First of all: Once again: I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. I DO NOT ESPOUSE ANY RELIGION. Seriously, you lecture me about "Not P does not equal the opposite of P" and yet you assume that because I don't believe morality is relative, I must be religious. Tough concept, indeed. For you, apparently.
My preferred alternative to moral absolutism is actually moral subjectivism, not moral relativism, but I know you've been brainwashed to think everybody's a relativist if they aren't an absolutist. I think ethics are entirely subjective, based on circumstance
OK, here's another tough concept for you: If you believe that morality changes based on subjective interpretations and/or circumstance, guess what? You're a moral relativist. You believe that things can become more or less moral relative to other things. That's the whole idea behind moral relativism. You can call it what you like, but that doesn't make it different. As I previously stated, you can not say something is wrong...unless there is an absolute definition. You can only say it's wrong for this circumstance. That implies that there is a circumstance under which your action is not wrong. Thus, relativism. Do you really not understand that?
See, in this forum, I get the chance to say whatever I want in response, so I really have nothing to fear from you.
Why should you have anything to fear from me? What, am I going to reach through the Internet and grab you? Not only did I never for one second believe you had anything to fear from me, or I from you, it never even entered my head that anyone would be fearful of anyone else on the Internet. Talk about your wastes of time. Thanks for letting me know, though. I don't know why you did, but you went to the trouble, so thanks.
I can if I want to.
No, see, that's part of the difference between 'relative' and 'absolute'. You can say something is wrong in a particular circumstance, but you MUST qualify it. If you say something is categorically wrong, that is an absolute statement. Now, I suppose you could say it in error, but you can say anything in error so what is the point of pointing out all the erroneous things you could possibly say if you wanted to? If you are going to be like that, then add, "and be correct under all circumstances" to the end of the statement and try again.
I can think my moral code and system of ethics is good for everybody and not be an absolutist. You see, instead of defining particular actions to be bad, I define particular circumstances and actions together to be more full information with which to make a decision.
You can think that ice cream is made out of rainbows. However, in a relativist system, what you think and what other people think have equal importance in a shared forum. What makes your code and system correct, while someone else's isn't? Assuming identical circumstance, that is.
Feel free to object all you want. That doesn't mean you're correct.
It also doesn't mean that I am in error. What was your point, here?
So, it's subjective to your own intuition. That's a great step forward in your own understanding if you can grasp that.
You are a moron. I believe there is an absolute moral code. That belief may or may not be correct. However, I am not attempting to push any particular code. I am searching for it, acknowledging the possibility that it may not be found. You see, belief that morality is absolute and believing that I know what that code consists of are two seperate things. I am not asserting WHAT the absolute moral code is. I am not even assuming that there IS one. It is my hypothesis that there is one, and I am attempting to determine by which methodology that can be tested. That way, I wouldn't be reliant on ANYONE's intuition. My goal is not for my conclusion to match my hypothesis. My goal is to FIND OUT IF my conclusion matches my hypothesis. Can you grasp that?
Well, I think we need to go deeper than that. That question sort of assumes that 'being happy' is the point. Yet, what if being not nice makes me happy? Is that any less valid? Is it more important to be nice, or happy? Why? We may not be able to work out a physical explanation, but could we possibly at least attempt SOME sort of consensus?
Well, some guy on the internet said it, so it *must* be true! Seriously, if I let random internet idiots with retarded nicks inform my self-image, I'd be exactly what you're erroneously claiming I am. The only thing stupid related to my question is you for missing the point. Maybe you could hire someone to explain it to you. (Assuming you make enough money at your minimum wage floor scrubbing or fast food "career" to afford to hire someone smarter than you, namely, most anyone.)
Hey, nice rhetoric. Nothing substantive, simply attacks, but then what would one expect from slashdot? How about presenting something resembling an argument? That's the usual method to demonstrating the superiority of your position. However, you are too stupid to realize this. Why don't you do something to prove you have intelligence? Oh, right, of course. You can't. Now go on back to blowing stray dogs, which is all you're good for.
First of all, sorry for the tone I took before. These conversations piss me off.
Me too. Especially when it seems like everyone is only here to argue and I'm genuinely trying to seek facts.
