|
|
|
|
An interesting idea.
A random quote:
".....Recent discoveries suggest that all humans, young and old, male and female, conservative and liberal, living in Sydney, San Francisco and Seoul, growing up as atheists, Buddhists, Catholics and Jews, with high school, university or professional degrees, are endowed with a gift from nature, a biological code for living a moral life.
This code, a universal moral grammar, provides us with an unconscious suite of principles for judging what is morally right and wrong. It is an impartial, rational and unemotional capacity. It doesn't dictate who we should help or who we are licensed to harm. Rather, it provides an abstract set of rules for how to intuitively understand when helping another is obligatory and when harming another is forbidden. And it does so dispassionately and impartially......"
The rest can be found here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/hauser09/hauser09_index.html
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13750
|
|
|
What if morality is based on "Since I would not like this to happen to me, I will not inflict it on others" instead of the pseudo-scholarlay stuff everyone puts forward form the religionut to the atheist moralist?
So it is based on survival strategies, not really biology.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
What if morality is based on "Since I would not like this to happen to me, I will not inflict it on others" instead of the pseudo-scholarlay stuff everyone puts forward form the religionut to the atheist moralist?
Your formulation was already proposed 2000 years ago by a great Jewish sage, Hillel (an older contemporary of Jesus). When asked by a non-Jew to explain the essence of Judaism he replied: "What is hateful to you do not do to someone else. That is the whole of God's law; the rest [of the Bible] is just explanation."
There is, of course, a world of difference between this formulation (which you espoused) and that found in the New Testament which would require me to do to others what I would like them to do to me. (If I would like electric shocks to rid me of my homosexuality, if I were gay, then that is what I must do to all gays.)
And, yes: the greatest aim of religion should be to teach us how to live with each other peaceably. What a failure!
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The man wrote:
"For example, we know from studies of child development that within the first year of life, babies prefer to look at faces from their own race to faces of a different race, prefer to listen to speakers of their native language over foreigners, and even within their native language prefer to listen to their own dialect."
I don't think this is true. How could it be when a new born baby first sees a face it could easily be a nurse with skin colour different from the mother's?
And how would a child know what its native language is? It learns whatever language the people bringing it up talk to it.
I am not encouraged by (what I see as) the sloppiness of his thought, to take the rest of what he says seriously.
And I have never been able to understand how religion could be a basis for morality. Doing what god says is as immoral as doing what my commanding officer says - and although commanding officers are mostly moral they sometimes command grossly immoral acts. As acting on a command is amoral I don't see religion's claim.
I wonder whether being nice to people is biological (except in the sense that all life is biological). I think being nice to people is learned behaviour.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, JFR, it is most important to express the golden rule negatively "Don't do to others what you wouldn't like done to you."
But don't you think that it would be immoral to pass by on the other side when someone needs help that you can give?
The golden rule is not enough and it is plain that most of the bible is far from expansion of the golden rule. A lot of it is just bloodthirsty and foments hate.
Good to see you back here, by the way.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
acam wrote:
The golden rule is not enough and it is plain that most of the bible is far from expansion of the golden rule. A lot of it is just bloodthirsty and foments hate.
Yes, I can see how one would think that if one were to understand the bible literally. Jews don't.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW thank you very much, EJ, for directing my attention to Edge. It certainly looks as if I'm going to enjoy exploring there.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
It seemed obvious to me that the article claimed that morality is biological only within the in group, and a society develops and promulgates a morality as applied to foreigners.
I think that the in group morality serves as a pattern for favorable moral conduct towards strangers. So some foreigners will be treated like family.
But if a foreign group is in competition, survival of the fittest almost demands that the competing group be treated as deserving no moral compassion.
Religious morality attempts to add some civil consideration to these latter cases, with mixed success.
Macky
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Interesting quote. It almost speaks in favour of an objectivist view of the world.
Perhaps altruism isn't the good thing that Christianity has taught us to believe it is. Perhaps just non-interference as a moral principle is better.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Well the language side of things is definitely true.
Babies are tuned to their mother tongue (literally) in the womb. Attention focus studies have shown that babies DO prefer their mother's language and the language they are around most.
So I don't discount the race idea. I do think that the race study may have interesting conclusions if it were about a white baby growing up in say, Japan with a mother that had mostly Japanese friends and associates with little contact from white people outside of the mother. Still the mother's face will be dominant. Provided she is the primary caregiver.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Doesn't surprise me.
I think certain moral instincts have been evolutionarily conditioned. The successful humans are the ones with a certain ethical code. Other humans that stray outside the norms die out.
What is biological, though? It's not like children have stopped developing. Experiences and chemicals in childhood impact growth just like chemicals prenatally impact growth.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think for your selves! Thank God we are not robots
Ya know we are on a journey of discovery we should all keep an open mind.
I say there are still things to know for which there is yet not even a language to describe. We are so arrogant!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-371805697706424951#
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arich wrote:
We are so arrogant!
Speak for yourself! I am a rude, conceited, self-opinionated braggart and know-all. But I am not arrogant!
J F R :-*
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13750
|
|
|
There is a story about a young man in the British Army, in Afghanistan, that I would like to bring to your attention.
Ben Rakestrow isn't special, but there has been some press coverage in the past few days. http://tinyurl.com/ybjwmk9 looks at the story that surrounds him and looks at US morality vs British and European morality.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha It's the small things that count ehh JFR... I wonder if anyone will watch the vid?
[Updated on: Mon, 14 December 2009 18:42]
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What part does empathy play in this? The ability to put ourselves into the other person's shoes and feel their pain must be at the core of moral behavior and treatment of others.
And where does empathy come from? Is it learned or is it hardwired? Why do some people seem to have an excess while others appear to have none at all?
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
arich, that wasn't a clip: it will go on for 48 minutes! I can't spare the time!
And I'm not impressed by people saying there are things we don't know therefore god is a sensible way of explaining them. That argument just transfers our ignorance to the nature of god - which obviously there is no way of exploring - and has no explanatory power at all.
And, as you point out we have to think for ourselves and you surely realise that any conclusion we come to for ourselves is arrogant. Your implication that we shouldn't be arrogant conflicts with the injunction to think for ourselves.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should watch it because your characterization of what this video (I did not say it was a clip BTW) is about is inaccurate to the extreme.
I will not minimize each of our own self worth but to do so above the furtherance of human knowledge is well, on par with the religious fundamentalism, but that does seem to be what atheism is all about!
Exploration begins with thought theories, if it did not we would remain intellectually immobile.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 December 2009 16:08]
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, arich. I assumed that as I said I didn't watch it no-one would think I was writing about it.
I don't think atheism is on a par with religious belief of any kind. Non-believe and faith are not symmetrical opposites.
I agree exploration begins with theories. We gain knowledge by trying to disprove theories and accepting (usually tentatively) those theories that we can't find anything wrong with.
But this isn't arrogance. I don't think it is arrogant to say "I don't believe that." Do you really think it is arrogant of me to refuse to believe in a god?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL your disbelief in God has nothing to do with me, further I’m not here to change your mind. Why you respond to my post when you had no idea what it was about, could it self could make things problematic and if my discernment is correct rather presumptuous… You really don’t know me that well.
One thing I do know is there is no way you can tell me that there is definitive proof that God does not exist. Theories by scientist, by there own admission, who don’t and don’t want to believe in God say that the “cosmological constant,” a fact, and other theories suggest there has to be a creative force at work.
So look if you’re not going to watch the vid why are you even posting a response?
 ??
[Updated on: Wed, 16 December 2009 16:14]
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13750
|
|
|
This is the type of TV show I usually turn off. a 48 minute show designed to sell 20 minutes of adverts, and one that skims the surface of so many pieces of philosophy and pseudo-philosophy.
There is so little of so much in it that some of it might even be almost right, possibly.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL wouldn’t that be a 48 min show with 12 min of advert, that expresses real science and some theory. I’d hardly call what those scientist “pseudo-philosophy.”
LOL give me a brake guys you did watch it either did you Timmy?
 )
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm,no comment on the above except to say that I did download the vid and watched it in chunks. Now, in direct correlation with both the vid and this thread comes to article for you to ponder:
Bacteria used to power simple machines
(Argonne, Illinois) Dec. 16 | U.S. Department of Energy scientists say they've used common bacteria to power simple machines, providing insight for creating bio-inspired energy production.
The researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory and Northwestern University said they discovered bacteria can turn microgears when suspended in a solution.
"The gears are a million times more massive than the bacteria," said physicist Igor Aronson, who led the study. "The ability to harness and control the power of bacterial motions is an important requirement for further development of hybrid biomechanical systems driven by microorganisms."
