These are major assumptions that make sense

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:21 pm

Logic wrote:
Can you give us a run down on the morality of jellyfish ? Seeming as they have survived for so long they must be incredibly moral
Get stung by a box jelly fish and you will not be worrying about how moral it is
It has zero concept of morality and is only doing what nature intended it to do
Ditto : great white sharks - polar bears - killer whales - tigers - etc etc etc etc

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by 11011 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:18 pm

it doesn't work like that. i hope you guys aren't being unrigorous deliberately :)

no trait is ubiquitously superior, that's not how it works

i am saying in the human species, humans would die without morality, other species are adapted to compensate for their lack of human morality, so traits have purpose in relation to the entire organism and the environment they are adapted to, trying to judge their merit across species is misunderstanding how traits evolve and acquire utility or benefit in an organism or species; no trait has inherent value

if a human infant is born, and at the moment of birth is left without care, if it does not receive care from another human it will eventually die. it cannot survive on its own, or by aid from anyone or anything else, though i suppose some technology can keep it alive but that's essentially human care

the human species cannot assume the mode of adaptation of jellyfish, insects, and turtles because they are not these. no matter how many offspring humans have, if they neglect them they will die, that is the outcome of evolution for humans, that is their species' adaptation

so humans need morality or they go extinct, to the extent morality includes human caring of offspring, i would say it does. bonding hormones, empathy, the 'cuteness' factor of babies, and other such human experiences lead to care for young, and also seem to underlie moral and prosocial behaviour in general, so there is that effect too

arguing against this though, what if humans find some other reason to take care of young? i mean, are moral emotions the only thing driving this behaviour? are they necessary? for sure, there are exceptions, like there are people who don't care about their kids from the day they are born they just have them because they cave into social pressure and/or want the perks of having a family, at least on paper, but what if all people were like this? would humans survive?

basically, the caring or not caring of the young would entirely depend on their utility to the living, similar to the motive behind our taking care of baby chicks on farms - we want to eat them. many species have survived solely because humans find them useful, species that would have otherwise gone extinct. could not this approach be used in relation to human offspring as well?

maybe, but what if we finely reach a level of robotics where robots become more useful and more efficient? this isn't sci-fi, if the above condition were the case, that all humans, or enough, a critical mass if you will, shifted to having children only based on utility and not moral emotions, and robotics reached a superior level in usefulness and efficiency, then that could pose a serious threat to our species, as the living would lack incentive to have children, preferring instead to invest in a personal robot, and....here's the kicker

i believe their 'avoid extinction' priority would not be sufficient to motivate them to have children, not in and of itself, and they would eventually die out. the remaining living humans would only be concerned with their own survival and not dying, the human population would decrease gradually, humans would justify there are too many people anyway yada yada...and eventually perhaps something would happen and wipe out the remaining humans

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:24 pm

11011 wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:18 pm
i am saying in the human species, humans would die without morality, other species are adapted to compensate for their lack of human morality, so traits have purpose in relation to the entire organism and the environment they are adapted to, trying to judge their merit across species is misunderstanding how traits evolve and acquire utility or benefit in an organism or species; no trait has inherent value

if a human infant is born, and at the moment of birth is left without care, if it does not receive care from another human it will eventually die. it cannot survive on its own, or by aid from anyone or anything else, though i suppose some technology can keep it alive but that's essentially human care
So raising your infant is morality? OK. You can just call it "raising your infant"... but whatever :)

Fundamentally - what you seem to be saying is that morality is all that's necessary to keep us alive. Do you go as far as saying "air and water are moral" or do we draw a line at the immediate actions of those around you?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3630
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:58 pm

II0II wrote:
so humans need morality or they go extinct to the extent morality includes human caring of offspring I would say it does
All species care for their offspring while they are too young to survive on their own - this is not something exclusive to humans
Also homo sapiens are descended from earlier sub species that had a less rigorous morality - yet they still managed to survive

But all life shares one common ancestor which is single cell bacteria from four billion years ago
Other than a desire to survive I do not think that it had any goals so how do you account for this

Also humans need carbon / oxygen / water / light / salt / proteins / vitamins / carbohydrates -
Morality by comparison is just a luxury that can be discarded especially if survival is threatened

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by 11011 » Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:59 pm

what is morality?

have we addressed this issue yet?

of course the definition we all agree on provides the basis for accepting or rejecting any particular viewpoint or argument.

