Odd response.
morality and Darwin
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: morality and Darwin
Morality is a social construction for in isolation there would be no need for morality unless one identified with the other creatures of this world. It is only with the identification of self with other selves that compassion arises and it is compassion that is the basis of social morality. Where there is no identification, there is no compassion, somewhat I imagine like the world of the psychopath.
Re: morality and Darwin
Well one would HOPE that the 'most 'current' one' is ALWAYS the 'most accurate ever'.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.
Endless forms, indeed: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have… evolved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
"The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.
Just like the 'most accurate estimation' is and 'should' ALWAYS be the 'latest or newest one'.
So, the term or phrase, 'the most accurate ever' is REALLY NOT worthy of even being mentioned. But, a LOT of 'you', adult human beings, do say a LOT just for PRAISE and/or RECOGNITION.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm But the vast majority have not been identified - and cataloguing them all could take more than 1,000 years."
Okay.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm And that's not even counting all of countless species that have gone extinct.
Well this is, probably, IRREFUTABLY True. But did ANY human being even think otherwise?iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm But one thing we can be certain of is that not one of those species comes even remotely close to our own when we speak of concocting "moral theories".
WHY 'gaps' exist is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm And then [given my own assumptions] the great gaps that exist between moral theory and actual rules of behavior.
Moral practice, like ALL human practice OR behavior is 'embodied' IN, or SOLELY DUE to, 'thoughts' and 'thinking', ALONE.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pmAnd moral practices? What are they embodied in if not hundreds and hundreds of years of actual/factual human history itself? Countless cultures around the globe evolving over the centuries given the parameters of what Karl Marx called "political economy"“Moral concepts are embodied in and partially constitutive of forms of social life.” Alasdair MacIntyre, Short History of Ethics
BUT some of 'us' ARE CERTAIN.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pmOf course, the thing about focusing in on Darwin here is that we are immediately confronted with the enormous complexities embedded in human interactions in which we are never quite certain where nature ends and nurture begins. Where genes segue into memes.Darwin had an evolutionary view of ethics ‘from the side of natural history’ which connects with MacIntyre’s insight into morality’s connections with social life.
In Fact DISTINGUISHING 'things' here is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY. That is; IF ANY one is Truly INTERESTED.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pmSocial instincts and well-developed mental powers. On the other hand, when it comes down to "particular contexts" I suspect that will still revolve largely around whether a moral philosopher is "one of us" or "one of them".This article will show how Darwin argued in The Descent of Man that the moral sense evolved from a combination of social instincts and well-developed mental powers. If this is so, moral philosophers will need to pay more attention to Darwin’s views, and in response, rethink morality along naturalistic lines. The result, I suggest, can be a rich concept of moral intelligence.
Here are my own views on morality:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human beingiambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion[/quote]
But so what if this is what 'you' BELIEVE?
BUT so-called 'reasonable arguments', and it is ONLY 'sound AND valid arguments' that are worthy of being REPEATED.iambiguous wrote:As a result, the first thing many point out is that, regarding this issue, I am insisting women should be permitted legally to kill innocent human beings. And that doing so is in this particular context not immoral.
To which I respond:
"Yes, but..."
But:
Just because I construe the fetus to be an innocent human being does not necessarily [objectively] make it so. On the contrary, there are reasonable arguments prooffered by those who see the fetus as truly human only at birth or at the point of "viability".
See, ALL 'sound AND valid arguments' can NOT be refuted, whereas, ALL 'reasonable arguments', which are NOT 'sound AND valid' can be REFUTED, which, obviously, were just a WASTE of 'time' and/or 'energy'.
This would be like saying, 'There can be no such thing as true 'gender equality' if we forced 'men' to NOT be able to have a say in what a 'women' does with their baby.iambiguous wrote:And even if everyone agreed the fetus was an innocent human being from the point of copnception, I would still not construe the killing of it as necessarily immoral. Why? Because out in the world we live in there can be no such thing as true "gender equality" if we forced women to give birth against their wishes.
If 'men' can NOT force a women to give birth against their wishes, but 'women' are ALLOWED to choose to end the life of THAT human being, then can 'men' also choose to end the life of THAT human being, and thus force the 'women' to NOT give birth against their wishes, or do 'men' NOT have a say NOR choice in this?
In a true 'gender equality world' can 'men' be forced to HAVE responsibility over some 'thing', for say about 18 years, which they were forced to have against their wishes?
