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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:59 pm
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.
Where did you get the above ignorant and narrow minded idea? Note the fact;
Darwin did not consider the process of evolution as the survival of the fittest; he regarded it as survival of the fitter, because the “struggle for existence” (a term he took from English economist and demographer Thomas Malthus) is relative and thus not absolute.
Instead, the winners with respect to species within ecosystems could become losers with a change of circumstances.
Link
Rather Darwin's Theory of Evolution is leveraged on the Principle of Natural Selection.

Note again this point from the referred article of the OP;
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:09 am
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
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.

You are the complete idiot.
You say "intended purpose". Yet evolution is a unintentional effect of change. Thus no intended purpose.
Again you are exposing your own ignorance as the real complete idiot.
Since I am non-theistic, there is no way I am referring to some God commanded teleological purpose re Creationism.

Note I stated "its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose"
Whatever is grounded in human nature has some biologically 'intended' purpose.
The human organs, senses, faculties has their biologically 'intended' purpose, i.e. their specific function.

Therefore the moral sense faculty has its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose which is basically a biological grounded function, thus it is a fact, i.e. a moral fact.


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
You are ignorant of human nature.

The average human has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 of connectors.
Each neuron as a biological cell has 3 billion pairs of "coding letters".
Can you imagine the possible combinations within the billions of neurons and 3 billion pairs of letters in the DNA that must be connect correctly to ensure a person is a non-psychopath.

As such the possibility of errors in the connectivity are very natural and possible thus giving rise to variations from the norms.
Psychopaths are thus perverts from what is expected from the norms.
Since the consequences of psychopathy contradict the objectives of morality [as defined], malignant psychopathy has to be modulated morally.

You are posting your views like a headless chicken because you did not define your morality specifically.

My point;
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.
This moral sense is represented by physical neuronal connectivity as a 'program' within the mind and brain which is thus a physical fact. Since these are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:28 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:54 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:32 am
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?
So you are implying that only some humans are moral??
Are you really going with that??
Only you decide who is moral?
Do you think you are confusing moral with "morally good".?

What comes across very clearly is your complete lack of ability to think critically.
You just absorb bollocks the whole time and then expect people to think like you do, as if it was the only way.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:18 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:59 pm
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.

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.
Where did you get the above ignorant and narrow minded idea? Note the fact;
I get idea from reading lots of books and thinking.
You should try it sometime.
Darwin did not consider the process of evolution as the survival of the fittest; he regarded it as survival of the fitter, because the “struggle for existence” (a term he took from English economist and demographer Thomas Malthus) is relative and thus not absolute.
So much ignorance, so little time. No Malthus was not the originator of the phrase "survival of the fittest"

Instead, the winners with respect to species within ecosystems could become losers with a change of circumstances.
Link
Rather Darwin's Theory of Evolution is leveraged on the Principle of Natural Selection.

Note again this point from the referred article of the OP;
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:09 am
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
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.

You are the complete idiot.
You say "intended purpose". Yet evolution is a unintentional effect of change. Thus no intended purpose.
Again you are exposing your own ignorance as the real complete idiot.
Since I am non-theistic, there is no way I am referring to some God commanded teleological purpose re Creationism.

Note I stated "its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose"
Whatever is grounded in human nature has some biologically 'intended' purpose.
The human organs, senses, faculties has their biologically 'intended' purpose, i.e. their specific function.

Therefore the moral sense faculty has its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose which is basically a biological grounded function, thus it is a fact, i.e. a moral fact.


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
You are ignorant of human nature.

The average human has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 of connectors.
Each neuron as a biological cell has 3 billion pairs of "coding letters".
Can you imagine the possible combinations within the billions of neurons and 3 billion pairs of letters in the DNA that must be connect correctly to ensure a person is a non-psychopath.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
As such the possibility of errors in the connectivity are very natural and possible thus giving rise to variations from the norms.
Psychopaths are thus perverts from what is expected from the norms.
Since the consequences of psychopathy contradict the objectives of morality [as defined], malignant psychopathy has to be modulated morally.

You are posting your views like a headless chicken because you did not define your morality specifically.

My point;
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.
This moral sense is represented by physical neuronal connectivity as a 'program' within the mind and brain which is thus a physical fact. Since these are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.
I'm not going to be lectured on Darwin by an ignoramus whose only reading it Enc Brit, and you've not even understood the entry.

You do not even know the difference between neurons and genes.
Just fuck off and read a book, you dick head.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:18 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:59 pm
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.

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.
Where did you get the above ignorant and narrow minded idea? Note the fact;
Darwin did not consider the process of evolution as the survival of the fittest; he regarded it as survival of the fitter, because the “struggle for existence” (a term he took from English economist and demographer Thomas Malthus) is relative and thus not absolute.
Instead, the winners with respect to species within ecosystems could become losers with a change of circumstances.
Link
Rather Darwin's Theory of Evolution is leveraged on the Principle of Natural Selection.

Note again this point from the referred article of the OP;
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:09 am
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
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.

You are the complete idiot.
You say "intended purpose". Yet evolution is a unintentional effect of change. Thus no intended purpose.
Again you are exposing your own ignorance as the real complete idiot.
Since I am non-theistic, there is no way I am referring to some God commanded teleological purpose re Creationism.

Note I stated "its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose"
Whatever is grounded in human nature has some biologically 'intended' purpose.
The human organs, senses, faculties has their biologically 'intended' purpose, i.e. their specific function.

Therefore the moral sense faculty has its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose which is basically a biological grounded function, thus it is a fact, i.e. a moral fact.


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
You are ignorant of human nature.

The average human has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 of connectors.
Each neuron as a biological cell has 3 billion pairs of "coding letters".
Can you imagine the possible combinations within the billions of neurons and 3 billion pairs of letters in the DNA that must be connect correctly to ensure a person is a non-psychopath.

As such the possibility of errors in the connectivity are very natural and possible thus giving rise to variations from the norms.
Psychopaths are thus perverts from what is expected from the norms.
Since the consequences of psychopathy contradict the objectives of morality [as defined], malignant psychopathy has to be modulated morally.

You are posting your views like a headless chicken because you did not define your morality specifically.

My point;
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.
This moral sense is represented by physical neuronal connectivity as a 'program' within the mind and brain which is thus a physical fact. Since these are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.
You cannot say what Darwin wrote since you have not read anything he wrote.

When you say "his book" which of his many publications are you referring to, and where exactly and in what context did he say that.

1829–1832. [Records of captured insects, in] Stephens, J. F., Illustrations of British entomology[1]
1835: Extracts from Letters to Henslow (Read at a meeting of the Cambridge Philosophical Society on 16 November 1835, with comments by John Stevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick, and printed for private distribution dated 1 December 1835.[2] Selected remarks had been read by Sedgwick to the Geological Society of London on 18 November 1835, and these were summarised in Proceedings of the Geological Society published in 1836.[3] Further extracts were published in the Entomological Magazine and, with a review, in the Magazine of Natural History.[2] A reprint was issued in 1960, again for private distribution.)
1836: A LETTER, Containing Remarks on the Moral State of TAHITI, NEW ZEALAND, &c. – BY CAPT. R. FITZROY AND C. DARWIN, ESQ. OF H.M.S. 'Beagle.'[4]
1838–1843: Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle: published between 1839 and 1843 in five Parts (and nineteen numbers) by various authors, edited and superintended by Charles Darwin, who contributed sections to two of the Parts:
1838: Part 1 No. 1 Fossil Mammalia, by Richard Owen (Preface and Geological introduction by Darwin)
1838: Part 2 No. 1 Mammalia, by George R. Waterhouse (Geographical introduction and A notice of their habits and ranges by Darwin)
1839: Journal and Remarks (The Voyage of the Beagle)
1842: The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs
1844: Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
1846: Geological Observations on South America
1849: Geology from A Manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy: and adapted for travellers in general., John F.W. Herschel ed.
1851: A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidae; or, Pedunculated Cirripedes.
1851: A Monograph on the Fossil Lepadidae, or, Pedunculated Cirripedes of Great Britain
1854: A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc.
1854: A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain
1858: On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection (Extract from an unpublished Work on Species)
1859: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
1862: On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects
1865: The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants (Linnean Society paper, published in book form in 1875)
1868: The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication
1871: The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
1872: The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals
1875: Insectivorous Plants
1876: The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom
1877: The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species
1879: "Preface and 'a preliminary notice'" in Ernst Krause's Erasmus Darwin
1880: The Power of Movement in Plants
1881: The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:40 am I'm not going to be lectured on Darwin by an ignoramus whose only reading it Enc Brit, and you've not even understood the entry.

