stranger, but by the same principle an attractive stranger would be allowed to get away with more than an unattractive stranger. This is exactly what happens when people interact
Conversely, people who have just met will have lower tolerances for teasing, differences of opinion, etc. while attempting to establish a relationship.The idea that ethics arise from familiarity is not absolute, because from spousal abuse to low pay, human relationships can easily drift into an unequitable stability. Even the smallest of groups still have to deal with unethical behaviour. Additionally, all groups throughout history have had to deal with things such as murder, regardless of size.
At the opposite end of the scale, most of us don't go around f*cking strangers over. Again, it's not just out of fear or obedience to a social order that we do this, but out of respect for the strangers themselves. What does happen though, is that the less familiar a person is to us, the less we're generally willing to give to or do for them.
Again, conflated values can distort that, e.g. if something we want is contingent on giving to them, we'll be more willing. So whether it "hot dog stand guy" or "kidnapper of your child", we're more willing to give to such people than "kidnapper of someone elses child" or "homeless alcoholic dude".
"Taking more" is not a consequence of unfamiliarity. Separated from culture, we don't automatically "behave like savages" in the absence of interpersonal bonds. As the examples you give from the Industrial Revolution show, unfamiliarity makes unethical behaviour easier to commit. However, I don't think those examples prove it is the cause.
Pseudo Safari said:
I think it happens naturally on the basis of humanness - to an extent, and any effort to enforce particular standards is generally polluted with extraneous values that cause antipathy among groups that could otherwise get along. I'm not advocating that "humans are inherently moral" or that "cultures are inherently immoral", just that many forces we look to, such as humanness, culture, institutions, religion, politics, policing, education, etc, are in their fundamental form morally unbiased. Everything, from a person to a corporation or nation, acquires morals in becoming a manifestation of an idea.
Again, I think those morals can only ever be drawn relative to human needs, which gives them a stability and consistency that outlasts any nation, empire, religion or ideology.
Pseudo Safari said:
Despite any rationality, empathy is an automatic, largely unconscous process. Because people have that, they have the capacity for ethics long before they can understand "law".
Pre-lingual children exhibit ethical social behaviour. During the second year of life, a child can be very responsive to distress and, uncoerced, will make attempts to comfort people. A study done very recently showed that even 18 month old children (and chimpanzees) exhibit helping behaviour. Play is often cooperative rather than competitive (By extension, fully grown gamers also enjoy coop games greatly, not just competitive ones, and team sports are as cooperative as they are competitive).
At the same time as a child is behaving in all these ways, you can bet your scrotum they're also learning to decieve and compete.
Again, on this basis I think humanity is morally inert. Further to that, I do think ethics are scalable, it just depends on whether or not your concept of a human outreaches your own particular group. Admittedly, for many people it does not. Beyond that, there is also the potential for accidental exploitation borne from ignorance. Many of the goods enjoyed in the developed world, and their prices, are borne from distinctly unethical labour practices, but often these aren't known by consumers or even the corporations behind the goods (once production is outsourced, even with the best of intentions a company can't constantly monitor manufacturers).
Education/enlightenment/conditioning/fear etc. passed down from institutions and cultures is one somewhat flawed way of trying to bring ethical conduct about, but luckily it's not the only one.
Pseudo Safari said:
Um, from the start of the same post:
Pseudo Safari said:
There is a lot of evidence for both the viewpoints you posit
You're absolutely right about dehumanisation. That process is a critical part in the construction of any kind of tyranny, and that is indeed lent momentum by lack of familiarity. Tyranny is often instigated by the very social constructs that claim to impart morality though.
Pseudo Safari said:
I respect your viewpoint, but I think that ethics are thrust to the fore and created by necessity. Nothing tests (or breaks) them more than scarcity. In the developed world, however, very few ethical issues are actually instigated by scarcity. For the most part, we have plenty.
Additionally, hunger is not an adequate archetype for all human needs. Only our most basic physiological needs centre on the consumption of a resource. Psychological needs operate in a very different way.
The way to test whether or not something is a need or not is to see if the denial of it causes mental or physical illness. Maslow pretty much led the theoretical field on human needs, though his complex, self confessedly flawed theory is usually boiled down to the "simple answer" contained in the pyramid figure used to summarise his work.
Most of the criticisms raised in relation to his work were first brought up by the author himself in his own books; he discovered and drew attention to a number of problems that remain unsolved. If you want to read more of his owrk, I highly recommend Motivation and Personality.
I think one of his most important observations was in relation to the human need for "love". People need to be "loved" not romantically, and not in the sense of being exclusively adored or given to, nor in the sense of having others who are attached to them. People need to love actively. The "need" for love is our strongest social one, and it is entirely equitable. In the simplest terms, people actually feel a need to give to others, and not just receive (Pegging this discussion back down to religion: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" and "Love your neighbor, as yourself" <-- that was extended in the gospel where it is quoted with "Who is my neighbor?" a question answered with the parable of the good Samaritan who helped a beaten Jew. There was complete enmity between Samaritans and Jews at the time).