judgements...rightness...wrongness...conscience

probably my own perspective on this issue presumes morality as conscience (based on social bonds) or empathy.

so if we have social bonds with people, and we do something that they don't approve of, we feel guilt or shame or some other emotion of the conscience (if we do something they do approve of we feel alternatively pride, etc.)

and those bonds are human inclination; humans want to bond innately, the environment either frustrates or supports this tendency, rooted in neurotransmitters like oxytocin, etc, so there is gratification from bonding, similar to an adrenaline rush.

bonding also carries with it though the emotions of the conscience, so it gives rise to morality; there will still be ingroups, outgroups, etc, morality of this sort is not indiscriminate - sometimes quite the opposite - but at least for some people, the person will feel certain emotions as a result of the bonds they have with them or others when doing certain things, perhaps evening just thinking certain things, depends on perceived conditions of the bonds.

and so this is one innate basis for morality as conscience. the next is morality as empathy - which arises from social bonds. so by developing a bond with another person, you develop the ability to connect with other humans in general, and thus feel empathy or a sort of vicarious experience based on witnessing or hearing about their experience. supposedly this is based in the mirror neurons. whatever the case that is happens - their experience is mirrored to you and your brain gives you a taste.

so in terms of moral judgements, or 'sense of rightness or wrongness' about an action, decision, or intention, innate inclination for bonds and empathy set us up for judging morally accordingly. perhaps another kind of morality can come from somewhere else; perhaps it may even be able to be fused with this kind, but this is the morality i am using or presuming.

essentially, that which threatens our bonds to people or things important to us is 'bad' (because it feels bad, and our sense of meaning and other things are threatened, so it's a kind of bad feeling that's warning the potential coming of something enduringly worse, not like burning your finger on a hot element or something, which eventually goes away and has no profound lasting effect); that which protects these is 'good' (because it promotes feelings of security, etc. which again has lasting positive effect vs for example eating a chocolate bar); and we use empathy to judge how things impact things we are bonded to via vicarious experience, and thus make moral judgements about those things.

so incidentally, morality also applies to things that have some sort of special significance, not trivial things, and that person significance is achieved through oxytocin bonds and how it impacts us vicariously, like witnessing someone in excruciating pain and 'not being able to bear it'; or conversely, someone very happy and that making us joyous, so morality of the sort i am referring to here pertains to things that are 'special' - high/enduring impact on us - due to certain conditions that have set that stage for our emotional landscape/world.

and so that is the underlying morality for my posts in this discussion. do you accept this?

or rather, do you think this is valid? is this a valid morality? you might have your system/understanding of what morality is/means, but do you agree that what i have outlined here constitutes morality in the human condition? why or why not?

and finally, to my argument before, since this morality depends on social bonding inclination most fundamentally, then taking away this morality implicitly also takes away that social bonding inclination, the same inclination that drives humans to bond with and take care of their infants, which is necessary for the survival of the species.

i suppose we could imagine a scenario where the social bonding inclination is intact while the morality is gone, but that's not possible since the social bonding inclination compels morality, getting rid of the latter will get rid of the former as well, and that is the crux of my argument previously.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:03 am

11011 wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:59 pm
what is morality?

have we addressed this issue yet?

of course the definition we all agree on provides the basis for accepting or rejecting any particular viewpoint or argument.
I have absolutely no idea what morality is.

But I know that extinction is the worst thing that could befall humanity.

Walker
Posts: 6880
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Walker » Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:26 am

11011 wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:40 pm
i don't understand why people make comparisons between the 'animal kingdom' and homo sapiens
Because metaphors, similes, analogies, allegories etc., clarify communication.

Here’s a lovely metaphor. Allegory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIiA4SM3LEY

User avatar
planetlonely23
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:32 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by planetlonely23 » Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:39 am

It is adequate to find the right moment to do something in a sense that everything would be organized logically in our brain (our perception), even though in our lives is hard to decide by ourselves what is the best decision to carry on, leading our spirit to the benefits that we materialize in a substance that we think is our content or ethic but it not. However, if we use morality as the reason to survive as a method to describe our existence will be clearly orientated to a life without determination. If we try to define this world in a way to break the boundaries and try to give meaning to every step we do, finally we see in the mirror the esthetic which we are involved and surrounded, all defined by a mechanism that alienate us, so the cause-effect that we have, is the result of the void of the rules and the morality that we believe it is the right thing when is not.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests