Where Does Morality Come From?

[New Rogernomics]

Morality is derived from altruism, which is biologically (or genetically) inherited. As a sentient species we are capable of higher thinking than non-sentient species; some anthropologists argue sentience is determined by the ability to have creative/innovative thought, as well as fashion tools. Though other animals can dream {and fashion tools], so it is a difficult question as to whether other animals establish moral principles (and aren't solidly altruistic): http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/dreaming.html

Not all forms of morality are derived from altruism, some follow a deontological not utilitarian pattern(Although the utilitarian principles might be based on deontological thought).

I never said all forms of morality are derived from altruism: I said 'morality is derived from altruism', thus your counter-argument is based on a claim I never made.

[New Rogernomics]

Morality is derived from altruism

Lol, Objectivism.

I am not an objectivist: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6461 ... ral-beings

First of all, how do you define altruism?

Basically, altruism involves generosity outside of the family, meaning generosity toward non-kinsmen.
[...]Why is altruism so difficult to explain in evolutionary terms?

A typical hunter-gatherer band of the type that was universal in the world 15,000 years ago has a few brothers or sisters, but almost everyone else is unrelated. The fact that they do so much sharing is a paradox genetically. Here are all these unrelated people who are sharing without being bean counters. You would expect those who are best at cheating, and taking but not giving, to be coming out ahead. Their genes should be on the rise while altruistic genes would be going away. But, in fact, we are evolved to share quite widely in bands...

[Typhlochactas]

Definitely not God.

[Volnotova]

Not all forms of morality are derived from altruism, some follow a deontological not utilitarian pattern(Although the utilitarian principles might be based on deontological thought).

I never said all forms of morality are derived from altruism: I said 'morality is derived from altruism', thus your counter-argument is based on a claim I never made.

"Americans are paedophiles"

"Pardon?"

"I never said all Americans."

[Cameroi]

Not all forms of morality are derived from altruism, some follow a deontological not utilitarian pattern(Although the utilitarian principles might be based on deontological thought).

I never said all forms of morality are derived from altruism: I said 'morality is derived from altruism', thus your counter-argument is based on a claim I never made.

doesn't even require altruism really. the kind of world we all have to live in we each have to live in to at least some degree, so the factors which shape that are of self interest too.

[Pope Joan]

Maybe three years ago now some Israeli scientists claimed to have identified an altruism gene. They said it was probably selected by evolution because self sacrifice can be good for the preservation of the tribe.

Of course, you would have to pass your genes on before you made that sacrifice in order for the system to work long-term.

[New Rogernomics]

I never said all forms of morality are derived from altruism: I said 'morality is derived from altruism', thus your counter-argument is based on a claim I never made.

"Americans are pedophiles" - Corrected your spelling error.

"Pardon?"

"I never said all Americans."

Resize that image or put it in a spoiler.

Another to put on my ignore list, thanks for being an ass.

Addendum: 'X are Y' is different than 'X is Y'. 'Americans are pedophiles' is different from 'An American is a pedophile'; as the later relates to an individual. By using 'is' instead of 'are' you are not making the claim that 'Y' is true for all. But I don't see any point arguing further, if a troll face is all you can provide; as so far as forming an sensible argument.

[New Rogernomics]

I never said all forms of morality are derived from altruism: I said 'morality is derived from altruism', thus your counter-argument is based on a claim I never made.

doesn't even require altruism really. the kind of world we all have to live in we each have to live in to at least some degree, so the factors which shape that are of self interest too.

Of course. What I tried to explain to Volnotova"(before he acted like an ass) was that morality is derived from altruism according to some evolutionary biologists (and anthropologists); morality is shaped by our environment as well as by human thought.

[ALMF]

There are three surses of morality: made up by caltures and things, thoes based on conciquences, and those based on entent. Those in the first is arbitrary and copreshes. the latter two are about rashinality and by the second it is ONLY posible to be good without God.

[Cameroi]

"Americans are paedophiles"

"Pardon?"

"I never said all Americans."

Resize that image or put it in a spoiler.

Another to put on my ignore list, thanks for being an ass.

i'm pretty sure the only way they're "being an ass" THIS time, is the size of the stock image. previous occasions in other threads may be a different matter, but that would hardly apply here. and no, i don't recall specific instances, and could very easily have them confused with someone else using the same image.

[Sociobiology]

Maybe three years ago now some Israeli scientists claimed to have identified an altruism gene. They said it was probably selected by evolution because self sacrifice can be good for the preservation of the tribe.

Of course, you would have to pass your genes on before you made that sacrifice in order for the system to work long-term.

or save siblings carrying those genes.
remember ants and bees exhibit altruism as we would define it.

[Sociobiology]

Not all forms of morality are derived from altruism, some follow a deontological not utilitarian pattern(Although the utilitarian principles might be based on deontological thought).

I never said all forms of morality are derived from altruism: I said 'morality is derived from altruism', thus your counter-argument is based on a claim I never made.

all is understood in that context, you should have said some morality otherwise all is implied.

[New Rogernomics]

Resize that image or put it in a spoiler.

Another to put on my ignore list, thanks for being an ass.

i'm pretty sure the only way they're "being an ass" THIS time, is the size of the stock image. previous occasions in other threads may be a different matter, but that would hardly apply here. and no, i don't recall specific instances, and could very easily have them confused with someone else using the same image.

Reinterpreting a sentence i.e. making a claim that 'x' never stated, then using it as a punching bag is being an ass; I don't care what other people's limits are, I don't appreciate straw man arguments being used against me.

[New Rogernomics]

I never said all forms of morality are derived from altruism: I said 'morality is derived from altruism', thus your counter-argument is based on a claim I never made.

all is understood in that context, you should have said some morality otherwise all is implied.

Not so, 'are' and 'is' create different meanings. 'Morality is derived' is different from 'morality are derived'; and 'all forms of...' is an addition, thus that line of argument you just established is a straw man*.

Continue?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y

Example:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

[Sociobiology]

what claim?
I am hungry only claims that I fell the emotion or sensation of hunger.



what part of

those things are right or wrong only to the extent we behave as if they are

is giving you trouble? Because you obvious do not understand the statement. otherwise you would not be agreeing with it in an oppositional tone.

What part of "People just do" don't you understand?

any instictual behvior must have reason to have persisted in the evoltuion of a species.
people do not "just do" anything on the an ultimate scale.

Eating a rotting maggot infested corpse or a bucket of cow dung is just plain gross to many people, which is why they refrain from it,

correct and the reason your brain is shaped in such a way as to feel disgust at that, is because in the past animals who felt disgust at this were less likely to eat those things, and thus more likely to leave descendants, passing on that genetically controlled structure in the brain.

This entire "If you feel disgusted, that is because you really, deep inside, know/think it is immoral!" is getting really old now.

[/quote]
who said anything about knowing anything deep down inside, It is just why the behavior evolved, the behavior itself is just a pattern in the brain that makes avoiding things that smell a certain way.
Ultimate vs proximate causes here.
proximate you avoid it because of the feeling of disgust ( a disgust reflex)
the ultimate cause for that reflex existing is to avoid disease. The brain is not aware of the ultimate causes, (unless they learn about it, of course)

[Sociobiology]

all is understood in that context, you should have said some morality otherwise all is implied.

Not so, 'are' and 'is' create different meanings. 'Morality is derived' is different from 'morality are derived'; and 'all forms of...' is an addition, thus that line of argument you just established is a straw man*.

Continue?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y

Example:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

ha just got you were a troll never mind.

[Volnotova]

"Americans are pedophiles" - Corrected your spelling error.

"Pardon?"

"I never said all Americans."

(Image)

Resize that image or put it in a spoiler.

Another to put on my ignore list, thanks for being an ass.

Addendum: 'X are Y' is different than 'X is Y'. 'Americans are pedophiles' is different from 'An American is a pedophile'; as the later relates to an individual. By using 'is' instead of 'are' you are not making the claim that 'Y' is true for all. But I don't see any point arguing further, if a troll face is all you can provide; as so far as forming an sensible argument.

Paedophiles = British English.

"Are" is just "Is" when multiple instances/sequences/lists of something are involved.

"Americans" is a group, "are" is is(Verbose much?), paedophiles pertains to the inherent nature/property of that group, in this case that they are paedophiles.

An American is in [Americans], as one of the property of [Americans] is that they are paedophiles this also relates to the nature of the American(s) in [Americans](Or just [Americans]), therefore American A, which is in B, the latter which shares inherent property C also pertains to person A because he/she is in B.

This might not have been your intention, but I am not the only one that thought you implied all forms of morality.

[Sociobiology]

most may be stretching it.

and just because an instinct can be overridden does not mean it does not exist.
Unless you think humans do not have a pain avoidance instinct.

most isnt stretching it. ... unless you count "crimes of passion" as honor killings--where a man finds his wife with another man and kills them both, for example.

i dont know what you meant by the rest or why you said it to me.

well that would be considered an honor killing, a killing to punish a slight or perceived affront.
the passion in this case being an instinctual drive to avert competitors by establishing a reputation of reprisal.

I can honestly say I have no idea why I said the stricken part to you, It may have been meant for someone else.
I have to stop posting here late at night.

found it, it was in reference to your implication (perhaps unintentional) that morality was purely cultural.

[New Rogernomics]

Resize that image or put it in a spoiler.

Another to put on my ignore list, thanks for being an ass.

Addendum: 'X are Y' is different than 'X is Y'. 'Americans are pedophiles' is different from 'An American is a pedophile'; as the later relates to an individual. By using 'is' instead of 'are' you are not making the claim that 'Y' is true for all. But I don't see any point arguing further, if a troll face is all you can provide; as so far as forming an sensible argument.

Paedophiles = British English.

"Are" is just "Is" when multiple instances/sequences/lists of something are involved.

"Americans" is a group, "are" is is(Verbose much?), paedophiles pertains to the inherent nature/property of that group, in this case that they are paedophiles.

An American is in [Americans], as one of the property of [Americans] is that they are paedophiles this also relates to the nature of the American(s) in [Americans](Or just [Americans]), therefore American A, which is in B, the latter which shares inherent property C also pertains to person A because he/she is in B.

This might not have been your intention, but I am not the only one that thought you implied all forms of morality.

I never implied all forms of morality, rather that morality is derived from altruism according to the opinions of evolutionary biologists and anthropologists I have read; which was not to suggest that morality is derived totally from altruism.

[Sociobiology]

I like to think of my personal set of moral values as a code of chivalry.

so raping an unaccompanied woman is OK but if a man is with here you have to leave her alone, or at least kill him first?

just a little light mocking because that is what chivalry originally meant

[Volnotova]

Paedophiles = British English.

"Are" is just "Is" when multiple instances/sequences/lists of something are involved.

"Americans" is a group, "are" is is(Verbose much?), paedophiles pertains to the inherent nature/property of that group, in this case that they are paedophiles.

An American is in [Americans], as one of the property of [Americans] is that they are paedophiles this also relates to the nature of the American(s) in [Americans](Or just [Americans]), therefore American A, which is in B, the latter which shares inherent property C also pertains to person A because he/she is in B.

This might not have been your intention, but I am not the only one that thought you implied all forms of morality.

I never implied all forms of morality, rather that morality is derived from altruism according to the opinions of evolutionary biologists and anthropologists I have read.

Again, my apologies for accusing you of trolling(A case of not seeing things in context).

[New Rogernomics]

I never implied all forms of morality, rather that morality is derived from altruism according to the opinions of evolutionary biologists and anthropologists I have read.

Again, my apologies for accusing you of trolling(A case of not seeing things in context).

That is fine, apology accepted.

[Nidaria]

I like to think of my personal set of moral values as a code of chivalry.

so raping an unaccompanied woman is OK but if a man is with here you have to leave her alone, or at least kill him first?

just a little light mocking because that is what chivalry originally meant

You obviously do not know what chivalry is.

[Kalalification]

There is no morality. Well, there is, in one sense, but it exists because we make it out to be extant. Exactly like race.

[Meowfoundland]

Personal opinions.