[TrashMan]

Maybe I should have used the term "ethics", but it doesn't really matter.

Ethics and morals, understanding them and feeling guilt/remorese is what makes a person good and far less likely to do any harm.
Believing that the ends justify the mean...any means - is what makes a person dangerous.

I fall in the same camp of thinking as Herra, in that I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.

[MP-Ryan]

Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.

I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.

There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.

So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.

EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.

And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.

So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.

Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things.  Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well.  If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links.  Think of it this way:  If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few.  Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options.  It's a top-down organization model.

Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context.  Any social species has moral rules.  That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser.  The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.

Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something.  There is a very good reason behind morality... survival.  Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.

Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things.  While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic.  One cannot occur without the other.

[Charismatic]

Sylvius the Mad. I kinda like this guy. I agree with some of what he says, not all but, yeah.

[General Battuta]

Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.

I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.

There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.

So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.

EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.

And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.

So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.

Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things.  Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well.  If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links.  Think of it this way:  If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few.  Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options.  It's a top-down organization model.

Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context.  Any social species has moral rules.  That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser.  The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.

Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something.  There is a very good reason behind morality... survival.  Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.

Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things.  While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic.  One cannot occur without the other.

Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

[Janos]

Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules?

[General Battuta]

Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules?

MP-Ryan's argument is that our behavior has evolved because it helps us keep alive. We work well together; behavior that keeps us working together propagates.

Much of our behavior is genetic.

Ergo, some of the behaviors involved in our morality may have a biological component -- for example, physical disgust at the sight of violence.

[Janos]

Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules?

MP-Ryan's argument is that our behavior has evolved because it helps us keep alive. We work well together; behavior that keeps us working together propagates.

Much of our behavior is genetic.

Ergo, some of the behaviors involved in our morality may have a biological component -- for example, physical disgust at the sight of violence.

Well yes? Would that somehow invalidate the concept of ethics being at least partially limited and controlled by genetics, or am I misunderstanding you?

[TrashMan]

Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.

The question is - what would you do with people like that?

[castor]

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

Yes, because of fear. The basic constituent of any social norm

[General Battuta]

Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

What have our merely human notions of "good" and "bad" have to do whether our behaviour follows genetically set rules?

MP-Ryan's argument is that our behavior has evolved because it helps us keep alive. We work well together; behavior that keeps us working together propagates.

Much of our behavior is genetic.

Ergo, some of the behaviors involved in our morality may have a biological component -- for example, physical disgust at the sight of violence.

Well yes? Would that somehow invalidate the concept of ethics being at least partially limited and controlled by genetics, or am I misunderstanding you?

I think we're probably agreeing here.

[Ghostavo]

Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.

The question is - what would you do with people like that?

Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.

[Flaser]

Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.

I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.

There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.

So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.

EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.

And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.

So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.

Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things.  Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well.  If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links.  Think of it this way:  If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few.  Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options.  It's a top-down organization model.

Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context.  Any social species has moral rules.  That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser.  The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.

Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something.  There is a very good reason behind morality... survival.  Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.

Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things.  While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic.  One cannot occur without the other.

Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

You completely missed the point! Survival is "valid" because if a trait endangers or doesn't support survival, evolution is going to cull it!

It's simple really. Once upon a time when organisms were born, there were two kinds:
-Those that strived to reproduce and survive
-Thos who didn't give a damn!

Guess what? The later all died out, and all we're left with are life forms that try to survive and reproduce.

You know what, every once in a while we get things that are not so adapt at surviving. But these have nothing to do with the "old", "don't give a damn" species....the later died out. These are descendant of the damn givers who have gone astray, or better put yet, didn't keep up with the demands of life.

Guess what? These will die out to!

[TrashMan]

Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.

The question is - what would you do with people like that?

Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.

In essence yes, but their lack of respect for social norms and their twisted way of thinking can make them extreemly dangerous if given power. Look at Hitler, Stalin or other dictators. IMHO, persons that think like that are far more likely to cause harm.
But I guess you can't do anything until it's already too late.

[Ghostavo]

Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.

The question is - what would you do with people like that?

Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.

In essence yes, but their lack of respect for social norms and their twisted way of thinking can make them extreemly dangerous if given power. Look at Hitler, Stalin or other dictators. IMHO, persons that think like that are far more likely to cause harm.
But I guess you can't do anything until it's already too late.

Like I said, those dictators may not have thought like that at all. And it's not at all obvious that such thought patterns make people kill each other. In fact quite the oposite, since they apply much more closely to game theory, the lack of gain and risks of killing someone in a social context may discourage it.

Also, like you said, if you want to follow on your earlier post

I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.

you have no choice but not doing anything. Any sort of actions against people just because of their thought patterns could be considered some sort of sacrifice for some sort of goal.

[TrashMan]

Does it matter? It's somewhat of a moot point, since such theories can't be proven.

The question is - what would you do with people like that?

Let them be? They're not harming anyone, there isn't anything to be done.

