babelfish

And doing the things that you believe will earn you a place in paradise for eternity isn't self-serving?



[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

never been there

Screw morality.

I don't have morals. I have ethics.

Boinking someone you're not married to is contrary to someone's morals. Boinking someone other than my partner is against my ethics, because I've promised that I wouldn't.

babelfish

Biblehumper said:

I read somewhere that a primitive tribe once believed that the wind was caused by the trees moving their limbs about violently.

The trees were swaying, the wind was blowing, therefore the trees were causing the wind.

God was invented because we are moral creatures who needed to devise a good way to keep people in line.

Morality wasn't invented by God, any more than wind is caused by trees moving their branches.

kingjames1

Not so fast, babelfish.

Your answers don't really seem to work. Sacrificing myself for others does not seem to have sufficient survival value compared to 'running'. The 20 year old soldier who goes BACK into a raging battle to save his wounded friend - who will probably die anyway - is not, in your scenario, to be commended, but an idiot taking undue risks. It simply doesn't measure up if this is all about kudos. He does this knowing that there is a good chance he won't survive to receive any acolades at all - and with no family at home to receive them either! This scenario is not some hypothetical either, but the actual experience of many war veterans.

With getting caught, what about the one who truly does not, and doesn't worry about it? If I were able to ensure a literally perfect murder, and I had good motive of course, there is no reason (morally) why I should not. Suppose I am a loner, and one night find a person who has drifted to shore in a secluded Miami beach at 3 a.m., a Cuban woman who was forced off an overpacked boat. I take her unconscious body with me, rape and kill her and then dispose of her body in my Beach apartment. No body knows - no crime has been committed, no one is missing, no body, no concerned family members, etc. According to this logic, then, I have done nothing truly wrong. I just need to be an extremely clever immoral person.

Think about that: there is nothing wrong in murder or rape; just the fear being rejected by my peers if i do. There is nothing 'heineous' about it, really. Come on, we're just animals. Rape in fact could potentially increase survival value via the replication of 'the selfish gene.'


This doesn't strike you as repulsive? Do you really believe this?

What do you tell the socio-path who couldn't care less?Well, you're right, its not really wrong, what you're doing, but can't you just think like the rest of us - what would Foucault say?

What about the 9/11 terrorists? They got the best of both worlds! They couldn't get caught since they were going down in flames, and two, they knew they would posthumously be honored by their peers (...in fact they were going to Muslim heaven, with plenty of 'heavenly ho's').

And how dare America punish them and their terrorist organization for doing something that, according to this view, is perfectly alright. For that matter, nothing is really wrong.

The more fundamental question for you is this: even if a basic morality 'evolved' (a pre-programmed intra-personal code), why should that be binding on me? Why should I do that which I have been genetically programmed to do by an arbitrary, random-based process? Or better said, why OUGHT I to do anything? Simply because people will like me better? What if I find a peer group that likes to gangrape and murder with me (e.g. Nazi soldiers or the K.K.K.)? Surely I can still find acolades in my immorality...

It seems the psychopath lacks such 'ethical programming'...why should we punish him for that? He did nothing wrong in killing an entire family in their home! We just don't like it ourselves - so I guess the argument would be: this is a democracy, the majority rules - screw the discontented minority!

BTW, whose genetic code-program is authoritative? Mine or yours or the governments or the church's or the mosque's, etc.? Who has the authority to committ civil disobedience ala Martin Luther King, Jr. -- he wasn't seeking 'justice' - gimme a break, that's christian rhetoric - we know he just wanted to be 'accepted' by the dominant whites. But why should the white's care? They have plenty of peers to support their social institutions and prejuidices - heck, why not a "final solution", so at least we don't have to have our conscience's burdened with the annoying presence of 'others' who cry 'injustice!'


Secondly, babelfish your misconception about Christian ethics unfortunately is rather widespread. No doubt Xians have a large measure of blame in this.

I believe Paul himself summed up Christian ethics best in saying, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeard to all people. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himsefl for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."

I.e. christian ethics flows from God's grace, and our gratitude in response His love, not primarily the promise of future rewards (though that is a factor as well).

