Are you a moral person?

[Bronzeage]

Morality and moral codes exist in order to allow human groups to survive in a harsh environment. It works so well, that at this point in time, the environment is threatened by us, most of the time. It is human arrogance which makes us think the purpose of morality is to make us better humans.

Moral codes exist to protect existing status quos more than anything else. IOW moral systems protect existing power systems which tend to fail when conditions change which is not really a definition of fitness. Yes arrogance is extant in individual thinking just as is maximization and proportion estimations are perpetuated forms of statistical error in future estimation. None of them are valid nor serving of fitness nor are they part of natural law.

Everybody doesn't like something, but a personal grudge against the power structure does not constitute an argument. I've never contended that morality is natural law, but it is a natural result of the human brain's reaction to threats to existence. If you think there is a better way, please propose it for consideration.

My statement stills stands and the fact that survival of human groups requires an authority structure, is a result of our survival strategy, not our actual strategy. Morality created the power structure, so why wouldn't a society's code preserve the status quo? Again, what alternative model would be better?

The power structure which puts a police force in existence, allows us to hold our property with some sense of security. That's a status quo that most people want to keep in place. The power structure is the source of building codes and traffic lights. If you want to see what life is like without a power structure, turn off the traffic light at a four way intersection. Suddenly people have to settle petty disputes, in groups of four at a time, while everyone else sits in traffic. It's very inefficient. The only reason such a thing is not a great threat to human society is the fact that one of the first things our power structure did was eliminate all the large predators which once killed and ate distracted humans.

People challenge the strictures of morality all the time. This is always seen when standards of living rise, and threats from the environment are put at bay. We can do that when we're not worried about jaguars.

 

[steve_bank]

Id go a little farther. The tendency towards hierarchical structure is likely in part genetic for us humans. The alpha male female mated wolf pair. Primates. The Abrahamic god as the ultimate alpha male. Wild horses compete for dominance and breeding rights.

 

[Bomb#20]

Morality has existed for seventy-odd million years longer than human groups have existed. It is human arrogance which makes us think the purpose of morality has anything to do with humans.

I think I know what you're trying to say. But it is possible to say instead (or as well) that morality did not exist before humans and that as such it IS to do with humans.

Behavior homologous to human morality is also present in the other primates. Saying morality didn't exist before humans, and labeling monkeys punishing violation of monkey rules with some name other than "morality", and accusing those who call that monkey behavior "morality" of anthropomorphism, would be as perverse as insisting that walking didn't exist before humans and what dogs do doesn't qualify as "walking". The other primates do morality for the same reason we do it: because we share genes for it. It follows that morality doesn't exist to allow human groups to survive; morality exists to make more copies of morality genes in the gametes of lemurs and monkeys*.

(* And, perhaps, of bats -- it's not clear whether similar bat behavior is inherited from bats' and primates' common ancestor or is a case of convergent evolution.)

 

[Bronzeage]

Id go a little farther. The tendency towards hierarchical structure is likely in part genetic for us humans. The alpha male female mated wolf pair. Primates. The Abrahamic god as the ultimate alpha male. Wild horses compete for dominance and breeding rights.

Unfortunately for us, the human brain has evolved so many layers, we can no longer depend upon instinct. Our social structure must be learned.

 

[fromderinside]

Id go a little farther. The tendency towards hierarchical structure is likely in part genetic for us humans. The alpha male female mated wolf pair. Primates. The Abrahamic god as the ultimate alpha male. Wild horses compete for dominance and breeding rights.

Unfortunately for us, the human brain has evolved so many layers, we can no longer depend upon instinct. Our social structure must be learned.

Amazingly things seem to be coming together. We remember and analyse things that are unusual rather than just do. Spikepipsqueak wakes up all bushy tailed when she is unburdened by responsibility of children, fromderinside finds associations in terrifying driving experiences based on place where they took place and Bronzeage argues our brain is complex so learning is found distinct from instinct.

In fact all are expressions of interplay between memory and emotional context. We need not assign morality, learning, or instinct to situational material that is relevant. We only need to recognize it as being unusual, not normal, and we can throw all of these situations for understanding unusual social situations as the basis for recognizing we operate differently when we are confronted with such into the same box.

