Human Nature, A Paradox.

Dyslexia,

Can you accept the possibility that your ethics are unnatural? Should humans hold themselves to any higher standard than the rest of nature.

Poverty, conquest, robbery, rape, murder are all parts of nature. Ants have horrific wars. Spiders kill and eat their mates. Forced sex is common and at times necessary for survival. The strong of many species stake out and defend territory, even if it means the death of fellows.

Tribalism, rape, murder and war are not just part of "human nature". They are part of nature. It is quite probable that each one of these traits evolved in humans to ensure survival, and it is likely that our present state depended on these traits at some time in our history.

I think some of your phrases need defining (and I am not sure that it is possible.

You say there is "behavior that is unexcusable". This implies some set of morals that are of necessity a attribute of some society. Many societies have not felt that killing or conquest etc. were "inexcusable" (heck it's in the Bible).

You also talk about "betterment of human condition". But, who are you to say that a world without war is "betterment". Evolutionarily speaking it is easy to think of situations where a species without war simply wouldn't survive.

According to your ethics, one tribe wiping out another is a bad thing. But this belief is a fairly recent invention. And, there are many sets of morals where survival, and perhaps even prosperity is well worth commiting genocide.

I may share your ethics(in nearly every case here), but we must realize that we are products of a very specific society. It is unrealistic to judge Universals like "dignity" and progress from our very narrow perspective.

From a biological, purely logical standpoint. Perhaps coercion, domination and arrogance are not undignified sins. Perhaps they are the most natural way toward progress.

Sorry, but that would make your ideal of human dignity simply unnatural.

ebrown

That was an exceptional response to Dys's commentary.

I almost feel I do it injustice to single out a particular sentence...but I gonna anyway:



Good observation.

What I intended to make clear was idealism as a method, a direction if you will rather than a destination, how the definitions work out is somewhat of a futuristic idea, something to be worked on as potential. I hope that, while we as humans are "natural" we do have intellect to help us overcome sociobiological tendencies that are less than helpful given the world at large. We are rapidly creating the earth as our cesspool, shall we continue in this mode or work to change it?

Both, unfortunately.

I think we should be working to change it...

...and I think we shall continue in this mode.

Especially considering the "leadership" our country is lending to international efforts in this direction.

Metaphysically speaking (if that's possible ), the process of evolution is just a pattern that humans observed.

Conversely speaking, it is also easy to think of situations where species are wiped out due to situations where species went to war. Sure, one specie might survive, but the others don't.

You sound like a hardcore naturalist :wink: .

"Ethics" is a question of what "ought" to be. Just because something is happening, that does not make it "right".

Tribes wiping out one another is immoral is not a recent invention. Religions have been there for thousands of years and I think it is safe to say that much of the morality religion has taken is taken from the result of human analysis.

Morality is not an invention my friend...

If you consider the actions of animals to be natural then it is also safe to say that morality and sympathy is as natural as anything before us. Perhaps it is a much more advanced natural progress.



It is as "natural" as I am "natural."

Why should we not consider ourselves to be the product of a progress that has lead us to a higher awareness of things?

I can't how how many could disagree with this as a general concept but it breaks down fairly quickly. The Anarchist and the Socialist have very different veiws of their "ideal" world. Their idealism takes them in entirely different directions.

Ray, I beg to differ. Anything thing that has to do with "morality" is without question an invention.

Religions have vastly different ideas from each other about what is moral.

There are some commonalities amoung religions. But things that are common reflect a common need, for example people can't kill their families (without a good reason). Many religions define "us" and "them" and then say it is perfectly OK (and perhaps required) to kill "them".

Morality is invented by each society and each religion. There is clearly no system of ethics that was not invented. Just consider these points...

Some religions say we need to kill homosexuals. Some religions accept and even encourage homosexuals.

Some religions choose another religion to kill. Some religions kill virigins from their own. Some religions burn witches from among their own.

Some religions allow incest, some forbid it and their are many ways that religions define incest.

Killing in war is allowed in the majority of religions. Killing of animals is prohibited in a few.

Some religions feel it is immoral to eat pork. Some religions feel it is immoral to eat beef. Some feel canabalism is immoral.

So with all of these different religions, how do you decide what is immoral and what is moral? "Right" and "Wrong" and what you "ought" to do all depend on what beliefs you happen to subscribe to. Most of your morals just depend on the accident of where and when you were happened to be born.