(notice that you accept the meme "stealing is wrong" as the word of god, which, by the way, is another meme that has no basis in physical observation that you may have never acquired if you parents or preacher never told you to accept)
Actually, although this has been a common misconception throughout this thread, I am not a religious person, and in fact I am questioning whether stealing is, in fact, wrong, and if so, why? I'm not espousing ANY origin for morality, I am in fact seeking that origin, and although I seriously doubt that any religion is correct, I am as open to the possibility that they are as I am to the possibility that it's alien technology. That is to say, I would be far less surprised to find a terrestrial cause. I just want to find that cause, in such a way that repeatable tests can be done to determine it. Again, if absolute morals do not exist, then there is no action which can be termed 'bad' or 'wrong' and I would hate for that to be true. Once more, I am not asserting that morality is absolute, just that that is my 'gut feeling'. I want to find a way to determine whether it is or is not scientifically.
Actually, I respectfully doubt it. I appreciate the offer, but I'm not looking for more philosophical theory. There's quite a lot of that, and there's really no consensus. I want some sort of repeatable test leading to a predictive model. Philosophy doesn't really suit my turn of mind. What I need to start doing is figuring out how to develop testing procedures and parameters for this particular problem. Although, given the lack of hard research in the area, and the overabundance of theory, that could take some doing. Could be I'm wrong, and a bigot, as I've been called before, but I believe that science should be reproducible by anyone with the right equipment and attention to detail. Soft sciences are fine for people who just want to argue. I want proof. That's just how I am. I'm not saying it's right, but nothing I've experienced has altered that perception.
Hey, best of luck with your thesis..although I have to say, I'm with Mark Twain in my opinion of statistics:) I know, I know, it's not (exactly) the same thing.
What I'm saying is that we should be able to codify this. If there is a set of rules, we should be able to find it. Yet, as far as I'm aware, we break down too often into preferences, usually religious, on defining morality, rather than attempting to discover what is most helpful and why. (Yes, that last sentence was awful, sorry about that.) Also, why, if it is evolutionary in nature (I'm not saying it's not), why do so many people not follow it? I'm not saying that as a challenge to the principle. It just seems that if we knew why, we could better predict and/or prevent it. Who knows? Maybe I'm asking for the impossible. It certainly seems so, judging by this thread.
Someone who thinks they can respond to what they haven't read...yep, you're a typical idiot. "You guys" need to come up with something new? I'm not part of any group. AFAIK, I haven't posted anything about this before. Yet you think you can shove me in with some undefined group? You can fuck right off with that.
Not all moral systems have the same moral code you have.
Yes, I know. Why not? Your answer, then, although you were too scared to come out and say it, is that morality is relative. If this is the case, then no action can be defined as wrong. Maybe that's why you didn't want to just answer the question. Note that I am not saying that it isn't possible.
Moral systems do not have to be absolute.
If they are not, then you can not label an action as wrong. It just is moral in a different code. This is to what I object. I intuitively know that some things (not necessarily things our society targets) are wrong, period. What I want to do is find a repeatable test for why, or proof that I am simply wrong.
That's a HUGE assumption you've been making in your entire thread while at the same time you accuse others of assumptions they don't have.
Um, no it is not. I have stated very clearly many times that I DO NOT KNOW if morality is absolute or relative, or from where morality originates. Therefore, I can NOT be pushing the assumption that it is absolute, although I have admitted many times that I intuitively believe this to be the case. I have stated that I cannot prove this, so how is that my pushing an assumption? What I want is science to back me up or prove me wrong. You haven't offered any of that. Are you intentionally misunderstanding? I'm sorry, but I have responded to over 50 posts in this thread. I have had to repeat myself ad nauseum. It's getting old. You're receiving the fallout from that. I'm still no closer to knowing from where morality arises than I was when I made the first post in this thread. It's extremely frustrating.
Um, moron? I never claimed where the universal morality comes from. That is, in fact, exactly what I am seeking: the source of morality. I do not claim sky fairies did anything. I want to know the source of morality, and I'm not looking for it to be sky fairies. Learn to read, idiot.
Well, what about stealing from strangers, then? I am looking for the properties of morality. If they come from nature, they should be definable like everything else in nature is. If not, then where the hell do they come from?