Morality is no more than a catchword for how we deal with that which is emotional and unexpected. It isn't fitness or necessary. It is just we have capacity to do things differently when we necessarily have to treat emotion and unusual objective environment together. What is different is that we are capable, all species for some time now, to deal with emotion and the unusual differently from the mundane and normal.

Now, knowing this is relevant need we supply intervening explanatory notions into this breech. I don't think so. Adding morality as a fitness construct when all that is necessary is to understand we have separate capacity to deal with the unusual situation in emotional context differently from the mundane seems a bit over the top. Just learn to understand we have separate capacity to deal with the unusual form the mundane should be enough.

 

[ruby sparks]

Morality has existed for seventy-odd million years longer than human groups have existed. It is human arrogance which makes us think the purpose of morality has anything to do with humans.

I think I know what you're trying to say. But it is possible to say instead (or as well) that morality did not exist before humans and that as such it IS to do with humans.

Behavior homologous to human morality is also present in the other primates. Saying morality didn't exist before humans, and labeling monkeys punishing violation of monkey rules with some name other than "morality", and accusing those who call that monkey behavior "morality" of anthropomorphism, would be as perverse as insisting that walking didn't exist before humans and what dogs do doesn't qualify as "walking". The other primates do morality for the same reason we do it: because we share genes for it. It follows that morality doesn't exist to allow human groups to survive; morality exists to make more copies of morality genes in the gametes of lemurs and monkeys*.

(* And, perhaps, of bats -- it's not clear whether similar bat behavior is inherited from bats' and primates' common ancestor or is a case of convergent evolution.)

I think we agree a lot, but at the same time I think it does depend to some extent on what is meant by morality. So, for example, it might not be too hard for me to mostly agree with your first sentence, that morality, or at least behaviour homologous to it (which is already not exactly the same thing by definition, unless one is a strict behaviourist) existed before humans. Though I still couldn't agree that it hasn't anything to do with humans, even were I to consider 'behaviour homologous' as equivalent (which I sort of don't fully). I might say 'not as much to do with humans as most humans think' or 'not exclusively to do with humans' and agree that there is arrogance (and vanity) at play.

 

[Jobar]

The Platinum Rule: Do unto others as they would be done by.
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
The Silver Rule: Do *not* unto others what you would not have them do to you.
The Brass Rule: Do unto others as they do to you.
The Iron Rule: Do unto others as you will.

The more noble the metal, the more moral the actions it requires of us. But it's the sad and sorry truth that there are circumstances where we can't always apply the Platinum or Golden Rule; there are people who will shamelessly and blatantly abuse anyone who tries to treat them morally. In the most extreme case, in open warfare, you use the Iron Rule, or you die.

If one is to behave morally, one has to be alive; so moral behavior requires us to first assure our survival, in most situations. Yes, sacrificing your own life may be seen as the highest demonstration of moral excellence, sometimes. But if you do that for unworthy and immoral people, who would never do the same for you or for others, your sacrifice will reduce the general morality of human beings, not increase it.

I think that the most moral action is that which will increase the general morality of the human race. If that action involves killing some barbarian, criminal, or scumbag, so be it.

 

[untermensche]

Id go a little farther. The tendency towards hierarchical structure is likely in part genetic for us humans. The alpha male female mated wolf pair. Primates. The Abrahamic god as the ultimate alpha male. Wild horses compete for dominance and breeding rights.

Rape was probably part of the hierarchical structure at one time, for a long time.

Overcoming harmful hierarchical structures is a task for humans.

None are inevitable.

That is the difference between humans and other organisms.

 

[ruby sparks]

Fwiw and to answer the OP question directly, no, I am not a moral person. Or better to say that I definitely do not consider myself a moral person, because that latter allows for the infinitesimally small chance of me being wrong in the first statement, which would be fab, but then so would winning the lottery tomorrow.

I am a flawed mixture. Also, the mixture fluctuates. Sometimes I do 'good' things and sometimes I do 'bad' things. I'm not going to go into specific details about the latter here, obviously, but take it from me, I have done, am doing and almost certainly will do them.

There's this annoying guilt thing, especially for the ones that I don't get caught at or punished for, but it doesn't seem like the guilt is enough to stop me.

 

[steve_bank]

Fwiw and to answer the OP question directly, no, I am not a moral person. Or better to say that I definitely do not consider myself a moral person, because that latter allows for the infinitesimally small chance of me being wrong in the first statement, which would be fab, but then so would winning the lottery tomorrow.

I am a flawed mixture. Also, the mixture fluctuates. Sometimes I do 'good' things and sometimes I do 'bad' things. I'm not going to go into specific details about the latter here, obviously, but take it from me, I have done, am doing and almost certainly will do them.

There's this annoying guilt thing, especially for the ones that I don't get caught at or punished for, but it doesn't seem like the guilt is enough to stop me.

The question is how you define good and bad. If you see no difference between doing good and bad then you are amoral, and I would trust you about as far as I could throw you. If you have no empathy or remorse for having hurt someone in the worse cases you are labeled sociopath and or psychopath and are considered a danger to society.

- - - Updated - - -

Id go a little farther. The tendency towards hierarchical structure is likely in part genetic for us humans. The alpha male female mated wolf pair. Primates. The Abrahamic god as the ultimate alpha male. Wild horses compete for dominance and breeding rights.

Rape was probably part of the hierarchical structure at one time, for a long time.

Overcoming harmful hierarchical structures is a task for humans.

None are inevitable.

That is the difference between humans and other organisms.

Which is more harmful, chaos or structure?

 

[untermensche]

Rape was probably part of the hierarchical structure at one time, for a long time.

Overcoming harmful hierarchical structures is a task for humans.

None are inevitable.

That is the difference between humans and other organisms.

Which is more harmful, chaos or structure?

Structure does not imply a hierarchy.

It does involve division of labor.

 

[steve_bank]

Rape was probably part of the hierarchical structure at one time, for a long time.

Overcoming harmful hierarchical structures is a task for humans.

None are inevitable.

That is the difference between humans and other organisms.

Which is more harmful, chaos or structure?

Structure does not imply a hierarchy.

It does involve division of labor.

Only if you are an anarchist or libertarian as to hierarchy.

 

[untermensche]

Structure does not imply a hierarchy.

It does involve division of labor.

Only if you are an anarchist or libertarian as to hierarchy.

That's what an anarchist is.

Somebody with the knowledge that these harmful totally man-made hierarchies are immoral, destructive and not needed.

 

[steve_bank]

Structure does not imply a hierarchy.

It does involve division of labor.

Only if you are an anarchist or libertarian as to hierarchy.

That's what an anarchist is.

Somebody with the knowledge that these harmful totally man-made hierarchies are immoral, destructive and not needed.

People naturally form into hierarchical systems. I have seen it enogh times. Spcial peer groups will have a pecking order.

The mistake Soviet communism made was trying to supress that natural instinct. Our social instincts like other criters is at least part genetic.

Moral codes protect us from each other's natural instincts.

 

[untermensche]

That's what an anarchist is.

Somebody with the knowledge that these harmful totally man-made hierarchies are immoral, destructive and not needed.

People naturally form into hierarchical systems. I have seen it enogh times. Spcial peer groups will have a pecking order.

Some people like to take advantage of others. That is what some people want.

A hierarchy is just a way to do it.

But who cares what people looking to take advantage of others want?

People wanted slavery for a long time.

The question is what is best. What is the most moral way to structure society?

Dictatorial hierarchies are almost always a bad way.

As we see all around us. The people are helpless against the huge dictatorships known as corporations.

 

[Bronzeage]

That's what an anarchist is.

Somebody with the knowledge that these harmful totally man-made hierarchies are immoral, destructive and not needed.

People naturally form into hierarchical systems. I have seen it enogh times. Spcial peer groups will have a pecking order.

Some people like to take advantage of others. That is what some people want.

A hierarchy is just a way to do it.

But who cares what people looking to take advantage of others want?

People wanted slavery for a long time.

The question is what is best. What is the most moral way to structure society?

Dictatorial hierarchies are almost always a bad way.

As we see all around us. The people are helpless against the huge dictatorships known as corporations.

Take any group of people who consider themselves to be basically equal, using whatever measure, and you will find most of them do not want the responsibility of leadership. It quickly becomes a classic case of "somebody has to do it." When groups are small and everyone actually knows one another, the person who becomes leader, will be chosen for their ability to get cooperation from others, and most importantly, good judgment. People are happy and eager to cooperate with someone seems to be right, most of the time.

It's only when social groups get large enough that it's no longer possible for everyone to know everyone else. This brings in many problems. The greatest is the status of the leader. Large groups means the leader's lifestyle is supported by a lot of people. In a group of ten, the leader will still have to do quite a bit of work. The leader of ten thousand can live off the labor of his followers.

Once the status and lifestyle of a leader becomes a desirable thing to have problems will arise. Nobody really wants the headache of organizing a hunting party in the snow. If there's someone else who can get the job done, let them do it. However, if being leader comes with a palace and a harem, who wouldn't want that? One thing a leader needs to provide, through his decisions is stability and order. This means a regular form of succession must be created, so the transfer of power from one leader to the next, does not create turmoil and strife. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," is actually quite comforting, when one considers the stress of meeting a new boss.

We could live without hierarchies or leaders, in the many forms that have appeared in the past, but we would have to return to our hunter gatherer ways, in small family groups or clans. Everyone knows each other by face and name, and everyone has to work at gathering and hunting, or starve. I doubt anyone could get a group to follow him down that path.

An anarchist is a terrible two, who never grew up. Unable to lead, or follow, they're just a parasite on the rest of the group.

 

[steve_bank]

Some people like to take advantage of others. That is what some people want.

A hierarchy is just a way to do it.

But who cares what people looking to take advantage of others want?

People wanted slavery for a long time.

The question is what is best. What is the most moral way to structure society?

Dictatorial hierarchies are almost always a bad way.

As we see all around us. The people are helpless against the huge dictatorships known as corporations.

Take any group of people who consider themselves to be basically equal, using whatever measure, and you will find most of them do not want the responsibility of leadership. It quickly becomes a classic case of "somebody has to do it." When groups are small and everyone actually knows one another, the person who becomes leader, will be chosen for their ability to get cooperation from others, and most importantly, good judgment. People are happy and eager to cooperate with someone seems to be right, most of the time.

It's only when social groups get large enough that it's no longer possible for everyone to know everyone else. This brings in many problems. The greatest is the status of the leader. Large groups means the leader's lifestyle is supported by a lot of people. In a group of ten, the leader will still have to do quite a bit of work. The leader of ten thousand can live off the labor of his followers.

Once the status and lifestyle of a leader becomes a desirable thing to have problems will arise. Nobody really wants the headache of organizing a hunting party in the snow. If there's someone else who can get the job done, let them do it. However, if being leader comes with a palace and a harem, who wouldn't want that? One thing a leader needs to provide, through his decisions is stability and order. This means a regular form of succession must be created, so the transfer of power from one leader to the next, does not create turmoil and strife. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," is actually quite comforting, when one considers the stress of meeting a new boss.

We could live without hierarchies or leaders, in the many forms that have appeared in the past, but we would have to return to our hunter gatherer ways, in small family groups or clans. Everyone knows each other by face and name, and everyone has to work at gathering and hunting, or starve. I doubt anyone could get a group to follow him down that path.

An anarchist is a terrible two, who never grew up. Unable to lead, or follow, they're just a parasite on the rest of the group.

Nice summary.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what an anarchist is.

Somebody with the knowledge that these harmful totally man-made hierarchies are immoral, destructive and not needed.

People naturally form into hierarchical systems. I have seen it enogh times. Spcial peer groups will have a pecking order.

Some people like to take advantage of others. That is what some people want.

A hierarchy is just a way to do it.

But who cares what people looking to take advantage of others want?

People wanted slavery for a long time.

The question is what is best. What is the most moral way to structure society?

Dictatorial hierarchies are almost always a bad way.

As we see all around us. The people are helpless against the huge dictatorships known as corporations.

You don't get out much in the real world, do you?

 

[untermensche]

Some people like to take advantage of others. That is what some people want.

A hierarchy is just a way to do it.

But who cares what people looking to take advantage of others want?

People wanted slavery for a long time.

The question is what is best. What is the most moral way to structure society?

Dictatorial hierarchies are almost always a bad way.

As we see all around us. The people are helpless against the huge dictatorships known as corporations.

Take any group of people who consider themselves to be basically equal, using whatever measure, and you will find most of them do not want the responsibility of leadership. It quickly becomes a classic case of "somebody has to do it." When groups are small and everyone actually knows one another, the person who becomes leader, will be chosen for their ability to get cooperation from others, and most importantly, good judgment. People are happy and eager to cooperate with someone seems to be right, most of the time.

It's only when social groups get large enough that it's no longer possible for everyone to know everyone else. This brings in many problems. The greatest is the status of the leader. Large groups means the leader's lifestyle is supported by a lot of people. In a group of ten, the leader will still have to do quite a bit of work. The leader of ten thousand can live off the labor of his followers.

Once the status and lifestyle of a leader becomes a desirable thing to have problems will arise. Nobody really wants the headache of organizing a hunting party in the snow. If there's someone else who can get the job done, let them do it. However, if being leader comes with a palace and a harem, who wouldn't want that? One thing a leader needs to provide, through his decisions is stability and order. This means a regular form of succession must be created, so the transfer of power from one leader to the next, does not create turmoil and strife. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," is actually quite comforting, when one considers the stress of meeting a new boss.

We could live without hierarchies or leaders, in the many forms that have appeared in the past, but we would have to return to our hunter gatherer ways, in small family groups or clans. Everyone knows each other by face and name, and everyone has to work at gathering and hunting, or starve. I doubt anyone could get a group to follow him down that path.

An anarchist is a terrible two, who never grew up. Unable to lead, or follow, they're just a parasite on the rest of the group.

Leadership is one thing.

A hierarchy of power is something completely different.

A leader leads. They explain to people which is the best way to go and why. The best way for everybody not just the leader. Then they try to persuade them to go that way.

As opposed to a boss.

That orders people around to best serve him.

The difference between a leader and a boss. One sends jobs overseas and one does not.

Something those raised in dictatorial systems sometimes have a problem with.

An anarchist is a terrible two

Petty dictators, bosses, like the president, are the children. And those that support them when there is no need.

No Anarchist ever said they want to get rid of leaders.

The motto of the Spanish Anarchists was "No bosses" however.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't get out much in the real world, do you?

Worthless shit of a response.

You are lazy.

 

[steve_bank]

Leadership is one thing.

A hierarchy of power is something completely different.

A leader leads. They explain to people which is the best way to go and why. The best way for everybody not just the leader. Then they try to persuade them to go that way.

As opposed to a boss.

That orders people around to best serve him.

The difference between a leader and a boss. One sends jobs overseas and one does not.

Something those raised in dictatorial systems sometimes have a problem with.

An anarchist is a terrible two

Petty dictators, bosses, like the president, are the children. And those that support them when there is no need.

No Anarchist ever said they want to get rid of leaders.

The motto of the Spanish Anarchists was "No bosses" however.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't get out much in the real world, do you?

Worthless shit of a response.

You are lazy.

I was neck deep in corporate technology for 30 years. I know what it is like to be in a leadership role with responsibilities. There were always ethical and moral issues. Morality and ethicsmis not an academic debate for me. You can not fully understand ethics and morality unless you have been tested.

I suppose a pharmacists has hevy leadership demands.

Back in the 80s I went through an indoctrination for a high school kids at risk mentoring program. It lasted overall a week with multiple sessions and teachers. There were around 20 people. In the last session the teacher ponted out we had all self selected sub social groups of 2, 3 and 4. She said that if the group stayed together lionger leaders would emerge. It is a natrural process. I've seen it play out in the business world.

I meant it, across all your posts you appear to lack real world experience.

 

[untermensche]

So now you resort to stupid insults you could never support in any way?

You really are useless.

There is a difference between a leader and a boss.

One leads. One gives orders.

They are not the same thing.

I have no problem with leaders. They are necessary.

Bosses and top down hierarchies are not.

You come across to me as someone who has lived an unexamined life.