2 Questions for ALL; What do believe to be more certain, the scientifically empirical truth of “survival of the fittest” or the human value of the concept of “equality”? Is empiricism in scientific truths less real or not true reality because of human consciousness or is human consciousness an illusion of what is real in the material reality?
I like the presentation a lot, very enlightening. But please, lose the background music for next time. It's creepy and annoying, and it takes away from your voice and stalls an immediate cohesive understanding of what you're saying >>> distracting.
I think Mr Alexander is wrong to suggest that when we use 'good' it does not have a functional meaning. Take for example utilitarian theory, which says that a good person is one who maximises happiness for the greatest number of people. So too would a bad person be one who does not act to maximise happiness. From there, we have a clear measure of what morality's function is - and that it is one directly tied to goodness.
@types10000 Are you suggesting that human violence is not a natural reaction of human nature and if you are what is your evidence? Seems that any actions humans are able to and do take has to be a result of nature. What makes the violent action bad but the condemnation of violence good without committing the naturalistic fallacy?
While the direction in which morality moves with time would be hard to predict, this is my take on region & morality: Religion just make morals less plastic (i.e. less changeable, and more dogmatic). Thus, through feedback, the society also becomes more rigid (i.e. resists changes).
This is just a recording of many controversial assertions regarding morality. When I say a person is a good person I do not mean they are good at some specific function like a good hammer is good at driving nails.
Technically your example of a society killing a family once a week could actually have benefits under certain circumstances. If food supplies were low in a small tribe due to unforeseen circumstances then an organized and chance based killing process would not only reduce the number of people to feed, but would also offer a temporary food source for the rest. Grim for sure, but better than everyone dying from starvation and as such an argument could be made for its place as a morally good act.
I submit that morality and emotions are co-evolutionary. Both are survival traits that evolved since the first creatures to develop social behavior. Each enabled the evolution of the other. The expression of morality is culturally dependent, but the underlying moral code is as common (and as diversified) and as genetically managed as emotions. When we experience or witness a moral violation, it always comes with an associated emotional reaction. This emotional reaction, in turn, serves to enforce the moral precept. The two go hand in hand to aid in one's survival. Taking this one step further, not everything that elicits an emotion is a moral. But that which invokes an emotion similar to the emotion a moral invokes can be mistaken for a moral precept. Blasphemy, for instance, is culturally dependent. But defending the sanctity of one's beliefs can seem like a moral thing to do, even when it has nothing to do with survival.
I do agree with you that being good is to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people,but someone could claim this not to be the cause,and we would only be more right than him in the sense that we outnumber him. There wouldn't be any absolute wrong in him claiming that good is for everybody to make as huge as possible a pile of bananas,although he would gain no support from other's in this claim. But really,I do agree in utilitarianism,just being sceptical of a too conclusve observation
Actually the majority of the technology invented for the purpose of war is never implicated for anything else at all. There is absolutely no Utility in war. The industrial revolution to which you are probably referring to took place for the same reason that the age of enlightenment and the Renaissance did. Free markets created a demand for new technology, it was entrepreneurs responding to the demand of the public, not war, that caused all of the technology jumps.
What is your empirical evidence that “modelling behaviours .etc” is a result of Darwinian Evolution? The empirical evidence, not the mere assertion... ?
This supposition is caused by a rather emotional and unscientific refusal to objectively value the traditional family as a good for society. I won't deny that morality hasn't developed and improved over time, but, I object, in that we can, and could, even in ancient times, determine what was 'right' by what was healthy for us, and, now, we can further study and see just how profoundly 'good' traditional moral behaviour is.
What if there's a cult that believes that that level of compassion is immoral? What makes our moral change in society digression or advancement? The fact is, we don't know. Don't be a fool and think there's one "right" moral path. There's such a thing as changing of morality, but not advancement of it. You're arrogant to think moral advancement must concur with your personal perception of morality.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The problem with relativism in morality is that there are some moral ideas that seem logically implausible. For example, it is implausible to suggest there could be a society in which killing one family member a week was 'good'. Certain lines get blurred in difficult moral matters (like the wearing of the Burka) but I believe there is a strong case to be made that the foundational human rights/wrongs are evident in all societies.
You claim; “incorrect again, evolution can quite easily explain both ie. groups for greater survivability and limited group size + competition between groups over resources.” Do you have anything more than mere conjecture or speculation for this assertion? Do you have any empirical data backing up this claim? I have empirical data that homosexuality is negative for the human reproductive process and natural selection as it is defined and understood, men can't impregnate men is fact!