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'we' could make this Truly ABSURD discussion even MORE COMPLICATED, if 'we' so wished to.
If 'you', adult human beings, just started doing what IS Right, in Life, then these sort of situations would NOT even 'come-to-pass', as some would say.iambiguous wrote:Abortion then is a human tragedy in my view precisely because, like so many other moral conflagrations, it necessarily involves a conflict of legitimate rights.
And, if they EVER did, and 'you' WERE DOING what IS Right, in Life, and were NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED, then 'you' WOULD 'mind your OWN business', again as some would say.
UNTIL one KNOWS ALL of the 'circumstances', then that one is NOT FULLY INFORMED, and so, OBVIOUSLY, and LITERALLY, can NOT make a FULLY INFORMED CHOICE. And, UNTIL one KNOWS ALL of the CIRCUMSTANCES, which NO one EVER WILL in discussions like these, then I suggest 'you' ALL just NOT 'abusing' absolutely ANY 'thing'.iambiguous wrote:Consider:
William Barrett from Irrational Man:
For the choice in...human [moral conflicts] is almost never between a good and an evil, where both are plainly marked as such and the choice therefore made in all the certitude of reason; rather it is between rival goods, where one is bound to do some evil either way, and where the the ultimate outcome and even---or most of all---our own motives are unclear to us. The terror of confronting oneself in such a situation is so great that most people panic and try to take cover under any universal rules that will apply, if only to save them from the task of choosing themselves.
[emphasis my own]
In my view, moral dogmas are basically interchangable when expressed as sets of essential [universal] convictions. And that is so because we do not interact socially, politcially or economically in an essential manner; only in an existential manner. Which is to say that our behaviors bear consequences that are perceived differently by different people in different sets of circumstances.
That's the world we have to live in and not the ones we put together seamlessly in our heads.
That way 'you' could NEVER do what IS Wrong, in Life, and so 'you' will ALWAYS be doing what IS Right, in Life.
AGAIN, this is ALL very SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.
Re: morality and Darwin
But the 'world' of the so-called "psychopath" could be because 'it' does see "another", which is seen as NOT a part of thee 'I', or the "pyscophath" sees 'one of them' who is NOT 'I', NOR 'one of us'.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:56 am Morality is a social construction for in isolation there would be no need for morality unless one identified with the other creatures of this world. It is only with the identification of self with other selves that compassion arises and it is compassion that is the basis of social morality. Where there is no identification, there is no compassion, somewhat I imagine like the world of the psychopath.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: morality and Darwin
Put me on your ignore list, you are now on mine.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:25 amBut the 'world' of the so-called "psychopath" could be because 'it' does see "another", which is seen as NOT a part of thee 'I', or the "pyscophath" sees 'one of them' who is NOT 'I', NOR 'one of us'.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:56 am Morality is a social construction for in isolation there would be no need for morality unless one identified with the other creatures of this world. It is only with the identification of self with other selves that compassion arises and it is compassion that is the basis of social morality. Where there is no identification, there is no compassion, somewhat I imagine like the world of the psychopath.
Re: morality and Darwin
So, here we go AGAIN. I just SAY and WRITE some 'thing' that IS IRREFUTABLE, and/or which PROVES that what the "other" SAYS or CLAIMS is NOT true, and 'I' then get put on their IGNORE list.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:58 amPut me on your ignore list, you are now on mine.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:25 amBut the 'world' of the so-called "psychopath" could be because 'it' does see "another", which is seen as NOT a part of thee 'I', or the "pyscophath" sees 'one of them' who is NOT 'I', NOR 'one of us'.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:56 am Morality is a social construction for in isolation there would be no need for morality unless one identified with the other creatures of this world. It is only with the identification of self with other selves that compassion arises and it is compassion that is the basis of social morality. Where there is no identification, there is no compassion, somewhat I imagine like the world of the psychopath.
The people back in those days when this was being written REALLY were SO INSECURE and AFRAID.
The reason WHY there was NO compassion was BECAUSE they did HAVE an 'identification' for the, PERCEIVED, "other".
The reason WHY the so-called "christians" KILL and HATE so-called "muslims" is BECAUSE 'they' were IDENTIFIED as "muslims", and VICE-VERSA.
It WAS those who IDENTIFIED "them" 'self' as belonging to 'one of US' WHY 'they' were able to HATE and KILL 'those' who were IDENTIFIED as 'one of THEM'.
The reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, are able to KILL OTHER 'animals' is BECAUSE 'you' IDENTIFY 'them' as JUST AN ANIMAL and NOT 'one of US'.
There IS truth in what 'you' SAID above here "popeye1945", but 'you' REALLY did go the Wrong way around in EXPLAINING 'it' properly AND correctly.
Also, and by the way, 'I' am NOT going to put 'you' on 'My' IGNORE LIST.
ONLY the IGNORANT do NOT LISTEN to "others".
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: morality and Darwin
The answer was in my statement about the psychopath, defined as one who does not identify with others or the suffering of others. It is not enough to say the other person is wrong, you need to present a rational argument stating why the other is wrong.
Re: morality and Darwin
Psychopathy is an interesting topic in the matter of Darwinism.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:47 am The answer was in my statement about the psychopath, defined as one who does not identify with others or the suffering of others. It is not enough to say the other person is wrong, you need to present a rational argument stating why the other is wrong.
Darwinism is about the science of evolution and not a moral theory.
According to Darwinism, then psychopathy cold very well be a selective strategy, and by extension a successfully evolved trait. Since the key criteria of natural selection is reproductive success, what a psychopath needs to achieve is the passing on of his genetic material by making viable progeny.
This could be achieved through rape, and not killing the victim.
Also it can be said that such psychopathy in conjunction with Christian values in which abortion is proscribed, is a very effective selective strategy.
Now you can chose to do something about that. But the science of Darwinism is simply pointing out the facts of the matter.
When Hitler adopted Darwin in his thinking, Darwin himself would have been utterly horrified, since there are aspects of the theory which make cooperation front and centre as selective strategies. Hitler chose to ignore them in terms of "races" and his desire to promote his own race.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: morality and Darwin
The power brokers of the industrial revolution were social Darwinists, a complete violation of his intended message, something he would have found horrific as you said. The philosopher Herbert Spenser was the one who coined the term survival of the fittest. He was at least in part responsible for the growth of social Darwinism. I agree the psychopath is a very successful anomaly as he/her could be termed a nature man/woman matching what some would call the indifference of nature to the survival of the individual caring only for species. However, even these terms are anthropomorphic and nature is simply unaware in the sense of the lack of consciousness to have a concern. To my understanding though the psychopath is not an emotional blank he/she is just not capable of empathy, I think power is the more striking characteristic of the psychopath certainly innate to the general population to a lesser degree. Moral theory is a product of societies/groups, this again is where the psychopath is out of the game morality to the psychopath is just an annoyance.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:52 pmPsychopathy is an interesting topic in the matter of Darwinism.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:47 am The answer was in my statement about the psychopath, defined as one who does not identify with others or the suffering of others. It is not enough to say the other person is wrong, you need to present a rational argument stating why the other is wrong.
Darwinism is about the science of evolution and not a moral theory.
According to Darwinism, psychopathy could very well be a selective strategy, and by extension a successfully evolved trait. Since the key criteria of natural selection is reproductive success, what a psychopath needs to achieve is the passing on of his genetic material by making viable progeny.
This could be achieved through rape, and not killing the victim.
Also it can be said that such psychopathy in conjunction with Christian values in which abortion is proscribed, is a very effective selective strategy.
Now you can choose to do something about that. But the science of Darwinism is simply pointing out the facts of the matter.
When Hitler adopted Darwin in his thinking, Darwin himself would have been utterly horrified, since there are aspects of the theory which make cooperation front and center as selective strategies. Hitler chose to ignore them in terms of "races" and his desire to promote his own race.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Thu Dec 15, 2022 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: morality and Darwin
"If the moral sense is innate ..."A Sense of Darwin’s Morality
Darwin’s Theory Of The Moral Sense, its close connection with the social instincts, and the extensive mental powers it demands, is well-argued, and based on extensive study and observation.
The moral sense, one is led to conclude, is not only a product of evolution, it [the moral sense] also implies an objective normative ethic (that is, practical knowledge about right and wrong).
If the moral sense, like sociability, is innate, it might be something like a predisposition due to a deep moral code.
That deep code would include only a few general ethical norms, such as care for the survival, reproduction and well-being of oneself, others, one’s community and one’s habitat, and a bias for reciprocity.
It might be said to constitute a minimal objective normative ethic.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Dar ... telligence
I have been proposing the moral sense or moral potential is inherent and innate in ALL humans. I have raised many threads and posts to support this point.