You do not even know the difference between neurons and genes.
Just fuck off and read a book, you dick head.
Rather than continuing with a proper intellectual discourse, that is your usual response when your ignorance is exposed. You're an intellectual coward.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:06 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:24 am
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 differences 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, do 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.
Indeed, the strong always dominate but allowing them to claim all virtue is not going to fly here at any rate. The British before the Americans saw themselves as bringing civilization to those unable to resist their subjugation and slavery. America claims virtue in bringing freedom and democracy to weaker countries while supporting dictators and death squads to make sure these poor souls serve the interests of American corporations. It is at least honest to admit that power is the seed of racism and its brutal use is not a virtue. America presently is the only superpower and has been a superpower since World War two, but America has not been a kind master and the empire seems to be crumbling from within. White majority countries and their constitutions are not what is enacted, you listen to someone but if their behaviors don't match the talk, it is bull shit. Most of Europe and North America whore themselves to American domination relinquishing even their sovereignty in the cases in which they have allowed America weapons of mass destruction read nuclear missiles to be planted on their soil. The yin-yang thing, yes it would be well for white people to remember that globally they are the minority.

I think in most Islamic countries their culture is the Koran, which reads like a recipe book for creating psychopaths. That is the thing people are racist because their culture is racist, if a culture is a moral monstrosity, it is a two-way street citizens feed back into it the same poison they have been fed. Christianity is a wretched piece of work as well, but most Christians have learned to ignore the more barbaric aspects of its scriptures, these are archaic artifacts we need to abandon if we ever wish to improve the harmony of the world's citizenry. " Ignorance is not the death of knowledge, ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge." Alfred North Whitehead.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:40 am I'm not going to be lectured on Darwin by an ignoramus whose only reading it Enc Brit, and you've not even understood the entry.

You do not even know the difference between neurons and genes.
Just fuck off and read a book, you dick head.
Rather than continuing with a proper intellectual discourse, that is your usual response when your ignorance is exposed. You're an intellectual coward.
I am going to spell it out to you

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 1:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:06 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 9:25 am

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 differences 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, do 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.
Indeed, the strong always dominate but allowing them to claim all virtue is not going to fly here at any rate. The British before the Americans saw themselves as bringing civilization to those unable to resist their subjugation and slavery. America claims virtue in bringing freedom and democracy to weaker countries while supporting dictators and death squads to make sure these poor souls serve the interests of American corporations. It is at least honest to admit that power is the seed of racism and its brutal use is not a virtue. America presently is the only superpower and has been a superpower since World War two, but America has not been a kind master and the empire seems to be crumbling from within. White majority countries and their constitutions are not what is enacted, you listen to someone but if their behaviors don't match the talk, it is bull shit. Most of Europe and North America whore themselves to American domination relinquishing even their sovereignty in the cases in which they have allowed America weapons of mass destruction read nuclear missiles to be planted on their soil. The yin-yang thing, yes it would be well for white people to remember that globally they are the minority.
As with the Yin-Yang principle, i.e. all dynamic positives are inherently embedded with its negatives and vice-versa; when this dynamism is flowing one way and not balanced, then the inherent negative will take over; if this negative is not balanced, then its inherent positive will take over and so on.

As you will note that has happened with every dominating power [empires, civilizations, and the likes] in the history of mankind. Note how the Japanese dominating power rose, fell and rose, and is falling at present .......