All the information that I possess tells me that in order to Invoke the best in humanity one must first invoke the worst. I came to that conclusion after analysing the overall progress of technology and all other knowledge post any major conflict, such as WW2 tends. But I also think that no progress is worth that pain and suffering. A little of topic am i not? ;) Forgive me a little intoxicated here... Anyway utilitarianism all the way! It my not be right,but it's a wrong I can live with.
In my opinion you have to think multicausal, but the main moral values in every time are, were and will be set biologically and evolutionary for all creatures, like "don´t kill members of your own species". I don´t like the expression "evolving" by the way, because if something evolves it fits better, in this case however you can´t measure if moral values fit better, because you are not completly objective, like no one is, and in a way determined by your societies values.
Like I mentioned, Now with a clear head I can agree with you. I made a huge error when I gave that much credit to war, I was probably aiming more on suffering it self but it is Irrelevant now. As I said,I was a little intoxicated. Cheers mate.
Alright, alright. It looks to me like you're saying things have improved because less mass-murders are commited today than in the past? If you're talking about military mass-murders then you're very naive to think we've moved on from that and if you're talking about psychopathic mass-murders then...I think it would be pretty accurate to say there's *more* today than say, colonial times.
When you condemn random acts of violence or crimes against you, do you posit your condemnation via reasoning within logic, science or faith? If you do so in logic, you are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy. If you do so via science, you are falsely bridging the is-ought gap. But if you are reasoning in faith there is no fallacy or doctoral error, thus this is the only true justified methodology. And if your condemnation is from mere emotion, you are not reasoning at all.
Garbage. This theory doesn't hold up. Morality is not dependent on time and place and culture. Morality is something that without, you cannot act. The guy said often that "morality is dependent on society and at what time that society lived and it is a way of bringing about preferential behavior". He is talking about failed societies that agreed on rules that were not congruent with individual morality. Morality is not something we all agree on and then poof there all of our morality is... it's not a secondary effect of evolution. I would posite that it had to have come from somewhere else. We did not invent morality. You could say it evolved but even then, why did it evolve? I would posite further that it is inherently apart of conscious awareness which means whatever gave us awareness, gave us morality as well.
You're positing a lot of stuff for your interpretation to make sense. While the researcher doesn't have to posit a single thing, it's the conclusion of the data. You talk as if morality is this unchanging thing individuals have, when people's morals pretty much are contingent on the context and time said person was brought up.
2 Questions for ALL;
What do believe to be more certain, the scientifically empirical truth of “survival of the fittest” or the human value of the concept of “equality”?
Is empiricism in scientific truths less real or not true reality because of human consciousness or is human consciousness an illusion of what is real in the material reality?
I like the presentation a lot, very enlightening. But please, lose the background music for next time. It's creepy and annoying, and it takes away from your voice and stalls an immediate cohesive understanding of what you're saying >>> distracting.
I think Mr Alexander is wrong to suggest that when we use 'good' it does not have a functional meaning. Take for example utilitarian theory, which says that a good person is one who maximises happiness for the greatest number of people. So too would a bad person be one who does not act to maximise happiness. From there, we have a clear measure of what morality's function is - and that it is one directly tied to goodness.
@types10000 Are you suggesting that human violence is not a natural reaction of human nature and if you are what is your evidence? Seems that any actions humans are able to and do take has to be a result of nature. What makes the violent action bad but the condemnation of violence good without committing the naturalistic fallacy?
While the direction in which morality moves with time would be hard to predict, this is my take on region & morality: Religion just make morals less plastic (i.e. less changeable, and more dogmatic). Thus, through feedback, the society also becomes more rigid (i.e. resists changes).
sure deal, although I just kind of walked in on the conversation, I'm not paulmag91.
This is just a recording of many controversial assertions regarding morality. When I say a person is a good person I do not mean they are good at some specific function like a good hammer is good at driving nails.
Technically your example of a society killing a family once a week could actually have benefits under certain circumstances. If food supplies were low in a small tribe due to unforeseen circumstances then an organized and chance based killing process would not only reduce the number of people to feed, but would also offer a temporary food source for the rest. Grim for sure, but better than everyone dying from starvation and as such an argument could be made for its place as a morally good act.
I submit that morality and emotions are co-evolutionary. Both are survival traits that evolved since the first creatures to develop social behavior. Each enabled the evolution of the other. The expression of morality is culturally dependent, but the underlying moral code is as common (and as diversified) and as genetically managed as emotions.
When we experience or witness a moral violation, it always comes with an associated emotional reaction. This emotional reaction, in turn, serves to enforce the moral precept. The two go hand in hand to aid in one's survival.
Taking this one step further, not everything that elicits an emotion is a moral. But that which invokes an emotion similar to the emotion a moral invokes can be mistaken for a moral precept. Blasphemy, for instance, is culturally dependent. But defending the sanctity of one's beliefs can seem like a moral thing to do, even when it has nothing to do with survival.