The problem is the moral potential is rather subliminal at this phase of our evolution thus not easily recognized by the dogmatic narrow minded moral facts deniers.
The trend is, there is now a serious and expanding trend in viewing morality from the evolutionary, neuroscientific, psychological, genetics and genomics perspectives underlying the old moral paradigms.
Re: morality and Darwin
There are no anomalies, since there is no goal except survival and persistence of the genes.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 11:34 pmThe power brokers of the industrial revolution were social Darwinists, a complete violation of his intended message, something he would have found horrific as you said. The philosopher Herbert Spenser was the one who coined the term survival of the fittest. He was at least in part responsible for the growth of social Darwinism. I agree the psychopath is a very successful anomaly as he/her could be termed a nature man/woman matching what some would call the indifference of nature to the survival of the individual caring only for species. However, even these terms are anthropomorphic and nature is simply unaware in the sense of the lack of consciousness to have a concern. To my understanding though the psychopath is not an emotional blank he/she is just not capable of empathy, I think power is the more striking characteristic of the psychopath certainly innate to the general population to a lesser degree. Moral theory is a product of societies/groups, this again is where the psychopath is out of the game morality to the psychopath is just an annoyance.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:52 pmPsychopathy is an interesting topic in the matter of Darwinism.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:47 am The answer was in my statement about the psychopath, defined as one who does not identify with others or the suffering of others. It is not enough to say the other person is wrong, you need to present a rational argument stating why the other is wrong.
Darwinism is about the science of evolution and not a moral theory.
According to Darwinism, psychopathy could very well be a selective strategy, and by extension a successfully evolved trait. Since the key criteria of natural selection is reproductive success, what a psychopath needs to achieve is the passing on of his genetic material by making viable progeny.
This could be achieved through rape, and not killing the victim.
Also it can be said that such psychopathy in conjunction with Christian values in which abortion is proscribed, is a very effective selective strategy.
Now you can choose to do something about that. But the science of Darwinism is simply pointing out the facts of the matter.
When Hitler adopted Darwin in his thinking, Darwin himself would have been utterly horrified, since there are aspects of the theory which make cooperation front and center as selective strategies. Hitler chose to ignore them in terms of "races" and his desire to promote his own race.
This is how we have psychopaths in our midst.
Yes Darwin was not in favour of "social darwinism" and feared its appearance.
He always believed in the progress of the individual through education and worked with the emancipation movement.
There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; but there is nothing to mandate specific rules in morality, according to the theory. There is nothing objective about morality except that fact that we are moralistic beings. But the existence of psychopathy is evidence that traits have variability, as do all features of humanity. Can we call a psychopath a human, yes. WOuld everyone say they were moral, no. Their idea of moral good, seems to be directed to themselves. and who they can manipulate.
Re: morality and Darwin
Humans are angels and devils. Carers and users. psychopaths and empaths. We are all moral.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:09 am"If the moral sense is innate ..."A Sense of Darwin’s Morality
Darwin’s Theory Of The Moral Sense, its close connection with the social instincts, and the extensive mental powers it demands, is well-argued, and based on extensive study and observation.
The moral sense, one is led to conclude, is not only a product of evolution, it [the moral sense] also implies an objective normative ethic (that is, practical knowledge about right and wrong).
If the moral sense, like sociability, is innate, it might be something like a predisposition due to a deep moral code.
That deep code would include only a few general ethical norms, such as care for the survival, reproduction and well-being of oneself, others, one’s community and one’s habitat, and a bias for reciprocity.
It might be said to constitute a minimal objective normative ethic.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Dar ... telligence
I have been proposing the moral sense or moral potential is inherent and innate in ALL humans. I have raised many threads and posts to support this point.
The problem is the moral potential is rather subliminal at this phase of our evolution thus not easily recognized by the dogmatic narrow minded moral facts deniers.
The trend is, there is now a serious and expanding trend in viewing morality from the evolutionary, neuroscientific, psychological, genetics and genomics perspectives underlying the old moral paradigms.
None of this is objective.
-
- Posts: 12641
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: morality and Darwin
Can you define what do you mean by 'moral'?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:13 amHumans are angels and devils. Carers and users. psychopaths and empaths. We are all moral.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:09 am"If the moral sense is innate ..."A Sense of Darwin’s Morality
Darwin’s Theory Of The Moral Sense, its close connection with the social instincts, and the extensive mental powers it demands, is well-argued, and based on extensive study and observation.
