morality and Darwin

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:51 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 11:34 pm

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.
There are no anomalies, since there is no goal except survival and persistence of the genes.
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.
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.
You have precisely zero justification for this position.
This view is just as culturally conditioned as any other "objectively" claimed set of moral positions.
And is as easily brushed away by rejecting its premise.
Your claim is that "carbon based biology" is a "good". There is no objective basis for that claim, and is as transparently self interested as "goodness is godliness".
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.
Even if your morality is true or objective, what are the conclusions and consequences for the persistence of human life, against the life of, say the survival of malaria or typhus?
Surely the toxicara worm, or other parasite is "carbon based". Where so they fir into the scheme of moral worth?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:14 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:51 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 am

There are no anomalies, since there is no goal except survival and persistence of the genes.
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.
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.
You have precisely zero justification for this position.
This view is just as culturally conditioned as any other "objectively" claimed set of moral positions.
And is as easily brushed away by rejecting its premise.
Your claim is that "carbon based biology" is a "good". There is no objective basis for that claim, and is as transparently self interested as "goodness is godliness".
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.
Even if your morality is true or objective, what are the conclusions and consequences for the persistence of human life, against the life of, say the survival of malaria or typhus?
Surely the toxicara worm, or other parasite is "carbon based". Where so they fir into the scheme of moral worth?
You're grasping at straws; human morality is about human well-being and our biology is pretty much universal. There is no way of getting away from the fact that life lives on the lives of other beings but morality could at least moderate human cruelty in this harsh reality. The only place there arises morality is in groups/societies of self-interest which is not particular to human beings. The attitude towards other creatures and the environment that supports them is what puts the environment in difficulties, in the sense that it is becoming unfit for much of our common biological family to survive. All thought processes are culturally conditioned, think of the fact that all white people are all racists due to the fact that power was the defining element and we have been submerged in a culture where racism was the holy-grail. Power as superiority have been the defining elements of European culture. A common humanity would necessarily spell a common biology a common morality based upon that commonness. Certainly, you are reading me right, well-being is godless in the sense of dealing with reality. The goodness of the persistence of human life is a no starter as all life forms struggle to stay in being and the only meaning to this physical world is the meanings, we bestow upon it. Are you testing the waters here, you are a much more a reasoning creature than to take your critique above seriously think --- no?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:25 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:14 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:51 pm

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.
You have precisely zero justification for this position.
This view is just as culturally conditioned as any other "objectively" claimed set of moral positions.
And is as easily brushed away by rejecting its premise.
Your claim is that "carbon based biology" is a "good". There is no objective basis for that claim, and is as transparently self interested as "goodness is godliness".
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.
Even if your morality is true or objective, what are the conclusions and consequences for the persistence of human life, against the life of, say the survival of malaria or typhus?
Surely the toxicara worm, or other parasite is "carbon based". Where so they fir into the scheme of moral worth?
You're grasping at straws; human morality is about human well-being and our biology is pretty much universal. There is no way of getting away from the fact that life lives on the lives of other beings but morality could at least moderate human cruelty in this harsh reality.
Maybe maybe not.
Nothing is mandated. Nothing is objective here. You are just dreaming that your vision is the right one.
I am here to tell you that it is not. Your vision is as idiosyncratic as Islam or Hinduism.
ALl moral systems think themselves "right", but they so rarely agree.
The only place there arises morality is in groups/societies of self-interest which is not particular to human beings.
How convenient. NOT carbon based life then as you say above??
The attitude towards other creatures and the environment that supports them is what puts the environment in difficulties, in the sense that it is becoming unfit for much of our common biological family to survive.
What is good for humans is generally bad for the rest of living things. But who gives a fuck about that. Morality is for humans as you say.
But make up your mind.
All thought processes are culturally conditioned, think of the fact that all white people are all racists due to the fact that power was the defining element and we have been submerged in a culture where racism was the holy-grail.
All white people are racist??
:D :D :D
Fucking hell that's a bit bleak.
So is that morally good because it is good for white people?
Power as superiority have been the defining elements of European culture. A common humanity would necessarily spell a common biology a common morality based upon that commonness. Certainly, you are reading me right, well-being is godless in the sense of dealing with reality. The goodness of the persistence of human life is a no starter as all life forms struggle to stay in being and the only meaning to this physical world is the meanings, we bestow upon it. Are you testing the waters here, you are a much more a reasoning creature than to take your critique above seriously think --- no?
No.
I'm just having a laff at your expense.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:53 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:25 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 3:14 pm
You have precisely zero justification for this position.
This view is just as culturally conditioned as any other "objectively" claimed set of moral positions.
And is as easily brushed away by rejecting its premise.
Your claim is that "carbon based biology" is a "good". There is no objective basis for that claim, and is as transparently self interested as "goodness is godliness".


Even if your morality is true or objective, what are the conclusions and consequences for the persistence of human life, against the life of, say the survival of malaria or typhus?
Surely the toxicara worm, or other parasite is "carbon based". Where so they fir into the scheme of moral worth?
You're grasping at straws; human morality is about human well-being and our biology is pretty much universal. There is no way of getting away from the fact that life lives on the lives of other beings but morality could at least moderate human cruelty in this harsh reality.
Maybe maybe not.
Nothing is mandated. Nothing is objective here. You are just dreaming that your vision is the right one.
I am here to tell you that it is not. Your vision is as idiosyncratic as Islam or Hinduism.
ALl moral systems think themselves "right", but they so rarely agree.
The only place there arises morality is in groups/societies of self-interest which is not particular to human beings.
How convenient. NOT carbon based life then as you say above??
The attitude towards other creatures and the environment that supports them is what puts the environment in difficulties, in the sense that it is becoming unfit for much of our common biological family to survive.
What is good for humans is generally bad for the rest of living things. But who gives a fuck about that. Morality is for humans as you say.
But make up your mind.
All thought processes are culturally conditioned, think of the fact that all white people are all racists due to the fact that power was the defining element and we have been submerged in a culture where racism was the holy-grail.
All white people are racist??
:D :D :D
Fucking hell that's a bit bleak.
So is that morally good because it is good for white people?
Power as superiority have been the defining elements of European culture. A common humanity would necessarily spell a common biology a common morality based upon that commonness. Certainly, you are reading me right, well-being is godless in the sense of dealing with reality. The goodness of the persistence of human life is a no starter as all life forms struggle to stay in being and the only meaning to this physical world is the meanings, we bestow upon it. Are you testing the waters here, you are a much more a reasoning creature than to take your critique above seriously think --- no?
No.
I'm just having a laff at your expense.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

You protest but have no rational argument for your rejection. All life forms are carbon-based, there is only one biology. If biology is not moralities proper subject tell me what is. O' as far as being bleak goes, how could a culture that is racist not count its citizens as the elements of that culture racists. The European culture lived, breathed and ate racism, and the colonial era extends into the present day.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:25 pm All thought processes are culturally conditioned, think of the fact that all white people are all racists due to the fact that power was the defining element and we have been submerged in a culture where racism was the holy-grail.
Your use of "ALL" i.e. 100% in the above case is bad philosophy, i.e. the fallacy of over-generalization.
It would be rational to assert, some, many, the majority or most in this case, but then you would have to justify your claim with solid evidences.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 11:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:43 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:13 am
Humans are angels and devils. Carers and users. psychopaths and empaths. We are all moral.
None of this is objective.
Can you define what do you mean by 'moral'?
Can you?
It is bad philosophy in not defining the terms one use especially the looser terms, e.g. 'morality' and the likes.

Here is my definition of 'What is Philosophy'
  • The term 'morality' used at present is very loose and in many cases corrupted within various groups.
    I define 'morality' [proper] as 'promoting good and avoiding evil' for the well being of the individual and humanity.
    What is 'good' in this case means not-evil.
    What is 'evil' is the net-negative impact on the well-being of the individual and humanity.
    What is negative to the well-being is that which to the extreme form threatens the preservation of the human species and in lesser forms, the related physical & mental sufferings and freedom of the individual.

    In this sense, slavery [especially chattel slavery] is a moral element which must be eliminated morally [in contrast to politically].
    viewtopic.php?p=613603#p613603
What is 'your' definition of 'morality' then?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 am 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.
Your
"there is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species"
implied that our 'moral nature' is something universal within human nature, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs, opinions or judgments, thus it is objective subject to verification and justification.
In this sense our moral nature, i.e. morality is objective.

Morality-proper as inherent within human nature is not about rules, obligations or laws of 'right' or 'wrong' enforceable upon individuals from external authorities, customs nor social conventions.

Since all humans has a moral nature [morality properly defined] the point is human need to allow this moral potential to unfold naturally for its intended evolutionary purpose. But such expectation of greater morality is too late for the current or next few to achieve due to our current psychological state which need time to change neuronally. But moral change for the better is possible for future generations provided we take the right steps now.

