soulofdarwin

Actually, there are quite persuasive reasons for self-imposed limits on human behavior, in recognition of the fact that such imposition, when universally adopted, leads to order, a society in which its participants can exist free from fear of the hostile acts of others. Such a commitment of individuals to playing “life’s game� by universally accepted (societal) standards is at least as durable as any arbitrary subscription to “moral codes�, as succinctly demonstrated by director Stanley Kubrik in the movie classic “A Clockwork Orange�, in which the viewer is directly confronted with the tenuousness of his or her notions of “right� and “wrong�, “good� and “evil�. I have always felt that the personal involvement of an individual in constructing his or her own system of behavioral standards is vastly more sustaining than a mere parroting of “sin according to god�, and my “morality� has nothing to do with arbitrary rules of behavior.

A rationally based (secular) society is marked by the presence of law and the absence of references to commandments purportedly prescribed by deities. The members of such a society devise and subscribe to a set of behavioral rules (law) for their mutual benefit and protection. These rules provide a basis for the social contract that binds society, establishing “right� and “wrong� within that context. Some progress toward world order has been made through negotiation of a “social contract� among the various societies of this planet.

In short, individuals form societies and subscribe to societal rules of behavior out of pragmatic self-interest. The choice is clear. You can have the protection of law, or you can wear your own at your hip (California, circa 1849). It seems certain that most people are inclined to the former, not the latter.

The second factor that shapes human behavior arises from an instinctual trait and/or behavioral conditioning within the psyches of most humans, the ability and propensity to put oneself in the place of another. This human inclination is the natural and physical embodiment of the “golden rule�. For most of us, it is an immediate and powerful regulator of behavior. The sociopathic personality (the predator), however, is marked by the absence of this characteristic. It should be noted that one of the glaring failures of the “rehabilitative� penal system of the United States is the failure to recognize that the sociopath is no more capable of rehabilitation than a tiger in the wild and must be removed permanently from society, just as we do with any wild animal.

These two are the only factors in reality that circumscribe human behavior. It is for this reason that I have a profound distrust of individuals professing adherence to the dictates of an arbitrary “morality according to god�. Reality is that, when the chips are down, no one is sustained by admonitions carved in stone or written in the firmament.

Throughout the posts on “morality� in this discussion board, a pattern emerges in that discussion to the effect that morality is predicated on notions of "good" and "bad" behavior. Non-destructive behavior has nothing to do with such notions in any intrinsic sense. I have survived rather well for quite some while (since birth, actually) giving no consideration or thought whatsoever to ideas of "good", "evil", "right", or "wrong". For the sake of cutting short discussion that leads nowhere, what has deterred me from theft, mayhem and murder is the fact that I am a pragmatic sentient being not bent on self-destruction. I make a conscious effort, therefore, to conduct my affairs in a social rather than anti-social manner. I followed my parents’ lead in that, after seeing that it works.

In brief, I am not concerned with good, as "good" is an idea that has no relevance in the relativistic universe in which we dwell. What is "good" for you might be very "bad" for me. The only relevant matter is whether your need for that "good" is sufficient to cause you to be willing to do "bad" to me. This is the transactional essence of all interpersonal relationships among beings of this planet, including humans. It is consistent with the legacy of Darwin, and certainly with that of Einstein. Rather than “good�, what I try to keep in mind is that WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

Hence, “secular morality�' is NOT a contradiction in terms, and “morality� is NOT the province of non-secular society, despite the fact that organized religion has spared no effort to convince the world that it is. The simple FACT is that ethical systems of human behavior are in no way exclusive to theology. They define JUSTICE within the context of society, and they exist independently of socio-political contexts. Organized religion has traditionally denounced “secular� societies in rationalizing their appropriation of “moral� standards of human behavior. But, we see through that, because our mothers didn’t raise any STUPID CHILDREN!

And so, dear Reader, which would you like? JUSTICE, or “sin according to god�? Yes, ladies, you can be told exactly what to do with YOUR BODIES under the capable leadership of theistic fascists.

Zora

I am not educated in philosophy, but your post sums up exactly what I have thought regarding morality and society. Thank you for your clearly expressed thoughts. I have become quite tired of hearing that without religion, society degenerates into anarchy or worse.

For me, the need for companionship (love, approval, whatever you want to call it) is also a motivating factor for good behavior. Doesn't religion actually play off this need as well?

I'm sure more articulate and educated people will join this discussion, and I look forward to hearing their comments.

Psychic

Although the subject of Secular morality have been thoroughly discussed earlier, but I would like to value the model of right and wrong (or their meaninglessness!) you seem to present. Although it seems to be stemming directly from utilitarianism. But utilitarians usually use the outcome of the act to relate the act as being “right” or “wrong”.

Well if you are interested in Darwinism and Darwinian morality as you sound to be, I’d suggest that you solidify your view with some evolutionary psychology readings.
The current theory presented by Robert Trivers explaining conscience, is that it is nature’s way of keeping reciprocal altruism the rule in human interactions, bringing benefits to all reciprocal altruists. And conscience is one of the many mental organ grounding reciprocal altruism.
Anyway, the bottom line is: I totally acknowledge that the Human’s “sense of morality” is innate in humans, and is part of human nature. A carefully plotted scheme by natural selection to give us humans the bless of being able to reciprocate and maximize our welfare by this exchange, with out being burned or exploited.

Well surely we wouldn’t restrict our sense of morality to few points. It’s not just the ability to adapt the golden rule or any other rule. Our moral system built into our brains is much more complex than this. It includes multi-axial emotions to mention some; gratitude, sympathy, honor, shame, guilt, trust, mistrust…etc all these emotions are regulators of our moral behavior and are what actually adds morality to our behavior in the first place.

sweep

In other words it boils down to whether we value other human beings more than we value our own wants and needs. the terms good and bad can be exchanged with the term value, if you want.
In an extreme situation where we are surviving for the sake of surviving how many of us will kill our peers so that we can eat? If you compromise that regard for others, what does life really mean for you?

given the opportunity for self-gain, such as sexual pleasure and theft, one might rationalise and act with seeming impunity. This immediately complicates life, and guile becomes the order of the day. Theres always the chance that someone is after YOU. People take the risk of murder, rape and theft and get away with it. But it will, of course, become a very high risk venture. As a hobby, you would be justifiably paranoid, when taking such risks. Your ability to become an honest person would be thwarted by the minds-defences, based on a need to fool oneself in order to fool others.

A normal life might be very mundane, especially when there is no social conscience to regulate life. the relative cost and benefit of ventures involving exploitation and abuse, are usually unbalanced. I would welcome examples where the benefits of killing for pleasure exceeds cost. Does the serial killer whistle while he works? How much pleasure is there? Is pleasure valuable? Take Frank West for example: he and his wife spent years and years of their lives bringing girls into their gloucester home and using them for sexual pleasure. Afterwards they had to be taken apart and buried. When interviewed police were amazed at the way frank west would skip from talking about something as banal as shopping, then proceed to describe his exploits with a bone saw as though this were equally as mundane. He even took apart his own daughter. I recall one of Fred Wests statements went something to the tune of:

'bones makes a terrific cracking sound when you pull them out of the sockets.

and of his daughter when he killed her:

'that'll wipe the smile from her face

yes. That is part of what soulofdarwin was trying to convey. Some people don't have a social conscience. They don't feel guilt or shame, because they don't care what others think. Is there honour among theives? Do serial killers work together? I've heard that pedophiles work together, but how deep are their relationships? What do they speak of? How normal can one be to the conventional world, while having to hide part of the self away?

To me, what it comes down to with any crime against the person, there is very little gain in pressing your own buttons. eating kids for a buzz; killing for a quick fix. It isn't the best feeling there is- But thats only a value judgement, isn't it? Well, not all feelings involve frustration. A need to fulfill, a drive to follow, a goal to meet. I certainly can't think of any possession more important than my community of humans. I've been without, and when that value is compromised, there comes an emptiness which goes beyond the scope of this discussion. Its a frustration like no other.

MyKell

Psychic man, try memetics for a change... Jannanet allah with your evolutionary psychology, hope all is well

MyKell

Also regarding ultriusm and the evolution of cooperation, The game theory and prisoners dilemma would be good food for thought... John Von Neumann and John Nash (ouff, two Johns!) are probably good sources to look for that. It's just interesting stuff related to the rise of cooperation among agents (be that humans in a society or enterprises in the stock market). Ou catch you later
P.S. I have no idea if what I said is related in any way to what you guys are discussing. I was just stopping by saying hi to Psychic Thermodynamic

soulofdarwin

Well, I have always thought the opposite, and I will tell you why, although I do believe that we get to the same place, albeit by different routes. What, for example, might motivate someone to die protecting a loved one, or even a close friend? We cannot conclude that the motivation is intrinsically altruistic, as, while death might seem likely, it is nevertheless not certain in that case. We could consider the more interesting “Tale of Two Cities� case, wherein one is called upon to substitute himself or herself for a loved one condemned to die. There, where death is a certainty, we might be tempted to view that substitution as unquestionable evidence of altruistic motivation. But, I think not. Even in that most extreme of cases, we can admit the human mind capable of “rationalizing� greater personal benefit in death than in a life lived without the loved one. There, too, is the possibility of bittersweet satisfaction in carrying on in the loving memory of the survivor. While I am unaware of such a case having actually occurred, if such has occurred, I have to conclude that the foregoing was the transactional essence of it. I would not regard that occurrence as evidence for altruism as a source of human motivation or, for that matter, as a motivational driver in any species on this planet. My premise is that what propels every species, including humans, is selfishness, not selflessness. That is to say that we are hunter-gatherers for the fulfillment of our own needs. Hence, the transactional essence of the entire gamut of human relationships, from the most casual of friendships to the pinnacle of intimacy, is a continually re-negotiated contract of the form: “I’ll give you what you want, if you give me what I want.�

As you have observed, value has everything to do with that ongoing negotiation, as our willingness to give is continually mediated by the value that we place on what we receive. Still, where needs come into conflict, the only matter at issue is whose needs will prevail.

While I do not at present have the scientific support for this premise, I am, nevertheless, confident that it does exist, and I will look for it, if you insist.