It will be the same with 'white' power in a matter of time if they don't balance it optimally. I believe 'white' power will crumble, note apartheid, and it is a matter of time for the whites in USA, Europe and elsewhere.
The Chinese are on the rise and with their [on average] lesser polished virtues and moral competence, their politics are a greater threat for the rest of the world.

However I don't see how humanity and groups can balance their impulses for power with optimal virtue unless the understand the internal causes that drive those power play.
This is what I have been promoting for Morality, i.e. we need to understand the internal mechanisms in order to expedite corrective actions.
I think in most Islamic countries their culture is the Koran, which reads like a recipe book for creating psychopaths. That is the thing people are racist because their culture is racist, if a culture is a moral monstrosity, it is a two-way street citizens feed back into it the same poison they have been fed.
Christianity is a wretched piece of work as well, but most Christians have learned to ignore the more barbaric aspects of its scriptures, these are archaic artifacts we need to abandon if we ever wish to improve the harmony of the world's citizenry. " Ignorance is not the death of knowledge, ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge." Alfred North Whitehead.
I have a different views in term of Christianity [btw, I am not one].

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The whole of the Christian constitution is grounded on the above which comprised of a promise and an offer of invitation into a covenant [divine contract] with God/Jesus.
As such to be a Christian, one must enter into a contract with God.
In any contract, there must be agreed terms for interests to flow either way.
The terms of contract of Christianity can only be what is spoken by Jesus Christ, i.e. the GOSPELS and nothing else.
The OT, epistles and acts are merely appendixes and explanatory notes and guides.

The Gospels is solidly pacifistic, i.e. love all including one's enemies, give the other cheeks. As such a contracted Christian cannot commit evil acts.
If Christians were to commit evil acts, e.g. going to war, kill for the greater good of the religion, they are doing in on their own will and not following the dictates of Christianity. It is then for them to hope God will forgive them for such sins.

So, we cannot blame Christianity per se for the evil acts of "Christians" acting outside the terms of the contract.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Dec 21, 2022 3:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 3:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:40 am I'm not going to be lectured on Darwin by an ignoramus whose only reading it Enc Brit, and you've not even understood the entry.

You do not even know the difference between neurons and genes.
Just fuck off and read a book, you dick head.
Rather than continuing with a proper intellectual discourse, that is your usual response when your ignorance is exposed. You're an intellectual coward.
I am going to spell it out to you

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
You're the ignorant piece of shit bastard!

I took a Biochemistry Course from Harvardx and BioChem, Genetics, Genomics, Rational Medicine from MITx recently.

I posted this;
Dislike for Cilantro Link to a Gene
viewtopic.php?p=613620#p613620
as similarity that morality is likely linked to genes plus its epigenetics factors.

Genes comprised of a range of DNAs which are encased with its related neurons.

You ignorant dickhead .. FUCK OFF!!!
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:06 am
As you will note that has happened with every dominating power [empires, civilizations, and the likes] in the history of mankind. Note how the Japanese dominating power rose, fell and rose, and is falling at present .......
It will be the same with 'white' power in a matter of time if they balance it optimally. I believe 'white' power will crumble, note apartheid, and it is a matter of time for the whites in USA, Europe and elsewhere.
The Chinese are on the rise and their politics are a threat for the rest of the world.

However I don't see how humanity and groups can balance their impulses for power with optimal virtue unless the understand the internal causes that drive those power play.
This is what I have been promoting for Morality, i.e. we need to understand the internal mechanisms in order to expedite corrective actions.
That is the thing people I have different views in term of Christianity [btw, I am not one].
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The whole of the Christian constitution is grounded on the above which comprised of a promise and an offer of invitation into a covenant [divine contract] with God/Jesus.
As such to be a Christian, one must enter into a contract with God.
In any contract, there must be agreed terms for interests to flow either way.
The terms of contract of Christianity can only be what is spoken by Jesus Christ, i.e. the GOSPELS and nothing else.
The OT, epistles and acts are merely appendixes and explanatory notes and guides.

The Gospels is solidly pacifistic, i.e. love all including one's enemies, give the other cheeks. As such a contracted Christian cannot commit evil acts.
If Christians were to commit evil acts, e.g. going to war, kill for the greater good of the religion, they are doing in on their own will and not following the dictates of Christianity. It is then for them to hope God will forgive them for such sins.
So, we cannot blame Christianity per se for the evil acts of "Christians" acting outside the terms of the contract.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps with future advances in genetic engineering, we can alter our makeup in the future. It is true that the one thing guaranteed is change. Christianity as a moral guide is a nightmare, it is full of savage barbarism, particularly the Old Testament. Halfway to solving a problem is acknowledging you have one, it would take a movement within the context of a given culture to reform it making it less toxic to the rest of the globe. America is a sick fuck of an empire at present and a danger to all humanity. We need to relinquish these old mythologies and create a new one to take us into the future, global mythology one based on reason and a reverence for all life forms, morality based upon our common carbon-based biology. Morality arises as a result of community. We need to expand our concept of community to be all-embracing. Darwin's idea was anything but social Darwinism, he knew the harsh reality of nature and that it was not a model for societies but societies are sanctuaries within nature.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:06 am
As you will note that has happened with every dominating power [empires, civilizations, and the likes] in the history of mankind. Note how the Japanese dominating power rose, fell and rose, and is falling at present .......
It will be the same with 'white' power in a matter of time if they balance it optimally. I believe 'white' power will crumble, note apartheid, and it is a matter of time for the whites in USA, Europe and elsewhere.
The Chinese are on the rise and their politics are a threat for the rest of the world.

However I don't see how humanity and groups can balance their impulses for power with optimal virtue unless the understand the internal causes that drive those power play.
This is what I have been promoting for Morality, i.e. we need to understand the internal mechanisms in order to expedite corrective actions.
That is the thing people I have different views in term of Christianity [btw, I am not one].
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The whole of the Christian constitution is grounded on the above which comprised of a promise and an offer of invitation into a covenant [divine contract] with God/Jesus.
As such to be a Christian, one must enter into a contract with God.
In any contract, there must be agreed terms for interests to flow either way.
The terms of contract of Christianity can only be what is spoken by Jesus Christ, i.e. the GOSPELS and nothing else.
The OT, epistles and acts are merely appendixes and explanatory notes and guides.

The Gospels is solidly pacifistic, i.e. love all including one's enemies, give the other cheeks. As such a contracted Christian cannot commit evil acts.
If Christians were to commit evil acts, e.g. going to war, kill for the greater good of the religion, they are doing in on their own will and not following the dictates of Christianity. It is then for them to hope God will forgive them for such sins.
So, we cannot blame Christianity per se for the evil acts of "Christians" acting outside the terms of the contract.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps with future advances in genetic engineering, we can alter our makeup in the future. It is true that the one thing guaranteed is change. Christianity as a moral guide is a nightmare, it is full of savage barbarism, particularly the Old Testament.
You seem to have missed my argument above that Christianity per se is inherently pacifist and the OT is not a part of the contract of Christianity.
Thus the OT cannot be a moral guide [standard] for Christianity per se.
If anyone were to insist the OT is their primary moral guide, then they are technically not a Christian.
Halfway to solving a problem is acknowledging you have one, it would take a movement within the context of a given culture to reform it making it less toxic to the rest of the globe. America is a sick fuck of an empire at present and a danger to all humanity. We need to relinquish these old mythologies and create a new one to take us into the future, global mythology one based on reason and a reverence for all life forms, morality based upon our common carbon-based biology.
Morality arises as a result of community. We need to expand our concept of community to be all-embracing. Darwin's idea was anything but social Darwinism, he knew the harsh reality of nature and that it was not a model for societies but societies are sanctuaries within nature.
Morality is fundamental to human nature and exists inherently in a physical sense in the brains [DNA] of ALL human, thus an objective fact.
This fundamental objective fact like most other fundamentals of human nature unfold differently in individuals and groups due to the range of complexities within each human brain and environment.

It is too late for now but in the future it is possible to ensure the moral potentials within all humans unfolds optimally for the well beings of the individuals and humanity. This will take a long time to achieve in the future and provided we start now.

There is already evidence the morality potential had unfolded albeit slowly in the example of the abolishment of slavery.
It took perhaps 5000 years from the barbaric enslavement of humans to the present state where all sovereign nations has at least taken steps to ban chattel slavery.
This is merely evidence of the unfoldment of our moral potential with regard to one type of evil act, i.e. slavery to a certain extent but it is still far from expectation i.e. eliminating slaver voluntarily without external laws nor coercions.

Besides slavery, morality-proper comprises many other moral elements which must be addressed and expeditiously.
We cannot progress expeditiously until there is greater awareness that morality is represented by objective moral facts which are the physical elements and algorithms in the brain and body.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:18 am
My point;
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.
This moral sense is represented by physical neuronal connectivity as a 'program' within the mind and brain which is thus a physical fact. Since these are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.
You cannot say what Darwin wrote since you have not read anything he wrote.

When you say "his book" which of his many publications are you referring to, and where exactly and in what context did he say that.

Come ON!!

I've even given you a reading list of Darwin's published works.
So where did he say these things you claim??

You also made a claim about Neurons and DNA. Darwin had no knowledge of DNA, and never mentioned neurons. Neuron was not even in Darwin's vocabulary. He did not write the word once.
Neuronal connectivity does not directly bear on Natural Selection; nor does ANYTHING we do during our lifetimes.
We die with the same genome we were born with. The genome and the DNA cannot learn about lived experience.
Natural Selection is about deleting bad traits, and promoting good ones. This is achieved primarily by reproductive success and/or the lack of it.
It has everything to so with the reproduction of viable progeny, and the failure of those individuals that fail to pass on those traits.

A moral sense is only relevant to natural selection to the degree that a moral sense may or may not contribute to reproductive success.
In this Darwin had something to say, but not the garbled rubbish you put into his words.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 5:00 am Morality is fundamental to human nature and exists inherently in a physical sense in the brains [DNA] of ALL human, thus an objective fact.
No.
This is a non sequitur.

The DNA does not code the contents of the brain. The brain is mostly coded by lived experience.
A moral sense is present innately in all mammals, but this does not make any moral code or moral sense objective, since we all "feel" differently about what is right and what is wrong. And that is about our lives, not our genes.

Neither does our lived experience and moral codes change our DNA. We die with the same DNA code that we are born with. Natural Selection acts to limit some and promote others by mechanisms such as death, and reproductive success.
There is no information link between the neurons and the genome.
This idea that you have is the most stupid thing I have seen this year.
FOr the neurons to inform the genome there would have to be a pretty sophisticated mechanism beyond the capacity of matter and energy.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6667
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 5:00 am There is already evidence the morality potential had unfolded albeit slowly in the example of the abolishment of slavery.
It took perhaps 5000 years from the barbaric enslavement of humans to the present state where all sovereign nations has at least taken steps to ban chattel slavery.
This is merely evidence of the unfoldment of our moral potential with regard to one type of evil act, i.e. slavery to a certain extent but it is still far from expectation i.e. eliminating slaver voluntarily without external laws nor coercions.

Besides slavery, morality-proper comprises many other moral elements which must be addressed and expeditiously.
We cannot progress expeditiously until there is greater awareness that morality is represented by objective moral facts which are the physical elements and algorithms in the brain and body.
If VA is arguing with PH, then his idea of morality has nothing to do with deontological and consequentialist approaches. But he forgets in other contexts and quite happily says that slavery is evil, that it is an evil act.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Dec 21, 2022 1:14 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 6:18 am
My point;
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.
This moral sense is represented by physical neuronal connectivity as a 'program' within the mind and brain which is thus a physical fact. Since these are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.
You cannot say what Darwin wrote since you have not read anything he wrote.
When you say "his book" which of his many publications are you referring to, and where exactly and in what context did he say that.
Come ON!!
I've even given you a reading list of Darwin's published works.
So where did he say these things you claim??
In this post of mine,
viewtopic.php?p=613857#p613857
I referred to this article,
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Dar ... telligence
where Vincent di Norcia made reference to Darwin's The Origin of Species.

As for the rest of the points you're an ignorant dickhead.. so Fuck Off.
Post Reply