What is counter to morality are evil acts.
Psychopathy is evil and is active within people who have an inefficient or damage moral mechanism in their brain. There is in general only about 1% of psychopaths and not all are malignant with high propensity to commit evil acts.
What is 'good' to a psychopath is not what is 'good' within the context of morality-proper [as defined].
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:24 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:25 pm All thought processes are culturally conditioned, think of the fact that all white people are all racists due to the fact that power was the defining element and we have been submerged in a culture where racism was the holy-grail.
Your use of "ALL" i.e. 100% in the above case is bad philosophy, i.e. the fallacy of over-generalization.
It would be rational to assert, some, many, the majority or most in this case, but then you would have to justify your claim with solid evidence.
All except three---lol!! Think of the cultural history and the fact that context defines. Everything except three of all aspects of the culture is racists, entertainment, education, the churches, the laws, court systems, and the family factory system in producing a like mentality to send out into the world. It is not the individual's shame it is the historical cultural sense of power/superiority. It should be remembered also that subject and object stand or fall together, meaning the culture one is born into serves as the object, the fuel of the mind and there is nothing else to think about unless you have access to things outside your own culture, but the culture was all of Europe and indeed the new world. As evidence I would state the obvious, Europe was all powerful and power is the seed of racism, the sense of superiority which enable the subjugation of much of the world under the Christian banner. America inherited the colonial power from Briton and is busy today in subjugating much of the world and its power/superiority/racism in a brutal fashion. It is true there could be a few that recognize the programming that justified the subjugation and slavery of the weaker nations but they would have been helpless in turning such a force. Yes, all is an absolute statement and I shall guard in future in using it, but my basic statement stands.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:59 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 am 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.
Your
"there is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species"
implied that our 'moral nature' is something universal within human nature, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs, opinions or judgments, thus it is objective subject to verification and justification.
In this sense our moral nature, i.e. morality is objective.

Morality-proper as inherent within human nature is not about rules, obligations or laws of 'right' or 'wrong' enforceable upon individuals from external authorities, customs nor social conventions.

Since all humans has a moral nature [morality properly defined] the point is human need to allow this moral potential to unfold naturally for its intended evolutionary purpose. But such expectation of greater morality is too late for the current or next few to achieve due to our current psychological state which need time to change neuronally. But moral change for the better is possible for future generations provided we take the right steps now.

What is counter to morality are evil acts.
Psychopathy is evil and is active within people who have an inefficient or damage moral mechanism in their brain. There is in general only about 1% of psychopaths and not all are malignant with high propensity to commit evil acts.
What is 'good' to a psychopath is not what is 'good' within the context of morality-proper [as defined].
There is nothing of a moral sense that is objective as humanity as subject bestows meanings upon a meaningless world. It is even questionable whether apparent reality in and of itself is not just a biological readout only existing for the subject. Morality based upon our common biology is the only rational strategy, anything else is missing the mark.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:59 am Your
"there is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species"
implied that our 'moral nature' is something universal within human nature, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs, opinions or judgments, thus it is objective subject to verification and justification.
In this sense our moral nature, i.e. morality is objective.
1) As always VA confuses universal with objective.
2) Given the behavior and proclaimed morals and proclaimed by other humans lack of morals entails directly that morals are not universal, let alone any particular set of morals, or even the more character-based conceptions of morals that, amongst others, VA adheres to (as opposed to, say, deontological conceptions of morals or even consequentialist conceptions of morals. IOW something like virtue).
3) Humans, like other social mammals do have tendencies to feel empathy for other humans, want to collaborate and cooperate, along with desires to compete with other humans (and even members of other species). We have tendencies in those directions. That does not a universal morality make, it does not make a universal set of virtues, it does not come remotely close to an objective set of morals or virtues.

Objective virtues or morals would be something that, for example, a sentient species from a different home planet could determine in a lab, in any case through some empirical process and they would have to then admit that this was objectively what a virtue was or objectively what is moral.

VA has never, once come remotely close to demonstrating objective morality or virtue. In fact he does not even understand what the term would mean.

And the sad, ironic thing is that he really doesn't need to keep claiming he has. He could just suggest an approach to a common idea of morality that would help humans to thrive as he sees thriving. Then show people why he thinks this would be what others would want.

But no, he has to, ad infinitum, claim he has shown that there is objective morality.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 11:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:43 am
Can you define what do you mean by 'moral'?
Can you?
It is bad philosophy in not defining the terms one use especially the looser terms, e.g. 'morality' and the likes.

Here is my definition of 'What is Philosophy'
  • The term 'morality' used at present is very loose and in many cases corrupted within various groups.
    I define 'morality' [proper] as 'promoting good and avoiding evil' for the well being of the individual and humanity.
    What is 'good' in this case means not-evil.
    What is 'evil' is the net-negative impact on the well-being of the individual and humanity.
    What is negative to the well-being is that which to the extreme form threatens the preservation of the human species and in lesser forms, the related physical & mental sufferings and freedom of the individual.

    In this sense, slavery [especially chattel slavery] is a moral element which must be eliminated morally [in contrast to politically].
    viewtopic.php?p=613603#p613603
What is 'your' definition of 'morality' then?
I am truly astounded my your newly found skill in Copy & Paste.
Well done!
What's your point?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:59 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 am 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.
Your
"there is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species"
implied that our 'moral nature' is something universal within human nature, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs, opinions or judgments, thus it is objective subject to verification and justification.
In this sense our moral nature, i.e. morality is objective.

Morality-proper as inherent within human nature is not about rules, obligations or laws of 'right' or 'wrong' enforceable upon individuals from external authorities, customs nor social conventions.

Since all humans has a moral nature [morality properly defined] the point is human need to allow this moral potential to unfold naturally for its intended evolutionary purpose.
No.
Since evolution is a relatively new idea it is no surprise that using it as a moral standard is also very recent.
ENter Hitler and Survival of the fittest.
Not exactly my idea of objective truth.

You are the complete idiot.
You say "intended purpose". Yet evolution is a unintentional effect of change. Thus no intended purpose.


But such expectation of greater morality is too late for the current or next few to achieve due to our current psychological state which need time to change neuronally. But moral change for the better is possible for future generations provided we take the right steps now.

What is counter to morality are evil acts.
Psychopathy is evil and is active within people who have an inefficient or damage moral mechanism in their brain. There is in general only about 1% of psychopaths and not all are malignant with high propensity to commit evil acts.
What is 'good' to a psychopath is not what is 'good' within the context of morality-proper [as defined].
Yet psychopaths are also humans. And evolution is the result of their survival.
Psychopaths have their uses, as any MAGA voter
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:24 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:25 pm All thought processes are culturally conditioned, think of the fact that all white people are all racists due to the fact that power was the defining element and we have been submerged in a culture where racism was the holy-grail.
Your use of "ALL" i.e. 100% in the above case is bad philosophy, i.e. the fallacy of over-generalization.
It would be rational to assert, some, many, the majority or most in this case, but then you would have to justify your claim with solid evidence.
All except three---lol!! Think of the cultural history and the fact that context defines. Everything except three of all aspects of the culture is racists, entertainment, education, the churches, the laws, court systems, and the family factory system in producing a like mentality to send out into the world. It is not the individual's shame it is the historical cultural sense of power/superiority. It should be remembered also that subject and object stand or fall together, meaning the culture one is born into serves as the object, the fuel of the mind and there is nothing else to think about unless you have access to things outside your own culture, but the culture was all of Europe and indeed the new world. As evidence I would state the obvious, Europe was all powerful and power is the seed of racism, the sense of superiority which enable the subjugation of much of the world under the Christian banner. America inherited the colonial power from Briton and is busy today in subjugating much of the world and its power/superiority/racism in a brutal fashion. It is true there could be a few that recognize the programming that justified the subjugation and slavery of the weaker nations but they would have been helpless in turning such a force. Yes, all is an absolute statement and I shall guard in future in using it, but my basic statement stands.
Up to the present evolution phase, it is a general fact the more powerful will always attempt to dominate [or bully] the weaker ones whether it is race, gender, politics, religion, economics, sports, and in every sphere of humanity and all other living things.
So it is not a big surprise racism had emerged in our evolutionary history.
There is probably some evolutionary advantage for a hierarchy of power and the stronger to dominate the weaker.

But human nature is not static and indifferent to whatever imbalances [note Yin - Yang]. It is very evident there are already balancing forces within the various difference of power and strength within the various groups.

What is most critical is where superiority of one over the other is Constitutionalized or Institutionalized. Humanity had already done away with many of these sorts, e.g. Nazism.
At present the white majority countries do not have Constitutions that embedded white superiority, you know of any?

Now what humanity has to direct their attention to is to focus on evil laden religious ideologies where superiority is Constitutionalized within their scripture. This I want to direct your attention to Islam which is inherently evil constitutionally. As such all believers must comply with its constitution to be evil. While most will not comply [ignorantly], some believers will exploit this contractual duty to spread evil which is SO evident.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:32 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 11:49 am
Can you?
It is bad philosophy in not defining the terms one use especially the looser terms, e.g. 'morality' and the likes.

Here is my definition of 'What is Philosophy'
  • The term 'morality' used at present is very loose and in many cases corrupted within various groups.
    I define 'morality' [proper] as 'promoting good and avoiding evil' for the well being of the individual and humanity.
    What is 'good' in this case means not-evil.
    What is 'evil' is the net-negative impact on the well-being of the individual and humanity.
    What is negative to the well-being is that which to the extreme form threatens the preservation of the human species and in lesser forms, the related physical & mental sufferings and freedom of the individual.

    In this sense, slavery [especially chattel slavery] is a moral element which must be eliminated morally [in contrast to politically].
    viewtopic.php?p=613603#p613603
What is 'your' definition of 'morality' then?
I am truly astounded my your newly found skill in Copy & Paste.
Well done!
What's your point?
The point is whatever the term [philosophically] used, one must know its precise meaning, else whatever that follows is an ungrounded garbage mess of anything goes.

I have provided my 'what is morality' and all my views on morality are grounded on that definition of morality.

You stated humans are all moral agents.
I don't think you have a clear definition of what is morality to ground your views on morality.

So, what is your definition of morality?
Post Reply