In essence yes, but their lack of respect for social norms and their twisted way of thinking can make them extreemly dangerous if given power. Look at Hitler, Stalin or other dictators. IMHO, persons that think like that are far more likely to cause harm.
But I guess you can't do anything until it's already too late.

Like I said, those dictators may not have thought like that at all. And it's not at all obvious that such thought patterns make people kill each other. In fact quite the oposite, since they apply much more closely to game theory, the lack of gain and risks of killing someone in a social context may discourage it.

Really? Someone who thinks "everything is allowed" for the "greater good", and that you're good no matter what you do as long as your motivations are "good", someone who thinks that guilt and remorse are stupid even if you did the wrong thing - you're actually claiming that someone like that is more likely not to do something crazy than your average Joe??

Also, like you said, if you want to follow on your earlier post

I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.

you have no choice but not doing anything. Any sort of actions against people just because of their thought patterns could be considered some sort of sacrifice for some sort of goal.

[/quote]

No, you're wrong. Not ANY sort of action. That would depend.
What, you think I'd want to kill them? Sending them to counceling, keeping tabs on them - maybe.

While I believe I don't have the right to sacrifice/hurt others, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it if specific circumstances were met. If I really, really couldn't find another way. no matter how hard I try, and if the stakes are high enough...I guess I would do that. Altough I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself after that.
Whereas the hypotherical guy in question wouldn't flinch. If that is not a crucial difference, I don't know what it.

[Ghostavo]

Really? Someone who thinks "everything is allowed" for the "greater good", and that you're good no matter what you do as long as your motivations are "good", someone who thinks that guilt and remorse are stupid even if you did the wrong thing - you're actually claiming that someone like that is more likely not to do something crazy than your average Joe??

Perhaps not in that extreme case, but ordinarily, yes.

No, you're wrong. Not ANY sort of action. That would depend.
What, you think I'd want to kill them? Sending them to counceling, keeping tabs on them - maybe.

You are sacrificing something that belongs to them, either their privacy or their free time (and free will and patience). Hence you are sacrificing something for "the greater good".

So you are suggesting contradicting yourself. You may proceed to bury yourself more at that point, but as soon as you make the argument that the end doesn't justify the means, you are better off letting them be.

While I believe I don't have the right to sacrifice/hurt others, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it if specific circumstances were met. If I really, really couldn't find another way. no matter how hard I try, and if the stakes are high enough...I guess I would do that. Altough I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself after that.
Whereas the hypotherical guy in question wouldn't flinch. If that is not a crucial difference, I don't know what it.

You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.

[Herra Tohtori]

While I believe I don't have the right to sacrifice/hurt others, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it if specific circumstances were met. If I really, really couldn't find another way. no matter how hard I try, and if the stakes are high enough...I guess I would do that. Altough I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself after that.
Whereas the hypotherical guy in question wouldn't flinch. If that is not a crucial difference, I don't know what it.

You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.

It's not that simple. I think TrashMan is trying to say (correct if I'm wrong) that since he has never been in that kind of situation where that kind of decision would be required, he can't know what he would actually choose in that kind of situation regardless of what his present ethics say would be the right thing, which is actually a very valid point - it's easy to stay on an ethical high horse before having to make a decision like that. In reality, people put in those situations tend to either freeze or make fast decisions that result in some kind of action and reaction, but in general the survival rate of the deciders is better than that of freezers, whether or not the results of those decisions end up being positive or negative.

As the golden rule of infantry says: If you do not know what to do, attack. If you don't know how to attack, flank them. If you don't know from which direction, flank to the left. Anything tends to be better than nothing...

Not to mention situations where loss of life is unavoidable but there's a choise between lesser and greater havoc, and fast decisions are required to limit consequences:

Also, like you said, if you want to follow on your earlier post

I don't think I have the right to sacrifice other people for some goal, regardless how good that goal may be.

you have no choice but not doing anything. Any sort of actions against people just because of their thought patterns could be considered some sort of sacrifice for some sort of goal.

Actually, the better formulation of this principle is never to use people as means to an end only. Or in other (and more) words, Categorical imperative. It's pretty interesting reading...

According to categorical imperative, people have so called "perfect duty" not to act so that one could not accept as universally acceptable behaviour. Similarly, we have "imperfect duty" to only act so that it could be universally acceptable.

Obviously, in some hypothetical as well as real life occasions, people sometimes need to make decisions that invariably lead to someone getting hurt or killed. Inaction could result in the death of all involved, while action of any kind might save some people yet doom others. The most common and usually fastest decision is driven by self-preservance and can be ethically defended by the perfect duty - if no one cared about themselves and let themselves die, it leads to logical contradiction and would eventually end in the death of our species, which is undesireable. On the other hand, it contradicts the imperfect duty, because when you start sacrificing people to ensure your own survival, that would eventually at extreme case lead to just you being alive, which is just as undesireable as everyone dying. In cases like this, it is in fact utilitarian ethics that actually work better than Kantian ethics, in the sense that they allow one to make some kind of decision. Inaction, in most life-and-death situations, tends to make everything go south - the only worse thing is to panic (though again there are exceptions where panicking is the exact right thing to do).

It's also important to remember that in Kantianism, the underlying maxims in any action define the moral/ethical value of it, not just the nature of the action itself or the consequences of the action.

[TrashMan]

Perhaps not in that extreme case, but ordinarily, yes.

by what logic? I can't fanthom how you came to that conclusion....

You are sacrificing something that belongs to them, either their privacy or their free time (and free will and patience). Hence you are sacrificing something for "the greater good".

So you are suggesting contradicting yourself. You may proceed to bury yourself more at that point, but as soon as you make the argument that the end doesn't justify the means, you are better off letting them be.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. You're stretching the meaning of the word sacrifice.
By your logic we should abolish jails and all mental institutions - after all, we have no right to put anyone in there.

I'd never hurt anyone or kill - that's what I mean by sacrifice.
Privacy? Don't make me laugh.
If anything I'd have to sacrificing MY time to watch over those people.

You seem to be confused. Either you think the ends justify the means or you don't. Any sort of compromise involves some sort of slippery slope.

I'm not confused. I'm perfectly aware of everything I said and everything I believe.

Herra got what I was saying.

[General Battuta]

Whoa whoa whoa. As I had drilled into me throughout my various behavior genetics courses, the idea that morals are a product of evolution -- while reasonable -- is a hypothesis. EvoPsych is a very sketchy field at the moment, without much in the way of testable theory.

I agree that social evolution does occur. But we don't have the evidence to say that 'morals are genetic' or even that morality in its current state has evolved.

There are a number of subsidiary hypotheses which I would be much less hesitant to agree with. The existence of strong genetic components to social interaction, for instance, is clearcut -- but whether our current social structure is genetically determined is a whole different can of worms.

So don't go jumping too far ahead of science, MP-Ryan.

EDIT: Ooh, also. Even if morality has evolved -- which it probably has! -- that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. It's evolved because it's useful at keeping us alive. But in what way is staying alive good, and dying bad? Well, it's only that way because things that consider dying good don't last very long.

And then why can we say that lasting is good, and passing is bad? Only because we decided so.

So in the end it's pretty arbitrary anyway; at some point we just have to say 'living is good, dying is bad, and that's the way things are'.

Ignore the evolutionary psychology bull**** and look at the genetics side of things.  Most of our behaviour is pre-programmed - which has been shown in various model organisms quite well.  If you look at abnormal psychology, you find that the "serious" mental illnesses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc) have strong genetic links.  Think of it this way:  If you have an infinite number of choices theoretically, your genetics narrows that down from infinite to a very few.  Your learned personality then allows you to choose among those options.  It's a top-down organization model.

Everything in science is a hypothesis or theory; doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

Morality is nothing more than simple rules - a biological imperative - to survive in a social context.  Any social species has moral rules.  That is why there are some things that are taboo in pretty much every known human society, while other things are looser.  The basic rules we inherit from our biological nature - the specifics we fill in ourselves as a product of social interaction.

Arbitrariness implies there is no reason behind something.  There is a very good reason behind morality... survival.  Thus, if morality is biologically derived it is anything but arbitrary - rather, the ability to perceive and follow those rules ensures survival, which is the highest order rationale for any living thing.

Many people are inclined to think of biological evolution and behavioural evolution as two entirely different things.  While behavioural evolution is faster than biological, the two are symbiotic.  One cannot occur without the other.

Right right, all true (of course I know that hypothesis and theory doesn't mean 'false and unproven!'), but then you have to ask -- why is survival good?

And then you have to make an arbitrary statement, i.e. survival is good, dying/nonexistence is bad.

You completely missed the point! Survival is "valid" because if a trait endangers or doesn't support survival, evolution is going to cull it!

It's simple really. Once upon a time when organisms were born, there were two kinds:
-Those that strived to reproduce and survive
-Thos who didn't give a damn!

Guess what? The later all died out, and all we're left with are life forms that try to survive and reproduce.

You know what, every once in a while we get things that are not so adapt at surviving. But these have nothing to do with the "old", "don't give a damn" species....the later died out. These are descendant of the damn givers who have gone astray, or better put yet, didn't keep up with the demands of life.

Guess what? These will die out to!

Flaser, that's exactly what I'm saying. Those who 'give a damn' and thought surviving was good, well, survived.

But that doesn't make surviving 'good'. It's still an utterly arbitrary assignment of moral value.

Trashman -- I think dictators are probably more likely to be people with a strict idea of what morality is. Same with a lot of murderers. Now, granted, there are definitely psychopaths, but I'd call that a separate category.

[TrashMan]

He does have a clear idea of morality, and it's completely twisted.

Heck, he doesn't condem Hitler, Stalin and similar ilk (he sent me a lengthy PM) - he claims they are good if their motivations for all those killings were good (example - a better world), and that that's the only thing that matters - Ones motivation and how one feels about it.