I'm not disputing what you said. What I want is that cognitive reasoning and logic. I want to find the source of morality. If it is genetic, where is the gene? If it is a property of group dynamics, where is the predictive model? I am uncomfortable with relative morality. That means that I am looking for something definable and quantifiable. Perhaps it doesn't exist. In this case, there is no right and wrong, a concept which I reject intuitively but cannot produce evidence to refute. That evidence is what I'm seeking.
Yes, yes, I know. This is why I reject 'common sense' as a source of morality. Either morals are absolute or there is no right and wrong...by definition. Only possible and impossible. (with various degrees of possibility)
Or if you mean that a secular moral code passed down by people who were religious, so what?
So that's no basis for a system of morals. That's what.
All that means is that people a lot of people in the past were religious, and is no different to saying that a lot of them believed in superstition, magic or a flat earth. It dosen't mean any of these things are responsible for our law, society and moral code.
Come on, you can't seriously be saying that our laws aren't heavily influenced by religious laws, can you?
As for right and wrong, these are words which people use to describe that they think some actions are good or bad.
Yes, what I am looking for is a quantifiable measure for this. That way we aren't reliant on differing interpretations.
To some degree this is opinion and there is no objective standard, but at the same time, many people will agree on certain things.
If there is no objective standard then there is no right and wrong, only possible and impossible.
The reason we think certain actions should or shouldn't be done is usually because of the effects of those actions, or because of what things we want to happen, or not happen. If someone thinks something is wrong, I say they should always be able to explain why it is wrong.
I agree, but our laws don't do this. They just say THAT something is wrong. Never why; at least in my experience.
Somewhere along the line though, people picked up the idea that something is inherently wrong, so we get "X is wrong because religion/God says so" or the painful tautology "X is wrong because it's immoral", and all chance of reason or rational debate goes out the window.
...no logical reason for morality? Besides the fact that if you're immoral in many primitive societies (which is where humans have lived for most of their existence), you will be shunned, and cast out of society, probably to die?
That is acting out of fear, not logic. Same as the sky fairy people.
If you consider basic things like property rights ("Thats my banana!"), even monkeys recognize when they're being stolen from, and will dislike the one doing the taking, and be more likely to help someone who gives them things.
Yes, but WHY? What CAUSES them to know "That's my banana"?
You throw in a magical bogeyman that can see everything, and you all of a sudden have people behaving for the good of society even when they probably would get away with it, which is basically win-win for everyone, so it keeps being selected for genetically, with a few aberrations.
So where's the gene? This is what I'm looking for, not a theory on its existence, but the gene itself. Something, you know, scientific.
Actually the most successful strategy in the prisoner's dilemma is "trusting-reacting". You start out cooperating and copy your partner's behaviour. I'd have to look it up in my statistics books again, if it's really important for you I'll dig it up.
No need. I KNOW that is the most successful strategy. And that is why I want to learn the origins of morality, because a moral stance is NOT the most successful strategy...and yet we are to be moral to be good. Why? Why does morality exist, when it is NOT the most successful strategy?
Sure, I run into people like you who gain a minor advantage out of me.
Pardon me, but please do not project on to me. I am FAR more likely to be the 'moral' person who loses over time. I just want to know why I hate acting immorally, even though I have no logical reason. Although I would benefit by 'lying' in the Prisoner's Dilemma, in real life I do not choose that course, even when it's detrimental to me not to. Why? Because it feels wrong to me. What I want is a scientific, codifiable reason WHY I am acting counter to my interests, and not just because it's what feels right, and certainly not because of sky fairies.
Your comment is more in line with the general direction of my inquiry. What I want, though, is to be able to pin morality down, codify it, and repeatbly demonstrate its natural origins. Then we could cut through a ton of BS that currently rationalizes questionable behaviour.
Maybe. Depends on how you think religion got formed. I think it's the other way around. People believe certain things, and come up with an excuse to make others believe the same thing, so they form a group telling them that some deity will punish them for eternity if they don't have the same beliefs.
Okay, fine. From where did those beliefs originate, then? That's what I'm asking.
I usually use that as an argument against a coded morality set. If it's not universal, what makes you think the particular set you follow is the right one?
Exactly! When I use math, I prefer to use the correct equations. Likewise, I'd prefer to use correct morality, if only it could be derived. Why use flawed data sets? (Of course, if that's all you have, you have no choice. What I'm asking is, why don't we have better data?)
Morality as defined by a religion, or as defined by anything that is immutable is way overrated. We'd all be better off just doing what is best for us. I don't steal from friends and families because I value those relationships, and I don't want to risk losing them. I don't steal from strangers because I don't want to be punished for that. We as a society agree to make a law that punishes thieves because we don't want to get things stolen from us. Yay. We just arrived at the moral code, "do not steal" from an entirely logical perspective. As a bonus, I act exactly like a religious moral person would, and I don't steal.
It's not logical at all. What is best for me might be worst for you, and thus a dispute arises. How do we logically settle that dispute? I don't think it's a bonus that you act like a religious person. I think it's a product of our societies being formed with religious viewpoints, even if we don't subscribe to them all anymore. It's impossible to escape your environment.
I saw you answer the prisoner's dilemma question in another post that, without iteration, the completely moral person would get screwed. There's another reason why morality from common sense works best. If I know that you'll abide by your morals no matter what, you're screwed, I will betray you. If I know that you'll do what's best for you, and you know I'll do the same, we both can arrive at the logical conclusion that we should cooperate. Now we both have acted as if we were both moral people.
Except that relies on a common definition of moral. This is what I am seeking. You assume it exists, but I dispute that.
Yeah, the world isn't perfect. It will never be perfect. People don't always follow their religiously-given morals either. Need examples of that?
Of course not. That's part of my whole problem. We can't say, "X is moral because of this fundamental property of the universe" and we cannot say, "X is moral because it derives from this natural law or that gene" and we should be able to. Otherwise it's a contest of who can rationalize the best, like we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all: Once again: I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. I DO NOT ESPOUSE ANY RELIGION. Seriously, you lecture me about "Not P does not equal the opposite of P" and yet you assume that because I don't believe morality is relative, I must be religious. Tough concept, indeed. For you, apparently.
My preferred alternative to moral absolutism is actually moral subjectivism, not moral relativism, but I know you've been brainwashed to think everybody's a relativist if they aren't an absolutist. I think ethics are entirely subjective, based on circumstance
OK, here's another tough concept for you: If you believe that morality changes based on subjective interpretations and/or circumstance, guess what? You're a moral relativist. You believe that things can become more or less moral relative to other things. That's the whole idea behind moral relativism. You can call it what you like, but that doesn't make it different. As I previously stated, you can not say something is wrong...unless there is an absolute definition. You can only say it's wrong for this circumstance. That implies that there is a circumstance under which your action is not wrong. Thus, relativism. Do you really not understand that?
See, in this forum, I get the chance to say whatever I want in response, so I really have nothing to fear from you.
Why should you have anything to fear from me? What, am I going to reach through the Internet and grab you? Not only did I never for one second believe you had anything to fear from me, or I from you, it never even entered my head that anyone would be fearful of anyone else on the Internet. Talk about your wastes of time. Thanks for letting me know, though. I don't know why you did, but you went to the trouble, so thanks.
I can if I want to.
No, see, that's part of the difference between 'relative' and 'absolute'. You can say something is wrong in a particular circumstance, but you MUST qualify it. If you say something is categorically wrong, that is an absolute statement. Now, I suppose you could say it in error, but you can say anything in error so what is the point of pointing out all the erroneous things you could possibly say if you wanted to? If you are going to be like that, then add, "and be correct under all circumstances" to the end of the statement and try again.
I can think my moral code and system of ethics is good for everybody and not be an absolutist. You see, instead of defining particular actions to be bad, I define particular circumstances and actions together to be more full information with which to make a decision.
You can think that ice cream is made out of rainbows. However, in a relativist system, what you think and what other people think have equal importance in a shared forum. What makes your code and system correct, while someone else's isn't? Assuming identical circumstance, that is.
Feel free to object all you want. That doesn't mean you're correct.
It also doesn't mean that I am in error. What was your point, here?
So, it's subjective to your own intuition. That's a great step forward in your own understanding if you can grasp that.
You are a moron. I believe there is an absolute moral code. That belief may or may not be correct. However, I am not attempting to push any particular code. I am searching for it, acknowledging the possibility that it may not be found. You see, belief that morality is absolute and believing that I know what that code consists of are two seperate things. I am not asserting WHAT the absolute moral code is. I am not even assuming that there IS one. It is my hypothesis that there is one, and I am attempting to determine by which methodology that can be tested. That way, I wouldn't be reliant on ANYONE's intuition. My goal is not for my conclusion to match my hypothesis. My goal is to FIND OUT IF my conclusion matches my hypothesis. Can you grasp that?
I'm not impressed by the semantics here.
So? I care why?
You believe
Well, I think we need to go deeper than that. That question sort of assumes that 'being happy' is the point. Yet, what if being not nice makes me happy? Is that any less valid? Is it more important to be nice, or happy? Why? We may not be able to work out a physical explanation, but could we possibly at least attempt SOME sort of consensus?
Well, some guy on the internet said it, so it *must* be true!
Seriously, if I let random internet idiots with retarded nicks inform my self-image, I'd be exactly what you're erroneously claiming I am.
The only thing stupid related to my question is you for missing the point. Maybe you could hire someone to explain it to you. (Assuming you make enough money at your minimum wage floor scrubbing or fast food "career" to afford to hire someone smarter than you, namely, most anyone.)
Yes, I've found that you often get the most accurate poll results from "Family Feud", and they only survey 100 people (all in California, AFAIK).
Hey, nice rhetoric. Nothing substantive, simply attacks, but then what would one expect from slashdot? How about presenting something resembling an argument? That's the usual method to demonstrating the superiority of your position. However, you are too stupid to realize this. Why don't you do something to prove you have intelligence? Oh, right, of course. You can't. Now go on back to blowing stray dogs, which is all you're good for.
First of all, sorry for the tone I took before. These conversations piss me off.
Me too. Especially when it seems like everyone is only here to argue and I'm genuinely trying to seek facts.
(notice that you accept the meme "stealing is wrong" as the word of god, which, by the way, is another meme that has no basis in physical observation that you may have never acquired if you parents or preacher never told you to accept)
Actually, although this has been a common misconception throughout this thread, I am not a religious person, and in fact I am questioning whether stealing is, in fact, wrong, and if so, why? I'm not espousing ANY origin for morality, I am in fact seeking that origin, and although I seriously doubt that any religion is correct, I am as open to the possibility that they are as I am to the possibility that it's alien technology. That is to say, I would be far less surprised to find a terrestrial cause. I just want to find that cause, in such a way that repeatable tests can be done to determine it. Again, if absolute morals do not exist, then there is no action which can be termed 'bad' or 'wrong' and I would hate for that to be true. Once more, I am not asserting that morality is absolute, just that that is my 'gut feeling'. I want to find a way to determine whether it is or is not scientifically.
You: And you actually believe the Revelation of John?
:)
Me (previously): I'm not saying I think it is true or anything,
I realize I could have stated it more clearly, but that would have ruined the effect I was going for. Which I obviously didn't achieve.
Yes, you certainly missed the point. I understood that with your last "post". You can stop proving your stupidity now, we all get it.
Actually, I respectfully doubt it. I appreciate the offer, but I'm not looking for more philosophical theory. There's quite a lot of that, and there's really no consensus. I want some sort of repeatable test leading to a predictive model. Philosophy doesn't really suit my turn of mind. What I need to start doing is figuring out how to develop testing procedures and parameters for this particular problem. Although, given the lack of hard research in the area, and the overabundance of theory, that could take some doing. Could be I'm wrong, and a bigot, as I've been called before, but I believe that science should be reproducible by anyone with the right equipment and attention to detail. Soft sciences are fine for people who just want to argue. I want proof. That's just how I am. I'm not saying it's right, but nothing I've experienced has altered that perception.
Hey, best of luck with your thesis..although I have to say, I'm with Mark Twain in my opinion of statistics :)
I know, I know, it's not (exactly) the same thing.
I would as well. Only by questioning does one ever understand anything. The quest continues!
That's not good enough for me. If it can't be codified and understood, we don't need to be basing laws on it.