If people are denied the opportunity to give back to their social surroundings, they either find a way to do so or become psychologically ill.
We are alienated from our own needs by many cultural structures. The "psuedo alpha male" culture of competition can alienate us from the need for positive social interaction. The culture of being no more than a jobs worth can alienate us from the need for self development. A distorted work ethic can cause burnout (or sloth). Expediency and economy can alienate us from aesthetics (that may seem like a strange and superfluous need. Noone seems to know why it is one, but some adults and all children become sick if denied an aesthetically pleasing and stimulating environment).
Resource shortages or not, ethical acts never mitigate basic needs. You might take issue with that, saying that it is highly moral for someone to concede scant resources to another, but: "Love your neighbor, as yourself". I think that such a sacrifice is to treat oneself unethically, whereas to force another into the same sacrifice is to treat them unethically. I'm not an idealist
, and fully acknowledge that those situations are actually possible. However, most of the time in the developed world, neither self-sacrifice nor "law of the jungle" are called for.There's a massive dualism in thought between nature and ethics, and I don't think it's valid. "Nature red in tooth and claw" is not an accurate portrait of nature, nor an accurate assessment of human society. Nature functions largely on symbiosis, not just predator prey relationships; competition is just one of many parts in a healthy ecosystem. The same goes for any human society. We hear about violence and exploitation because they are potentially threatening, it is interesting in the "Chinese" sense. Frankly, "good" is so mundane and fulfilling that it has no urgency when communicated. Like a "happy end", it is a desirable conclusion to pathos.
Relating this one more time to religion, it is a subject that has come up several times when talking to Christians: Why, as an atheist with an anarchic bent, do I choose to behave morally?
It's simple. Morality is not even a correlate of religiousness (history shows it is often the opposite). Socialisation is a reliable and solid strategy for leading a fulfilled life. It is short term, inadequate thinking that causes unethical behaviour. Partaking in equitable relationships of all kinds gives more security than any amount of exploitation or sacrifice. Interpersonal relationships are one of the most valuable, multipurpose resources our species has (not to mention unquantifiable). Building them is a strategy that has existed longer than recorded history, longer even than language as we know it.
So, I don't entirely disagree with you. Teaching has a vital role in the creation of ethical people. I also agree that if ethics were applied to everything, we would appear as monsters and a greater number of us would end up in monasteries, sweeping the bugs from our path with a soft broom. Technology will play a massive role in the convergence of expedience and ethics, but any such convergence is a way off, and impossible in any sense of "entirety".
However, we have a massive innate potential for ethical behaviour. Between humans, it does occur naturally, and is not just a philosophical construct thrust into the midst of consciousness.
Pseudo Safari said:
Likewise, sorry for going on so long, but reading your post certainly wasn't a chore, and noone is obliged to read. Fascinating subject
Last edited:
Which chapter was that, and how are you coming on the long-awaited book?
BTW, excellent analysis once again, Nachimir. You mentioned a lot of ideas that I've thought, but only subconsciously, so because they never formed as conscious thoughts and concepts, I've thus far been unable to formally present them for consideration/dissection. Makes me more interested in the relationships between consciousness, unconsciousness and subconsciousness.
BTW, excellent analysis once again, Nachimir. You mentioned a lot of ideas that I've thought, but only subconsciously, so because they never formed as conscious thoughts and concepts, I've thus far been unable to formally present them for consideration/dissection. Makes me more interested in the relationships between consciousness, unconsciousness and subconsciousness.
Last edited:
Just here to tell all that I'm an idiot.
(Story follows)
I spent 45 minutes replying and got disconnected on hitting post (irregular connection) then wrote a 15 minute summary and hit post before I remembered to do a Ctrl-C on the text body and was once again told I was working offline. Going "Back" only gave me the log-in screen. This was done in notepad. I think perhaps my opinion is just not worth mentioning today. To hell with pluralism. Perhaps in future..
(Story follows)
I spent 45 minutes replying and got disconnected on hitting post (irregular connection) then wrote a 15 minute summary and hit post before I remembered to do a Ctrl-C on the text body and was once again told I was working offline. Going "Back" only gave me the log-in screen. This was done in notepad. I think perhaps my opinion is just not worth mentioning today. To hell with pluralism. Perhaps in future..
You could I suppose. Rather that you didn't....
Probably better if you read my stuff and then quote me as an idiot if the need arises.
Probably better if you read my stuff and then quote me as an idiot if the need arises.
