A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

That's what we should all say.

A rabbi was adjudicating a dispute between two women. To the first woman he said "You're right!" Then to the second woman he also said "You're right!". His colleague pulled him aside advising him that they could not both be right. To him he answered "You're right!"

Are you familiar with the term evolutionary trap?
A friend of mine (evolutionary biologist) specializes in the study of these. In basic terms:
Organisms which reproduce through hereditary mechanism tend toward the relative maxima in an optimization algorithm. "Natural selection" uses a short sighted algorithm, one which is quite powerful at looking at nearest possible solutions, then moving in the direction of more favorable states (so long as those states are very close).
The development of neurological mechanisms has allowed for ever more advanced algorithms to interact with environment on a faster pace (during gene expression), though of course still dependent on the "underlying" hereditary mechanisms (allele selection). The development of neurology depends on and influences the hereditary mechanism ("choosing" mates, "deciding" to cooperate, "recognizing" kin, etc.). Neurological mechanism in a limited sense allow the hereditary mechanism to search farther/deeper into the optimization computational space.
Development of "theory of mind" by humans, other apes, cetaceans etc. provides an ability to empathize (imagine what it is to be an other). Mirror neurons seem to play a large role in this ability of an organism to have a theory of mind. Empathy is a necessary but not sufficient ability for what most call "compassion". Empathy is simply a skill which highly cognitive organisms to interact optimally within a social structure. Once an organism has a very complex theory of mind, behavior becomes very complex indeed, leading to what one might call "morality".
Morality is simply the search for principles (primarily axiology) on which to base more advanced ethical systems (algorithms for behaviors).

Morality (social cognition emergence).
Cognition (genetic behavioral emergence).
Behavior (gene expression emergence).
Genetics (stability emergence).

Moralities primary task is deciding upon what we(cognizant social beings) would consider preferable states of existence. There is no overarching "genetic" reason to assume that we should value merely "gene propogation". If we decide otherwise, this will not change our origins, it only changes our destination (chronologically).
We have every reason to assume that we are in an evolutionary trap. We are a huge genetic population, such populations are evolutionarily stable. The largest influence on our population behaviors in through communication of ideas, not some sort of kin-selection. There simply is not enough genetic difference between your daughter and a stranger on another continent, for such a selection to make much difference to drown out the influence that cultural information exchange has on human organisms.
Tribalism ("us" and "them") mechanisms in human theory of mind is simply maladaptive to the situation we now find ourselves in. Humans no longer live in isolated tribes. The reproductive genetic mixing has ensured that. Our "promiscuity" has ensured that. Tribalism (for modern humans) is an evolutionary trap, because the situation it was adaptive for no longer exists (genetically we are all one tribe).
Using tribalism as a theory of mind causes a "self-fulfilling prophesy".
If you assume tribalism, "others" will react in kind. Tit-for-tat.

Yes by definition it is, since that is what I wrote.
Of course I can if I want, I don't though.
That is false. (see above lengthy treatment addressed to Fil)

I basically agree.

Thanks for the explanation... it was required... and it makes sense... of course based on the way you 'define' aggression.

Yes aggressiveness is different than assertiveness.
Causing death is not always an act of violence (you might reflect back on my possum story on your 'Buddhist self' thread).

How is zen different than glorified escapism?
[I don't mean the question as a rhetorical one. I understand it may sound that way, but I see no other way to directly ask the question. ]

You're another one of these little cowards, Matt, who demands answers of others but just can't live up to the standard yourself.

u r never true when u see the other, it is too clear how u r never an individual
as if any other is an essential condition to ur being, this is wrong
sure ur being is like anyother being condition, but what u r is urself which is only u and the true u or the best of only u value

so he is an hypocrite not a little coward, it is obvious that he lives only from defendin the system and lean on its powers over everything, the system based on abusin any perspective of else as to invent a reason that justify the perspective being superior definin it

that is why he couldnt ever possibly mean anything he says, what he means is only any trafic of arguments that show himself definin it

it is worse then talkin to a wall even talkin to satan, it is talkin to **** livin literaly

Yes my concept of "wrong" centers itself on the idea of disproportional over reaction rather then in quality's themselves which may at best be or not be adequate...if a response is inadequate in quality it cannot be perceived and works as noise does, being hard to justify responsibility when a response is qualitatively inadequate. Now, in turn, the usage of a disproportional response even if adequate in quality can indeed at times be perceived as a moral absolute wrong once the probability of a misunderstanding decreases given the response was qualitatively adequate and supposedly the challenge was understood. Of course the whole charade about "responsibility" heavily rely on the problem of free will and the idea of agency which itself brings yet another set of problems on the correct approach we should do while framing the scope and nature of Morality and Ethics...I rather speak on the evolution of behavior and the optimization of adequate responses to further complex problem solving, through cooperation. Itself an unfolding natural adaptive process with no responsibility in place, justified in factual need for a more organized system. In that sense we can speak of mathematical ideal schema of problem solving responses which in each step of the evolutionary process must have had a potential limit, and thus Absolutely adequate given its constrains or context, be it specifically here in the moral debate be it anywhere else...

I apologize for my messy English. (a bit tired here)

I realize that Matt. Those stories are well known to me. If you are referring to my simplification of killing when only two beings are involved then just referring to 'killing' seems to work as an example (right or wrong) of a 'moral absolute'. Please refer to my series of exchanges with max which include the 'simple but extreme scenario'.

If you're just talking about my reply to Fil then... yes I agree.

If we are to deepen the analysis the very idea of right and wrong instead of progressively more adequate responses through time can be perceived as an evolutionary modeling tool either to reinforce or to constrain social behavior.

Yes Matt the explanation you brought up here perfectly makes sense with my intuitions on the matter justifying the emergence and development of big brains and adequate "software" for ever more optimized and faster response cycles. The optimization of evolution itself.

Matt in,

http://able2know.org/topic/208852-14#post-5263830



It seems that these distinctions you talked about, Matt, don't make much difference at all.

But this argument you've advanced wasn't yours either. It is a oft repeated bit of nonsense from prescriptivists, many of whom make the same errors as you have here.

Yes it was with regard to your response to Fil.

You are absolutely correct (in my opinion) regarding value being a fundamental that must be defined prior to any optimization algorithm. Also that a notion of responsibility (free-will) is fundamental in the discussion of interacting agents. The concepts are a short-hand for much more detailed dissection (such as in the 'free-will' thread).
At the very least, for purposes of discussion one could assume that most humans take a notion of "free-will" as axiomatic. We could also at the very least assume that most humans take "eudaimonia" as preferable to "suffering". Then run optimization.
----------------------------
Your English seems fine right now. English is my primary and functionally only language.

I am glad I could clarify that well enough for a change, very often my odd conceptual associations come across in a less then ideal manner...

Matt you ask "How is zen different than glorified escapism?" I think you are entertaining an image of monks sitting all day in meditation centers focusing on their breath or belly buttons.
I don't see it that way. Indeed, it is my perhaps grandiose notion that if it is not zen (or one of its many functional equivalents) it is escapism.

No my impression is not of monastic life. My impression is that of escaping samsara. Seeing through the veil of subjectivity. I however rarely see a moral position in zen as it is presented among the Western intelligencia.