What I'm saying is that we should be able to codify this. If there is a set of rules, we should be able to find it. Yet, as far as I'm aware, we break down too often into preferences, usually religious, on defining morality, rather than attempting to discover what is most helpful and why. (Yes, that last sentence was awful, sorry about that.) Also, why, if it is evolutionary in nature (I'm not saying it's not), why do so many people not follow it? I'm not saying that as a challenge to the principle. It just seems that if we knew why, we could better predict and/or prevent it. Who knows? Maybe I'm asking for the impossible. It certainly seems so, judging by this thread.
Someone who thinks they can respond to what they haven't read...yep, you're a typical idiot. "You guys" need to come up with something new? I'm not part of any group. AFAIK, I haven't posted anything about this before. Yet you think you can shove me in with some undefined group? You can fuck right off with that.
I didn't need any affirmation of your status as a complete and total idiot. Thoughtfully, however, you've provided some more anyway.
Not all moral systems have the same moral code you have.
Yes, I know. Why not? Your answer, then, although you were too scared to come out and say it, is that morality is relative. If this is the case, then no action can be defined as wrong. Maybe that's why you didn't want to just answer the question. Note that I am not saying that it isn't possible.
Moral systems do not have to be absolute.
If they are not, then you can not label an action as wrong. It just is moral in a different code. This is to what I object. I intuitively know that some things (not necessarily things our society targets) are wrong, period. What I want to do is find a repeatable test for why, or proof that I am simply wrong.
That's a HUGE assumption you've been making in your entire thread while at the same time you accuse others of assumptions they don't have.
Um, no it is not. I have stated very clearly many times that I DO NOT KNOW if morality is absolute or relative, or from where morality originates. Therefore, I can NOT be pushing the assumption that it is absolute, although I have admitted many times that I intuitively believe this to be the case. I have stated that I cannot prove this, so how is that my pushing an assumption? What I want is science to back me up or prove me wrong. You haven't offered any of that. Are you intentionally misunderstanding? I'm sorry, but I have responded to over 50 posts in this thread. I have had to repeat myself ad nauseum. It's getting old. You're receiving the fallout from that. I'm still no closer to knowing from where morality arises than I was when I made the first post in this thread. It's extremely frustrating.
Um, moron? I never claimed where the universal morality comes from. That is, in fact, exactly what I am seeking: the source of morality. I do not claim sky fairies did anything. I want to know the source of morality, and I'm not looking for it to be sky fairies. Learn to read, idiot.
Well, what about stealing from strangers, then? I am looking for the properties of morality. If they come from nature, they should be definable like everything else in nature is. If not, then where the hell do they come from?
I'm not disputing what you said. What I want is that cognitive reasoning and logic. I want to find the source of morality. If it is genetic, where is the gene? If it is a property of group dynamics, where is the predictive model? I am uncomfortable with relative morality. That means that I am looking for something definable and quantifiable. Perhaps it doesn't exist. In this case, there is no right and wrong, a concept which I reject intuitively but cannot produce evidence to refute. That evidence is what I'm seeking.
Yes, yes, I know. This is why I reject 'common sense' as a source of morality. Either morals are absolute or there is no right and wrong...by definition. Only possible and impossible. (with various degrees of possibility)
What moral code is that?
Yes, exactly.
Or if you mean that a secular moral code passed down by people who were religious, so what?
So that's no basis for a system of morals. That's what.
All that means is that people a lot of people in the past were religious, and is no different to saying that a lot of them believed in superstition, magic or a flat earth. It dosen't mean any of these things are responsible for our law, society and moral code.
Come on, you can't seriously be saying that our laws aren't heavily influenced by religious laws, can you?
As for right and wrong, these are words which people use to describe that they think some actions are good or bad.
Yes, what I am looking for is a quantifiable measure for this. That way we aren't reliant on differing interpretations.
To some degree this is opinion and there is no objective standard, but at the same time, many people will agree on certain things.
If there is no objective standard then there is no right and wrong, only possible and impossible.
The reason we think certain actions should or shouldn't be done is usually because of the effects of those actions, or because of what things we want to happen, or not happen. If someone thinks something is wrong, I say they should always be able to explain why it is wrong.
I agree, but our laws don't do this. They just say THAT something is wrong. Never why; at least in my experience.
Somewhere along the line though, people picked up the idea that something is inherently wrong, so we get "X is wrong because religion/God says so" or the painful tautology "X is wrong because it's immoral", and all chance of reason or rational debate goes out the window.
Word to this.
...no logical reason for morality? Besides the fact that if you're immoral in many primitive societies (which is where humans have lived for most of their existence), you will be shunned, and cast out of society, probably to die?
That is acting out of fear, not logic. Same as the sky fairy people.
If you consider basic things like property rights ("Thats my banana!"), even monkeys recognize when they're being stolen from, and will dislike the one doing the taking, and be more likely to help someone who gives them things.
Yes, but WHY? What CAUSES them to know "That's my banana"?
You throw in a magical bogeyman that can see everything, and you all of a sudden have people behaving for the good of society even when they probably would get away with it, which is basically win-win for everyone, so it keeps being selected for genetically, with a few aberrations.
So where's the gene? This is what I'm looking for, not a theory on its existence, but the gene itself. Something, you know, scientific.
Actually the most successful strategy in the prisoner's dilemma is "trusting-reacting". You start out cooperating and copy your partner's behaviour. I'd have to look it up in my statistics books again, if it's really important for you I'll dig it up.
No need. I KNOW that is the most successful strategy. And that is why I want to learn the origins of morality, because a moral stance is NOT the most successful strategy...and yet we are to be moral to be good. Why? Why does morality exist, when it is NOT the most successful strategy?
Sure, I run into people like you who gain a minor advantage out of me.
Pardon me, but please do not project on to me. I am FAR more likely to be the 'moral' person who loses over time. I just want to know why I hate acting immorally, even though I have no logical reason. Although I would benefit by 'lying' in the Prisoner's Dilemma, in real life I do not choose that course, even when it's detrimental to me not to. Why? Because it feels wrong to me. What I want is a scientific, codifiable reason WHY I am acting counter to my interests, and not just because it's what feels right, and certainly not because of sky fairies.
Your comment is more in line with the general direction of my inquiry. What I want, though, is to be able to pin morality down, codify it, and repeatbly demonstrate its natural origins. Then we could cut through a ton of BS that currently rationalizes questionable behaviour.
Maybe. Depends on how you think religion got formed. I think it's the other way around. People believe certain things, and come up with an excuse to make others believe the same thing, so they form a group telling them that some deity will punish them for eternity if they don't have the same beliefs.
Okay, fine. From where did those beliefs originate, then? That's what I'm asking.
I usually use that as an argument against a coded morality set. If it's not universal, what makes you think the particular set you follow is the right one?
Exactly! When I use math, I prefer to use the correct equations. Likewise, I'd prefer to use correct morality, if only it could be derived. Why use flawed data sets? (Of course, if that's all you have, you have no choice. What I'm asking is, why don't we have better data?)
Morality as defined by a religion, or as defined by anything that is immutable is way overrated. We'd all be better off just doing what is best for us. I don't steal from friends and families because I value those relationships, and I don't want to risk losing them. I don't steal from strangers because I don't want to be punished for that. We as a society agree to make a law that punishes thieves because we don't want to get things stolen from us. Yay. We just arrived at the moral code, "do not steal" from an entirely logical perspective. As a bonus, I act exactly like a religious moral person would, and I don't steal.
It's not logical at all. What is best for me might be worst for you, and thus a dispute arises. How do we logically settle that dispute? I don't think it's a bonus that you act like a religious person. I think it's a product of our societies being formed with religious viewpoints, even if we don't subscribe to them all anymore. It's impossible to escape your environment.
I saw you answer the prisoner's dilemma question in another post that, without iteration, the completely moral person would get screwed. There's another reason why morality from common sense works best. If I know that you'll abide by your morals no matter what, you're screwed, I will betray you. If I know that you'll do what's best for you, and you know I'll do the same, we both can arrive at the logical conclusion that we should cooperate. Now we both have acted as if we were both moral people.
Except that relies on a common definition of moral. This is what I am seeking. You assume it exists, but I dispute that.
Yeah, the world isn't perfect. It will never be perfect. People don't always follow their religiously-given morals either. Need examples of that?
Of course not. That's part of my whole problem. We can't say, "X is moral because of this fundamental property of the universe" and we cannot say, "X is moral because it derives from this natural law or that gene" and we should be able to. Otherwise it's a contest of who can rationalize the best, like we have now.