How can you say that any of these morals were not "invented"? Where else would they come from my friend?

Hmmm - I think it well behoves us to take into account what we know of our "nature" when attempting (as we have done since picking up our first tool, at least) to move towards civilization.

As beings who like to cluster together, and who have been very successful at gathering together in big groups, and developing technology, we have always sought effective means to control those aspects of our nature that are inimical to this.

Hence, we have invented laws and religions and means of enculturating children, and have developed outlets for energies stymied by those laws and other strictures.

Much of our history has been one of containing and managing aspects of our nature.

By and large, I think, we have done reasonably well in managing to live together in bigger and bigger clumps - without fighting and preying on each other too much. Success varies from place to place, of course.

I see no problem in striving to make the clump we seek to manage ourselves with reasonable civility in become the whole planet.

I imagine it will be very difficult - as it has always been - I do think our "nature" predisposes us to manage ourselves best in small clumps, with which we feel strongly affiliated - and we manage to produce a lot of people who haven't learned to affiliate themselves well with ANY clump - but, so it goes.

To say "human nature" precludes us from continued ethical development, and more holistic thinking, is to deny the realities of history, I think.

Sadly, one of the problems of big clumps, and advancing technology, is that they tend to develop artificially induced affiliations - like nations, or mass religions, or religious-type political beliefs - which then play out the old dramas of conflict and competition that are relatively harmless when they take place between small bands with limited weaponry - but become terrible when played out by lots of people with very dangerous weapons.

But - we do seem able to learn strategies for living together - which I suspect work best when we allow for and understand our "nature".

By the way - things like caring for the frailer amongst us in our groups DO seem to be so ancient a part of our nature, that they almost seem hard-wired in.

That's a very good response, dlowan, and I hate to follow it. But I must.

In response to the earlier, to argue the naturality or unnaturality of things is silly. By the standard that we ARE animals, everything we do is natural, no matter if it imitates other types of animals or not. If we choose morality, that's natural. If not, THAT's natural. But of course there will always be the moral folks and the amoral folks (like me). And that's natural.


The thing about this that makes it so hard to do, is:
nobody knows what better is
because
there is no better.
There is only different.
That you think being happy is swell is your opinion.
But I look at happiness as a silly thing and a distraction.
It is almost certain that happiness is at the base of what you seek, which is the "betterment of the human condition."
But I submit you that the things that make you happy are not always in your best interest. In fact, (sex is a big one) they are sometimes prone to get you killed.
And furthermore, happiness is just the primary tool of evolution. If you could make yourself be happy like with a pill or operation or by rubbing a heretofore unknown nerve center on your wrist) in going to work instead of watching TV, would you do that? So then what good is happiness, if you would change it if you could?
So my point is, if the basis of your "betterment of humanity" is happier people and more happy people, and if happiness is just an uncouth tool of evolution, then what is the purpose of "betterment of humanity?" I propose, rather, attempts through technology at the dissolution of happiness and other emotions. Only then will we get anywhere with the questions we find most important of all, like meaning of life, basis of truth, is real really real, etc.

However, given there are a lot of us, and we are growing in numbers and such, and, in general, we want to live lives of not getting killed. or tortured or robbed or starving - and we like to be able to have people we care about and a place to live with reasonable air and water and to have health care and to be able to get about - and all - do you not think there can be made a good case for - even only using enlightened self-interest - certain conditions to obtain, which necessitate certain supporting structures - like law and international law and prudent environmental practices and certain societal provisions - that just make sense - without necessarily getting into what is moral or not?????

Binnyboy said: "But of course there will always be the moral folks and the amoral folks (like me). And that's natural. "

Interestingly, I am not sure that is really true, when you look at it - well, it sort of is.

Consider this.

As we look at how our brains and personalities develop - the fullest neurological development seems to occur in the presence of loving and nurturing relationships with caregivers, and stimulation and such (I KNOW I say "and such too much!!) (And good food and not being murdered and all, too)

As it happens - these are also the conditions where empathy and concern for others - and kindness in dealing with others - grows best too. (Empathy for instance, is partly learned through being empathised WITH as an infant. Being able to weigh consequences of actions occurs best in a well-developed brain - which neglect, trauma and starvation and so on mitigate against having)

We have actually evolved to flourish best in conditions of love and care - and this tends to make us people well able to get along well with other humans and to be thoughtful and considered in our actions.


You can argue that the AMORAL folks are the result of somewhat unnatural, to our species, circumstances.

Dlowan,

I respectfully disagree with your clump theory. It contains an inherent (and disturbing) contradiction.

Look at your point of view, my dear bunny. In your posts you define a set of moral values. You believe that "empathy" and "concerned for others" and "getting along with other humans" and "being thoughtful and considerate in our actions" are important factors.

Than you have a defined a group of people (you haven't yet specified what these people are like) you call "the AMORAL folks", who you conveniently surmise are somehow the result of "unnatural" circumstances.

This illustrates beautifully the problem.

In order to make one clump from muliple clumps, one clump must defeat another-- either swallow it, or eliminate it. This is almost always what has happened in history. (Look at the history of your country and mine which would be quite different now had this not happened in each case).

Each clump always defines an "us" and a "them". Each clump realizes the "us" must win and the "them" must lose.

Let's look in our own society (I guess these would be sub-clumps). There is one clump that believes that our Country should be based on religious believe. They feel homosexuality is immoral. There is another clump that as their view of "freedom" and "rights".

So how do we work out these beliefs? Is there a coming together with singing and hugs? No.

Each side yells at the other "fanatic!" or "godless!". One side wants to eliminate "secularism", the other side wants to eliminate "fundamentalism". Even within our ordered, the basic process is to discredit, defeat and eliminate the other belief system.

Look at the terror war.

The West believes that they are moral and that the actions of Al Qaeda are amoral. Guess what, the followers of Al Qaeda believe that they are on the side of morality fighting against the evil West. If you think about it you will realize that "they" have as strong a belief that "they" are right and that their enemy is evil as "we" do.

Do you think this will become one clump? No. Eventually one of these clumps will defeat (and hopefully assimilate) the other. But the loser will without doubt need to give up much of their system of beliefs to submit to the winner.

I would ask you to realize that your own values, which you have so eloquently expressed are subjective (and part of your particular clump).

Empathy and understanding and thoughtfulness are fine. But other clumps consider different morals to be much more important. Consider those who feel that duty, and bravery, and submission to God, and patriotism, and willingness to fight as the highest morals.

Are you sure that your morals are better than theirs? Can you make them submit to your point of view? Would you even try?

Oh goody! Disagreement!!! II will read and respond tomorrow.

Hey - this is an interesting thread - no????

Can you not define morals on a pecuniary scale which at least has the advantage of objectivity.
For example-two recent announcements from here;-
1-The British Gov't have said,with a fanfare,that they are donating £15 million for relief in SE Asia.
2-£4000 million was expended in "the run up to Christmas" on cosmetics and £40,000 million in total on other festive gee-gaws.
So there you go.There's nothing to discuss really.If you voted its down to you personally and all the flannel won't make any difference.

spendius.

You might also consider as a guide to morality the role of sophistical dialectics and the rhetorical skills utilised in their deployment.

spendius.

The differences in morality within cultures is the presence of "exceptions". In the core of it however is something very natural and universal. The acceptance of homosexuals versus denial of homosexuals is the result of one culture excluding homosexuals because they find it to not be the "norm" or because they are afraid of them. I don't find this to be something concerned with morality as much as an issue of societal acceptance due to irrational fear of homosexuality.

Humanity is blessed with empathy and rational thinking. They are as natural as my hands are. It is in human reason to relate universals and act alike to things that are alike.

The golden rule is found in Europe all the way to China. Christianity emphasizes the Golden Rule whereas in China, confucian did the same thing. It is with looking at these that there is a common humanity attached to morality and is as much as an invention as an atom is an invention.

So, here, by unnatural, you mean atypical. And I will agree that I am the result of atypical circumstances. But not drastically. I was once a christian and would still believe in all that hooey with morals along with it if I had not slowly but surely realized it was baloney.

(Small point. Please do not use phrases like "my dear bunny" - ! find it very patronizing.)

Actually (though I DO find the attributes you mention very much worth striving for, and I hold them as PERSONAL moral values) I have not really set them up as moral values - I AM attempting to work my way through deciding what are the ETHICAL values that work for us as a species.

I wasn't the one who mentioned the amoral folk - (I believe it was Binnyboy - though I do see how that language has led you to make the interpretation that I AM setting up moral vs immoral or amoral) - and my use of that term was riffing from what he said. ( I guess all of this is a sort of riff)

I am attempting (however badly) to argue that, since the observed reality is that we DO clump, these are useful characteristics that tend to make clumping go better.

Attributes which I ASSUMED (possibly wrongly) that Binnyboy was meaning when he mentioned the amoral folk are the attributes of what are called in my profession "anti-social or sociopathic" people - ie things like lack of empathy, extreme impulsiveness, lack of ability for abstract reasoning, tendency to use violence or illegal activities to get what they want - stuff like that .

I observe these characteristics to be unhelpful in successful clumping of human beings - and frequently unhelpful as long term strategies for the people themselves. (I can go into that more if you like - I am trying to keep this short) They also tend to be unpleasant for the folk upon whom they are practised.

I am actually also not especially touting clumping as an intrinsic good - simply observing that it has happened, and seems likely to continue to do so.



Er - can you defend this????

I think, when we formed hunter/gatherer groups, that, while territorial squabbles doubtless occurred (as they do now in such societies) I do not think that this often led to what you describe - I suspect it more often led to groups being spaced out.


I certainly think what you describe has happened once really big clumps began to occur - though I suspect that quite a lot of fairly peaceful co-habitation between clumps goes on as well.

I mean - sure, there have been lots of wars and such - but there has also been lots of bumpy or smooth co-existence. For example, Canada and the USA seem to have settled into some sort ot mutual toleration - even though the US insists on spelling stuff wrong.

What we are actually talking about in this thread, I think, is whether our nature allows us to have more of the smooth bits - both between and within clumps. The fact that we CAN have lots of smooth bits suggests that it can be done, and that we gradually develop methods of trying to make it happen more. I don't THINK we are as likely to have very powerful countries casually decide to take over less powerful ones, generally, as much as when our countries were invaded and colonised, nor do I think we accept such behaviour as natural and perfectly ok - nor is it line with enlightened self-interest to consider it so. (THis is one reason most of the world is so upset about the invasion of Iraq) I think you are being unnecessarily gloomy. I do not mean I think we will necessarily develop means to overcome what you are talking about - but i think we are in with a chance - and, as Dys said at the thread's beginning, it is something we ought to be striving for.



Yep - but also see above. I do not think this is the WHOLE story.




Yep - you have a point - thing is, note that, in our countries anyhow, folk no longer kill each other with such enthusiasm about these things. Could this be progress?????




Huh? I don't need to think about it to know that Al Quaeda believe that they are on the side of morality etc., or that Bushco do. That is a given. I am not sure what I said to make you think otherwise.

I don't think that they will become one clump - I do hope that eventually they might be able to live side by side - grumbling about each other (mebbe more bitterly than the US and Canada do - but at least there isn't that damned mis-spelling issue!) Well, not Al Quaeda - I just hope that they become more manageable, and that the likes of Bushco and the majority of Islam decide it is in their longer term best interests to settle down. If Israel and Palestine can - anyone can - and a ray of hope seems to be there - and note - despite the nature of their conflict, they haven't wiped each other out. - nor given up their beliefs.



Yep - of course my values are subjective - this is a given. However, I DO think that I can make a rational case for them - as I have attempted to do.

The patriotic etc clumps still, I think, do tend to value the empathy etc in their own little clumps - (probably more calling them things like "respect and courtesy to others" and "respect for the law" and such, though????)

Of course I think my values are better than theirs!!!! I would not be making this case if I didn't. However, I readily accept that they feel as they do. I really HAVE grasped the emotional subjectivity of morals, you know - I did so at about ten, as I have described elsewhere. I am simply attempting to make as rational a case as I can for a particular set.

I can't make them submit - I can only try to convince them, act politically within the law (I respect that as part of my "living successfully in clumps" stuff - unless it is saying stuff like it is ok to send Jews off to gas chambers - in that case I privilege other bits of the value system) to foster and encourage a more internationalist view, for instance - and other activities to promote my view of the clumpier.

Whaddaya think????

Oh - I just noticed another point you made about the amoral folk and my talking about "Unnatural circumstances" - I am aware that my thinking there is woolly - and my phrasing woollier - I will try to crystallize that more and get back to you - howzat?