The scientists discovered the aerobic bacteria, Bacillus subtilis, appear to swim around the solution randomly, but occasionally the organisms will collide with the spokes of the gear and begin turning it in a definite direction. The researchers then added a few hundred bacteria which worked together to turn the gear.
When multiple gears are placed in the solution with the spokes connected, the bacteria will begin turning both gears in opposite directions and it will cause the gears to rotate in synchrony for a long time, the scientists said.
"Our discovery demonstrates how microscopic swimming agents, such as bacteria or man-made nanorobots, in combination with hard materials can constitute a 'smart material' which can dynamically alter its microstructures, repair damage or power microdevices," Aronson said.
The research is reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Okay, so maybe morality and a few other things ARE biological eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13750
|
|
|
I watched it. I just can't do arithmetic 
I don't promise to have watched every single minute, though. But I watched most of it.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL all the responses sound like cosmic debris to me! )
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
I love nanotech. It's really fascinating and all so new. Even the physics change at the nano level and we have applications of quantum entanglement in things likie data processing. As for concrete maths...they're just so much bullshit in the quantum world where probability rules. Turns me on man.
About the little guy with the gasoline. I remember the Vietnamese Buddhist monk who immolated himself in protest of the war. That was a powerful image. So much so, that I really have not figured out where he was coming from. And I think of it still from time to time, forty odd years after the event. Not that I'm going to think along those lines much.
Macky
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the difference between 'cosmic' debris and ordinary debris? Isn't all debris 'cosmic'?
And I'm sorry you're miffed that I didn't watch the video but I have spent more than enough time on the opinions of Martin Rees already.
And I'm quite mildly spoken about it but the suggestion there is a supernatural needs to be contested because when people believe in supernatural things they do so much harm.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL "And I'm sorry you're miffed that I didn't watch the video" Surely you do have me confused with someone else! I didn’t post this vid just for you. Dude you need to get a grip!
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are right, Paul, about morality, at least partly, depending on the ability to feel empathy, but I think empathy is far from simple. It's not just the ability to imagine ('feel'?) the pain of others but also what it feels like when others are nice to you.
And I guess it can be unlearned too. How else could 'honour killings' arise and be accepted in certain communities? In England a kurdish man has been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his daughter whose boyfriend was a kurd adherent of the wrong sort of islam.
I wonder whether, if your parents were not loving enough, you could grow up unable to appreciate love or to respond to it. I think I have encountered people like that.
When I was a teenager and was told to grow up and be a man I certainly thought that I was being asked to be thicker skinned and less responsive to the feelings of others. Maybe I was too much of a softie at the time but I think the world has got softer since then and that is a good thing.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony said: "...and I guess it can be unlearned too. How else could 'honour killings' arise and be accepted in certain communities? In England a Kurdish man has been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his daughter whose boyfriend was a Kurd adherent of the wrong sort of Islam."
As deplorable as the practise is to those of us in the Western cultures and while not rising in defence of its [Anthony's cited example] onerous nature either, I need to point out this fact. Sometimes its nearly impossible to bridge thousands of years or hundreds of years of societal conditioning, indoctrination, and environments.
The United States has also had its isolated incidents of honour killings/murders depending on which word you'd prefer. Then there is this too I'll cite for consideration. In Latino cultures and countries, it is not abnormal nor unusual for men to have sexual relations with females as young as fourteen years of age. In many cases, they are also pursuing a potential mate. These males tend to be 5 to 10 years older in most cases. Here in the U. S. on multiple occasions, there have been arrests made whereby the "victim" was 14 or 15 in many cases 16, and the "perpetrator" was 20 something and yes, both were Latino and immigrants. (Both Legal & Not.)
The arrests were generally made because of reference to the offence by a third party and in all cases no "rape" or "sexual assault" was involved.
So, let me take this a step further... In the middle east while homosexuality is looked on with disgust, distaste, and has religious types sharpening their swords to behead the unfortunate souls who get caught, in private, shagging boys and younger males is winked at and has been going on for centuries.
Three examples of situations that what? Create empathy? Disgust? Make one concerned over morality? Then there's this to consider. Where is written that the West had absolute sovereignty to pass judgments on the cultures and practises of other nations and societies?
Let me ask this.... What if British culture had stayed true to its roots? Lets say that the Judea-Christian ethos never took hold. Say that religious practises and cultural practises were based on the ancient Druids that inhabited England. Then, let us further take that hypothesis forward to the colonies of the Empire in particular the United States. What a different world that might have been eh? Personally, I offer my opinion it would have been alot less bloodier....
