likuidcoka

IM Moraly-Grey

__________________

someonecompletelyrandom

I don't drink.
I don't smoke.
I don't do drugs.
I don't curse (much).
I'm not nessicarily a violent person, I've lost my temper quite a bit but I always cool off.

Okay some of these were cheating since I'm underage anyway, but I really don't see the point of drinking or drugs.

garbanzo

of course not. those are complicated and rather abstract concepts. the best we can do is extrapolate from basic moral values, hoping to arrive at a scheme that will cover those outer branches of the tree.

but innate = biological, yes?

moreover, i don't feel that i 'know' i ought to give to the poor. in fact, i'm rather inclined not to. the only reason i can imagine to do so is that it might have a beneficial psychological impact on my ego, but my ego is quite healthy, and does not need any food right now...

Inuzuka Skysword

I disagree. First of all, evolution isn't really a person so it can't have blame. You could say that it is not the cause of condoms.

Secondly, as humans we strive for more than survival. We strive for our own personal happiness.

Guybrush

^I'm a little confused. I never wrote that we don't strive for more than survival. We do .. Skydiving is a good example of an activity that is probably not likely to increase your fitness.

edit :

By the way, you shouldn't confuse the motive "survival" as a thought that is always concious. You eat food because you're hungry, not because "I don't wanna die!".

__________________
Something Completely Different

Inuzuka Skysword

What I am saying is that the notion that we should live with evolution creating our morality in such a way that we live to produce is offspring is not a human idea. Humans are selfish. We choose to exist longer. We choose to pursue our own happiness, the goal of every man in the universe whether he will admit it or not. Humans aren't a slave to their species like animals. Condoms exist because we feel that reproducing is not always the best thing for us. This is because we don't put our species above ourselves, we put our own happiness above our species. It just so happens that it is our motivation for happiness is really what has allowed us to overpower this planet to the point where we may destroy it.

I just realized I may have possibly missed the point though, and if this is true just ignore everything I typed above.

sleepy jack

When you see a starving African child or a homeless man begging for food (not a panhandler, someone who is clearly down on their luck) do you not feel a little bit of sympathy? I have a hard time believing that all humans (at least sane and well adjusted ones) don't have some empathetic core in them that at least makes them react in a charitable, pitiable or even disgusting manner to those sorts of situations. I can understand feeling justified in knowing you have no obligation to help the downtrodden but that still points to you being aware of your superior position and it also points to you arguing against some original structure (that helping the poor is good), a structure created by a humanity before you. That aside, the fact you say the only reason you'd imagine giving to the poor is to have a beneficial impact on your ego shows you're aware it would be the "right" (or at the very least nice) thing to do, even if there's no beneficial effect that's tangible.

garbanzo

giving to the poor would only have a beneficial psychological impact because it would allay guilt. but the guilt comes from social pressure, not from inside me. i have learned that giving to the poor is the right thing to do. it's that whole 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' deal.

i don't presume to know how i would act in the absence of such social pressures, but i can't imagine why i would help another another in need if there were nothing in it for me. do herd animals protect the young, old, and sick when a predator comes, or do they run as fast as they can and never look back?

Guybrush

You've got some points and you are missing some. Most people don't really know the theory behind selfishness. Basically, every organism is driven by selfishness - you, me, the birds in the trees and the earthworms digging through your garden. The only exception are perhaps altruistic mutants and animals bred by humans to act altruistic, but those "altruistic genes" are selected against in nature because they get exploited by the selfish ones. Evolution will remove them. From this, you would think that we are all horribly selfish, but the redeeming factor and what makes us basically nice and work together with those we include in our mental idea of "us" and not "them" is because it ultimately raises our own fitness. Fitness is not the same as survivability, but it has a lot to do with it.

People don't care about their own species .. Neither do wolves or cats. Noone does. We care about ourselves, those we share genes with and those our fitnesses are dependent upon.

When talking about human nature, you should be careful to mention fun-facts from modern life. In our billions of years life history, condoms and fast-food joints haven't even been around for 0,1‰ of that time. Using modern life as an argument on the nature of people is an annoying habit by those who can't seem to grasp or at least remember that our natures are cavemen natures. Try to keep the caveman in mind. Things we are adapted to do (like having sex or hunting animals) can be expressed in new ways now that we did not actually evolve to. We are cavemen - driving cars and living in big cities, enjoying modern lives.

As for the pursuit of happiness, think about what the pursuit of happiness would mean if you were a caveman. It would mean food, shelter, probably a mate, a bit of sex now and again, a community to provide food/safety/etc. Basically, the pursuit of happiness would be the pursuit of things that help you survive or, more correctly, raise your fitness.

We don't have an innate care for "the world" or "our species". No animal has. If you understand selfishness, then you'll see that theoretically, such a care would make no sense at all.

__________________
Something Completely Different

garbanzo

i'm starting to think that 'selfish' is the wrong word to use here, toretorden.

to me, selfish behaviour is action that benefits the actor, and is carried out in spite of its consequences to other parties involved. there is an implicit acknowledgment in a selfish act that it might have adverse effects on others. i think that's what really defines a selfish act, not just an action that benefits only the actor.

but in the natural world, there is no such acknowledgment. a predator is not selfish when it kills to survive. a tree is not selfish when its branches prevent its offspring from receiving enough sunlight to survive. organisms do what they do, and while this often conflicts with what other organisms do, it is simply the way of the world.

if that makes any sense...