The moral sense, one is led to conclude, is not only a product of evolution, it [the moral sense] also implies an objective normative ethic (that is, practical knowledge about right and wrong).
If the moral sense, like sociability, is innate, it might be something like a predisposition due to a deep moral code.
That deep code would include only a few general ethical norms, such as care for the survival, reproduction and well-being of oneself, others, one’s community and one’s habitat, and a bias for reciprocity.
It might be said to constitute a minimal objective normative ethic.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Dar ... telligence
I have been proposing the moral sense or moral potential is inherent and innate in ALL humans. I have raised many threads and posts to support this point.
The problem is the moral potential is rather subliminal at this phase of our evolution thus not easily recognized by the dogmatic narrow minded moral facts deniers.
The trend is, there is now a serious and expanding trend in viewing morality from the evolutionary, neuroscientific, psychological, genetics and genomics perspectives underlying the old moral paradigms.
None of this is objective.
Re: morality and Darwin
Can you?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:43 amCan you define what do you mean by 'moral'?Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:13 amHumans are angels and devils. Carers and users. psychopaths and empaths. We are all moral.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:09 am
"If the moral sense is innate ..."
I have been proposing the moral sense or moral potential is inherent and innate in ALL humans. I have raised many threads and posts to support this point.
The problem is the moral potential is rather subliminal at this phase of our evolution thus not easily recognized by the dogmatic narrow minded moral facts deniers.
The trend is, there is now a serious and expanding trend in viewing morality from the evolutionary, neuroscientific, psychological, genetics and genomics perspectives underlying the old moral paradigms.
None of this is objective.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: morality and Darwin
I find little to disagree with in your post, except perhaps the statement that there is nothing to mandate specific rules of morality. This statement is true due only to the present-day circumstance where it is believed that morality is something bestowed from above. The only rational basis for morality is our common carbon-based biology. Morality should be based upon its subject, which is biological well-being, and biological security, any other approach is irrational. Rules, laws institutions and morality are biological extensions of said biology, expressions of human nature, the tendency to create morality around supernatural beings devaluing this earthly existence for an imaginary one is as Nietzsche stated the first nihilistic philosophies. Science, it is obvious to me, can serve the purposes of biological well-being/morality much better than poor mysticism of touch with reality.Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 amThere are no anomalies, since there is no goal except survival and persistence of the genes.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 11:34 pmThe power brokers of the industrial revolution were social Darwinists, a complete violation of his intended message, something he would have found horrific as you said. The philosopher Herbert Spenser was the one who coined the term survival of the fittest. He was at least in part responsible for the growth of social Darwinism. I agree the psychopath is a very successful anomaly as he/her could be termed a nature man/woman matching what some would call the indifference of nature to the survival of the individual caring only for species. However, even these terms are anthropomorphic and nature is simply unaware in the sense of the lack of consciousness to have a concern. To my understanding though the psychopath is not an emotional blank he/she is just not capable of empathy, I think power is the more striking characteristic of the psychopath certainly innate to the general population to a lesser degree. Moral theory is a product of societies/groups, this again is where the psychopath is out of the game morality to the psychopath is just an annoyance.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:52 pm
Psychopathy is an interesting topic in the matter of Darwinism.
Darwinism is about the science of evolution and not a moral theory.
According to Darwinism, psychopathy could very well be a selective strategy, and by extension a successfully evolved trait. Since the key criteria of natural selection is reproductive success, what a psychopath needs to achieve is the passing on of his genetic material by making viable progeny.
This could be achieved through rape, and not killing the victim.
Also it can be said that such psychopathy in conjunction with Christian values in which abortion is proscribed, is a very effective selective strategy.
Now you can choose to do something about that. But the science of Darwinism is simply pointing out the facts of the matter.
When Hitler adopted Darwin in his thinking, Darwin himself would have been utterly horrified, since there are aspects of the theory which make cooperation front and center as selective strategies. Hitler chose to ignore them in terms of "races" and his desire to promote his own race.
This is how we have psychopaths in our midst.
Yes Darwin was not in favour of "social darwinism" and feared its appearance.
He always believed in the progress of the individual through education and worked with the emancipation movement.
There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; but there is nothing to mandate specific rules in morality, according to the theory. There is nothing objective about morality except that fact that we are moralistic beings. But the existence of psychopathy is evidence that traits have variability, as do all features of humanity. Can we call a psychopath a human, yes. Would everyone say they were moral, no. Their idea of moral good seems to be directed to themselves. and who they can manipulate.