My point is this: While I don't like nor remotely condone ritualised murder of innocents based on religious or other practises. I always need to be aware that the one size fits all mentality of the West is wrong, period.
There was a Professor of Philosophy and Sociology at University where I matriculated that postulated this theorem: "You are who you are because of where you were when."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not happy with moral relativism, Brody. I want to be able to say something is wrong whatever the society providing the environment.
I admit of course that moral judgements depend on who is the judge. If I had been brought up as a thuggee I would no doubt think some sorts of killing were perfectly OK. You are right that in England we 'could' all still be druids but I believe they held human sacrifices and doubt it we would have benn less bloody.
That wouldn't make killing people OK. Do you think *anything* would make killing OK?
I don't deny that some of what I think is moral would never be agreed to in some societies or some of what I say is immoral thought harmless in other societies. That doesn't make morality relative.
And this attitude of mine is not a 'one size fits all mentality'. I don't see how there can be any morality if an act is moral in one society and immoral in another.
Surely your point of view would mean that we could no longer argue about whether something is moral or not. The circumstances could change and undermine any point of view.
And I am frequently brought up short in what appeared to me to be a moral argument when my opponent (everyone I talk seriously to about morality is and opponent!) cites the *law* in support of the view about what is moral or not. I think a great many people in the USA make what's legal their guide as to what's moral. If it is OK to have sex in Spain at 13 it cannot be wrong in the USA. And vice versa.
I think conflating law and morality is profoundly wrong. A great many laws are immoral. Law and morality are quite separate and independent structures with no necessary connexion.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13750
|
|
|
If you are saying what I think you are saying, that we have no right to seek to influence another sovereign nation to espouse Human Rights, then I reject it completely.
I think you are saying it to be provocative.
What I want to know is not about why these rogue nations reject Human Rights, but how to change that.
http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2009/12/hands-off-iran-and-saudi-arabia-over.html
I don't know how to do this. I don't imagine any of you know how to do this either. But doing this is a must.
[Updated on: Fri, 18 December 2009 20:35]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...and Lord Trent, Earl of Polite Argument, Baron of No Bullshit said: "I think you are saying it to be provocative." Absolutely Tim. I am!
Anthony, think for a moment. What exactly is moral and what specifically makes that apply here to this group of Gay Men?
Then you said: "And I am frequently brought up short in what appeared to me to be a moral argument when my opponent (everyone I talk seriously to about morality is and opponent!) cites the *law* in support of the view about what is moral or not. I think a great many people in the USA make what's legal their guide as to what's moral. If it is OK to have sex in Spain at 13 it cannot be wrong in the USA. And vice versa."
Anthony, I'm not a freakin lawyer nor do I give a royal flying fuck about what the "law" says about morality as it more often than not its influenced by secular doctrine.
I am more concerned about the harm that is done by persons who impose THEIR so-called morality on others. As far as God? That is NOT part of the equation in my view, nor is any kind of religious empathy. I feel that it is a matter of humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There you go again, Brody - you wrote "Their morality"!
If I am right there is no 'my morality' and 'your morality'.
I want to be able to criticise you for being cruel and to deprive you of the rejoinder that it is part of your religion and therefore OK.
The law says nothing about morality (whether you give a flying fuck or not!).
I want people to behave morally. That includes not punishing people for homosexual acts, not imprisoning immigrant children, not paying fellow directors obscene amounts of money, not lying to children (whether about god or santa claus), not treating women or children as chattels, not killing people, and not pretending that if it is immoral for me it can be moral for you. (Afterthought - it should be not lying to anyone!)
And by moral I mean 'not wrong'.
These gay men have, most of them, lived less satisfactory lives than they could have done because they were frightened of the consequences of being open about their sexuality.
One's sexuality ought not to have such bad consequences. The law punishing homosexual acts was immoral. It was wrong.
How can you deal with Pat Robertson if he says "Oh no, it was a good law and it would be good to re-introduce it." ?
My answer is to say he is being immoral. It is wrong. And it is wrong not just for me, in England in 2009, but wrong for all people and all time and all places.
You let him off the hook if you accept he can have his own 'morality'.
And arguments about morality are about what right and wrong are - not about 'my morality' and yours.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13750
|
|
|
Or shall we argue instead?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
In keeping with the theme of this thread.... Here's this! 
I reject this. It is time to campaign. 
Are we campaigning yet? 