I do agree with you that being good is to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people,but someone could claim this not to be the cause,and we would only be more right than him in the sense that we outnumber him. There wouldn't be any absolute wrong in him claiming that good is for everybody to make as huge as possible a pile of bananas,although he would gain no support from other's in this claim. But really,I do agree in utilitarianism,just being sceptical of a too conclusve observation
Actually the majority of the technology invented for the purpose of war is never implicated for anything else at all. There is absolutely no Utility in war.
The industrial revolution to which you are probably referring to took place for the same reason that the age of enlightenment and the Renaissance did. Free markets created a demand for new technology, it was entrepreneurs responding to the demand of the public, not war, that caused all of the technology jumps.
Good, good :)
What is your empirical evidence that “modelling behaviours .etc” is a result of Darwinian Evolution? The empirical evidence, not the mere assertion... ?
This supposition is caused by a rather emotional and unscientific refusal to objectively value the traditional family as a good for society. I won't deny that morality hasn't developed and improved over time, but, I object, in that we can, and could, even in ancient times, determine what was 'right' by what was healthy for us, and, now, we can further study and see just how profoundly 'good' traditional moral behaviour is.
What if there's a cult that believes that that level of compassion is immoral? What makes our moral change in society digression or advancement? The fact is, we don't know. Don't be a fool and think there's one "right" moral path. There's such a thing as changing of morality, but not advancement of it. You're arrogant to think moral advancement must concur with your personal perception of morality.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The problem with relativism in morality is that there are some moral ideas that seem logically implausible. For example, it is implausible to suggest there could be a society in which killing one family member a week was 'good'. Certain lines get blurred in difficult moral matters (like the wearing of the Burka) but I believe there is a strong case to be made that the foundational human rights/wrongs are evident in all societies.
You claim; “incorrect again, evolution can quite easily explain both ie. groups for greater survivability and limited group size + competition between groups over resources.”
Do you have anything more than mere conjecture or speculation for this assertion? Do you have any empirical data backing up this claim? I have empirical data that homosexuality is negative for the human reproductive process and natural selection as it is defined and understood, men can't impregnate men is fact!
All the information that I possess tells me that in order to Invoke the best in humanity one must first invoke the worst. I came to that conclusion after analysing the overall progress of technology and all other knowledge post any major conflict, such as WW2 tends. But I also think that no progress is worth that pain and suffering. A little of topic am i not? ;) Forgive me a little intoxicated here... Anyway utilitarianism all the way! It my not be right,but it's a wrong I can live with.
In my opinion you have to think multicausal, but the main moral values in every time are, were and will be set biologically and evolutionary for all creatures, like "don´t kill members of your own species". I don´t like the expression "evolving" by the way, because if something evolves it fits better, in this case however you can´t measure if moral values fit better, because you are not completly objective, like no one is, and in a way determined by your societies values.
That makes no sense.
Like I mentioned, Now with a clear head I can agree with you. I made a huge error when I gave that much credit to war, I was probably aiming more on suffering it self but it is Irrelevant now. As I said,I was a little intoxicated. Cheers mate.
Alright, alright. It looks to me like you're saying things have improved because less mass-murders are commited today than in the past? If you're talking about military mass-murders then you're very naive to think we've moved on from that and if you're talking about psychopathic mass-murders then...I think it would be pretty accurate to say there's *more* today than say, colonial times.
Dont forget the zombie people on bath salts
Okay then.
When you condemn random acts of violence or crimes against you, do you posit your condemnation via reasoning within logic, science or faith?
If you do so in logic, you are committing the Naturalistic Fallacy.
If you do so via science, you are falsely bridging the is-ought gap.
But if you are reasoning in faith there is no fallacy or doctoral error, thus this is the only true justified methodology.
And if your condemnation is from mere emotion, you are not reasoning at all.
Garbage. This theory doesn't hold up. Morality is not dependent on time and place and culture. Morality is something that without, you cannot act. The guy said often that "morality is dependent on society and at what time that society lived and it is a way of bringing about preferential behavior". He is talking about failed societies that agreed on rules that were not congruent with individual morality. Morality is not something we all agree on and then poof there all of our morality is... it's not a secondary effect of evolution. I would posite that it had to have come from somewhere else. We did not invent morality. You could say it evolved but even then, why did it evolve? I would posite further that it is inherently apart of conscious awareness which means whatever gave us awareness, gave us morality as well.
You're positing a lot of stuff for your interpretation to make sense. While the researcher doesn't have to posit a single thing, it's the conclusion of the data. You talk as if morality is this unchanging thing individuals have, when people's morals pretty much are contingent on the context and time said person was brought up.