J.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

KnightWhoSaysNi

Just a question:

How do you define "good"?

kingjames1

What about the gorilla who kills his own offspring? Or the gangrape that has been seen to take place among dolphins?

Is this a genetic fluke? What happened with the gorilla deity?


You're right in saying that knowing that we are puppets dangling on the watchmakers string is not enought to obviate our own social instincts. But the fact is, I can try! And why not? It's not as though there is any judge or "last day" in which I will be held accountable for my actions!

Why do you say the socio-path is diseased? Perhaps he is truly evolved, a form of Nietzsche's 'uberman'? Who or what determines 'healthy' and 'diseased' behavior? The dominant pack? If that were the case, what would happen to the so-called 'hopeful monster'?

To claim that the socio-path is 'diseased' simply because his behavior violates our social instincts is no more convincing than the argument that the black peppered-moth is diseased because it is not as white as the others...


The seriel rapist or better, the polygamist or adulterer, or the rampant womanizer, or what about the weasel who secretly replaces the sperm bank supplies with his own - they have all increased the survival potential of their genetic goods...and that's the name of the game.

J.

kingjames1

That's like asking, "how do you define 'beautiful'?"

Read Genesis through Deuteronomy for an idea.


J.

Bible Humper

The evolutionary success or failure of social animals is dependant upon the group as a whole, not merely upon each member of the group on it's own. Do take note of how much effort towards achieving a "brotherhood" takes place in the military.

Are you only held back from indulging in your bloodlust by fear of the deity and the promise of paradise? Would you surrender to the joy of the knife if only you could get away with it?

Because your programming is a crucial part of what makes you "you". It is as futile to attempt to excise all manifestations of the herd instinct as it is to wake up and decide that picking your nose shall now satisfy you sexually.

Interestingly, there are countless examples of people doing, and believing, the most outrageous things because of the power of the herd instinct.
Research the phenomenon of Folie a Deux for many examples of this.

The experiment testing people coming onto the elevator by having everyone face the wall is well known, there are as many examples as you care to read about.

Bible Humper

Interestingly, these behaviors also appear in humans who have been "created in the divine image, such that they can't stray too far from general revelation".

He must have taken the day off with Yahweh, neither deity seems to have been able to get it right. If I didn't know better, I would chalk it up to the imperfections of the "blind watchmaker". Wait a sec, I do know better! Ha!

What is the situation that the gorillas kill their young? Does it have anything to do with the survival and/or advancement of the group?

Eh? I think you meant to say that "The realisation that we are puppets dangling on the watchmakers string is not enought to obviate our own social instincts". Right?

The watchmakers strings are our social instincts in this context.

Precisely! I am a nihilist, just so you know, I expect to be on "your side" sooner or later in one of these discussions.

Be aware that there are definite limits to what is possible by merely realising the inevitability of the annihilation of our consciousness and accepting the implications. I can no more force myself to become the sociopath you describe than I can decide that, from now on, picking my nose will give me sexual pleasure.

If I feel love for someone I do realise that I am dancing to the blind watchmaker's jig, but the puppeteer's strings are often integral to what is "me".


I call the sociopath "diseased" because he is an aberrant speciman. In this context, to the christian majority I myself am also "diseased".

That's right, I meant "diseased" differently. I am "diseased" as well.

What do I care for my genes? Should I devote my life to doing everything I can on bahalf of evolution? Why?

KnightWhoSaysNi

"the LORD our God gave him over to us; and we struck him down, along with his offspring and all his people. At that time we captured all his towns, and in each town we utterly destroyed men, women, and children. We left not a single survivor. Only the livestock we kept as spoil for ourselves, as well as the plunder of the towns that we had captured. -- Deut: 2:33-35

"If you hear it said about one of the towns that the LORD your God is giving you to live in, that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods," whom you have not known, then you shall inquire and make a thorough investigation. If the charge is established that such an abhorrent thing has been done among you, you shall put the inhabitants of that town to the sword, utterly destroying it and everything in it—even putting its livestock to the sword." -- Deut. 13:12-15

"If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity." -- Deut. 25:11-12

So this is your idea of "good"?

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>