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as ethics and taming society goes, tribal behavior might be a good place to analyze innate habits. Take some African tribe, or a similar tribe that’s had little or no contact with other cultures. There is usually a chief to oversee things. This seems like a necessity. The older, wiser chief has probably done much in his lifetime and knows what’s good for the tribe and what’s bad.
People are thankful that they have someone to learn from. The chief might know which plants help heal, where to find food, and what plants and animals to look out for. In return, the older chief probably receives some help trying to survive because he can’t climb to the tops of trees for food or chase down game like before. It’s a society of people dependant on one another in many ways. The chief, fully aware of his dependence on others, and appreciating the status of chief, doesn’t want to rock the boat.
This relationship would seem to be the impetus for worship. Obviously, this hierarchy existed long ago. If I were a chief and someone asked me why the sky was pouring rain and cracking from thunder and flashing with lightning, I would have a problem on my hands. If you start telling people you don’t know the answers to their questions, they might be inclined to find another chief. After all, people probably expect you to know more than they know. I would tell people that the hierarchy doesn’t stop with me, but there are other, more powerful, chiefs (gods) who know the answers to their questions.
Now we have a situation where the chief still retains his status because he knows of these other gods, and he’s off the hook when he doesn’t know the answers to all their questions. You start having rituals where people try to communicate with these gods, or appease them. The “ritual” concept is extremely important. A person going to church today to worship a god is a ritual. Singing hymns, praying, and reading about tales of long ago (the bible) is all ritualistic behavior that modern people exhibit. Do you think the ritualistic behavior of tribes worshiping a god or gods and modern worship is just a coincidence? I sure don’t.
Probably most, or all, of the unexplained things that happen to tribes are associated with gods. I think people fear the unknown and want a sense of order and structure in their world. The order and structure associated with the consistency of the rise and setting of the sun and moon is a good example. How many times do we see cultures interacting with the movement of these celestial bodies?
This brings me full circle. The order and structure that appeals to us most certainly played a part in shaping our laws. Chaos can be stressful and it’s against our nature to want to be stressed. The solution: laws, societal structure, and rules. We associate ethical behavior with such things, so whether we are naturally ethical or not, we certainly see a need for ethics when we’re old enough to appreciate it.
People are thankful that they have someone to learn from. The chief might know which plants help heal, where to find food, and what plants and animals to look out for. In return, the older chief probably receives some help trying to survive because he can’t climb to the tops of trees for food or chase down game like before. It’s a society of people dependant on one another in many ways. The chief, fully aware of his dependence on others, and appreciating the status of chief, doesn’t want to rock the boat.
This relationship would seem to be the impetus for worship. Obviously, this hierarchy existed long ago. If I were a chief and someone asked me why the sky was pouring rain and cracking from thunder and flashing with lightning, I would have a problem on my hands. If you start telling people you don’t know the answers to their questions, they might be inclined to find another chief. After all, people probably expect you to know more than they know. I would tell people that the hierarchy doesn’t stop with me, but there are other, more powerful, chiefs (gods) who know the answers to their questions.
Now we have a situation where the chief still retains his status because he knows of these other gods, and he’s off the hook when he doesn’t know the answers to all their questions. You start having rituals where people try to communicate with these gods, or appease them. The “ritual” concept is extremely important. A person going to church today to worship a god is a ritual. Singing hymns, praying, and reading about tales of long ago (the bible) is all ritualistic behavior that modern people exhibit. Do you think the ritualistic behavior of tribes worshiping a god or gods and modern worship is just a coincidence? I sure don’t.
Probably most, or all, of the unexplained things that happen to tribes are associated with gods. I think people fear the unknown and want a sense of order and structure in their world. The order and structure associated with the consistency of the rise and setting of the sun and moon is a good example. How many times do we see cultures interacting with the movement of these celestial bodies?
This brings me full circle. The order and structure that appeals to us most certainly played a part in shaping our laws. Chaos can be stressful and it’s against our nature to want to be stressed. The solution: laws, societal structure, and rules. We associate ethical behavior with such things, so whether we are naturally ethical or not, we certainly see a need for ethics when we’re old enough to appreciate it.
So science inherently democratises?
I can see the association ethics have with heirarchical structures for people, and we won't be getting away from them any time soon, but as I pointed out: Often, systems of social order/conformity can motivate harmful behaviour (such as ethnic cleansing), and some people play nice regardless of social boundaries.
That's mashed up bits of 3 - 8. I'm on 6 right now
I can see the association ethics have with heirarchical structures for people, and we won't be getting away from them any time soon, but as I pointed out: Often, systems of social order/conformity can motivate harmful behaviour (such as ethnic cleansing), and some people play nice regardless of social boundaries.
oosyxxx said:
That's mashed up bits of 3 - 8. I'm on 6 right now
Last edited:
We live in a world of people with Type A and Type B personalities. That’s what governs our behavior.Nachimir said: