When should immoral behaviors be illegal?

[Bronzeage]

Consider this question: why is it moral to own property? Why can you possess something you don't use or need, but can prevent me from taking it, or using it?

That's an excellent question. But it raises another: is there a workable alternative? Can society function with no concept of personal property? Examining that question might help to answer the first question: 'why is it moral to own property?'

I'm listening. Can society function with no concept of personal property? What conditions would have to exist where everyone could have whatever was needed, without denying anything to another person?

The only thing I can imagine is a very dreary environment where there would be enough food and water for sustenance, but very little variety. We would of course be naked, so I hope the nights are cool and there is plenty of shade.

 

[WAB]

That's an excellent question. But it raises another: is there a workable alternative? Can society function with no concept of personal property? Examining that question might help to answer the first question: 'why is it moral to own property?'

I'm listening. Can society function with no concept of personal property? What conditions would have to exist where everyone could have whatever was needed, without denying anything to another person?

Another excellent question. I guess it would have to be someplace like Eden. Problem is, we humans don't seem to enjoy living like pets with everything provided for us. Who would? I imagine it would be something like slavery. Sure, all your needs are met, you are safe and secure; but all on the condition that you obey a master without question and with total obedience.

If God made man in His image, which I take to mean more than just physically, then He had to have known that man would not want to live in slavery. Man is inspirited. Spirit meaning basically, breath. God breathed His spirit into us, so He knew we would not and could not behave ourselves for very long in a cage, no matter how gilded. The Truman Show is a great film, addressing what I've just said with dramatic clarity. (Though the 'director' in that movie doesn't have God's foreknowledge, of course.)

We're God, and God is us, and all of Nature. And the brute fact is: Utopia cannot exist. Fictional utopias are a direct contradiction to nature and to mankind. Democracy, communism, theocracy, military state, dictatorship, whatever the system, will fail to make everyone happy and secure. Some systems are better than others, but none can solve the problems humanity is beset with; which means: No political system will alter nature.

Leastways at's what I rekkin.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly. If you put people in a utopia they just rebel against it and don't accept the programming. Entire crops can be lost.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm listening. Can society function with no concept of personal property? What conditions would have to exist where everyone could have whatever was needed, without denying anything to another person?

Another excellent question. I guess it would have to be someplace like Eden. Problem is, we humans don't seem to enjoy living like pets with everything provided for us. Who would? I imagine it would be something like slavery. Sure, all your needs are met, you are safe and secure; but all on the condition that you obey a master without question and with total obedience.

If God made man in His image, which I take to mean more than just physically, then He had to have known that man would not want to live in slavery. Man is inspirited. Spirit meaning basically, breath. God breathed His spirit into us, so He knew we would not and could not behave ourselves for very long in a cage, no matter how gilded. The Truman Show is a great film, addressing what I've just said with dramatic clarity. (Though the 'director' in that movie doesn't have God's foreknowledge, of course.)

We're God, and God is us, and all of Nature. And the brute fact is: Utopia cannot exist. Fictional utopias are a direct contradiction to nature and to mankind. Democracy, communism, theocracy, military state, dictatorship, whatever the system, will fail to make everyone happy and secure. Some systems are better than others, but none can solve the problems humanity is beset with; which means: No political system will alter nature.

Leastways at's what I rekkin.

What I described is the life of a troop of chimpanzees. Humans may have been content with that kind of life at one time, but apparently it got old.

At the risk of repeating myself again, if humans are to do better than chimpanzees, we must cooperate. This is critical in all environments, but once we move out of the tropical forest, where we moved with the ripening fruit, it became absolutely imperative. We could either exist in tight cooperative groups, or we die. The rules we develop to insure cooperation are what we call morality. As our societies and cultures become more complex, especially as we compete with each other for resources, the rules become more complex. There are layers upon layers in our morality. It is so deep and dense, we take it for granted, as if it is ingrained in our DNA. It's not. We must learn these rules and abide by them as we grow.

Right and wrong are meaningless without the context of cooperation in order for our group to survive.

 

[WAB]

Another excellent question. I guess it would have to be someplace like Eden. Problem is, we humans don't seem to enjoy living like pets with everything provided for us. Who would? I imagine it would be something like slavery. Sure, all your needs are met, you are safe and secure; but all on the condition that you obey a master without question and with total obedience.

If God made man in His image, which I take to mean more than just physically, then He had to have known that man would not want to live in slavery. Man is inspirited. Spirit meaning basically, breath. God breathed His spirit into us, so He knew we would not and could not behave ourselves for very long in a cage, no matter how gilded. The Truman Show is a great film, addressing what I've just said with dramatic clarity. (Though the 'director' in that movie doesn't have God's foreknowledge, of course.)

We're God, and God is us, and all of Nature. And the brute fact is: Utopia cannot exist. Fictional utopias are a direct contradiction to nature and to mankind. Democracy, communism, theocracy, military state, dictatorship, whatever the system, will fail to make everyone happy and secure. Some systems are better than others, but none can solve the problems humanity is beset with; which means: No political system will alter nature.

Leastways at's what I rekkin.

What I described is the life of a troop of chimpanzees. Humans may have been content with that kind of life at one time, but apparently it got old.

At the risk of repeating myself again, if humans are to do better than chimpanzees, we must cooperate. This is critical in all environments, but once we move out of the tropical forest, where we moved with the ripening fruit, it became absolutely imperative. We could either exist in tight cooperative groups, or we die. The rules we develop to insure cooperation are what we call morality. As our societies and cultures become more complex, especially as we compete with each other for resources, the rules become more complex. There are layers upon layers in our morality. It is so deep and dense, we take it for granted, as if it is ingrained in our DNA. It's not. We must learn these rules and abide by them as we grow.

Right and wrong are meaningless without the context of cooperation in order for our group to survive.

May I venture some direct questions, in the hope of direct and honest answers?

1) Is there anything in my posts that suggests that people should NOT cooperate with one another? If there is, would you please point it out to me?
2) Do you believe that humans are born with a brain that is 'tabula rasa', or a 'blank slate' (figuratively)?

 

[arkirk]

What I described is the life of a troop of chimpanzees. Humans may have been content with that kind of life at one time, but apparently it got old.

At the risk of repeating myself again, if humans are to do better than chimpanzees, we must cooperate. This is critical in all environments, but once we move out of the tropical forest, where we moved with the ripening fruit, it became absolutely imperative. We could either exist in tight cooperative groups, or we die. The rules we develop to insure cooperation are what we call morality. As our societies and cultures become more complex, especially as we compete with each other for resources, the rules become more complex. There are layers upon layers in our morality. It is so deep and dense, we take it for granted, as if it is ingrained in our DNA. It's not. We must learn these rules and abide by them as we grow.

Right and wrong are meaningless without the context of cooperation in order for our group to survive.

May I venture some direct questions, in the hope of direct and honest answers?

1) Is there anything in my posts that suggests that people should NOT cooperate with one another? If there is, would you please point it out to me?
2) Do you believe that humans are born with a brain that is 'tabula rasa', or a 'blank slate' (figuratively)?

Social structures are so ubiquitous in human societies many moral memes seem to be imbedded in our genetics, but it is all a matter of how strong the social pressure is that enforces a social moral notion. Religious morals are hard to swallow most of the time because they are so punitive for such minor differences....examples abortion, blasphemy, etc. Well debated democratically determined social ethics on the other hand is another matter. It occurs to me that if we could only erase the confusion of religion from our considerations, our ethical codes and laws would be a lot more civilized...and also a lot more similar. Brains that are of similar construction probably individually arrive and many common preferences and a consensus is possible on such issues as murder and greed and torture. What always seems entangled in much of the murder and torture and robbery are fairy tales supporting human maltreatment. We are witnessing this behavior today in Palestine and Washington and pretty much any culture that places a high value on monotheism. It is as Gore Vidal said....rigid monotheism is the problem.

 

[WAB]

I agree that rigid monotheism is a problem, but I wouldn't call it the problem. There is also the problem of human nature, or just plain nature. Let's face facts. No political system will make the entire population happy and content. It's just not possible. Not that we shouldn't try to make everyone comfortable and happy, only that the ultimate goal is out of our reach. There will always be emotion (see the film 'Equilibrium'). There will always be anger, conflicts of interest, disagreement, just as there will always be joy, a sense of community, and Love. Plus, the ego gets in the way. We always want to be in the right, to do things the correct way. The saint and the psychopath thinks his way is the right way. We don't like to feel ashamed, outsmarted, outshined. So we experience things like envy and jealousy. These emotions can easily lead to mockery and false witness. Spinoza lays it all out in his Ethics, quite nicely.

God or no god, we have each other to contend with, and we have a lot of blood on our collective hands, theist and atheist alike.

In reference to tabula rasa, I'm not convinced either way.

 

[Malintent]

When the outcome of the untruth leads to physical or financial harm to another. did you expect some other form of answer to the OP?

 

[Bronzeage]

What I described is the life of a troop of chimpanzees. Humans may have been content with that kind of life at one time, but apparently it got old.

At the risk of repeating myself again, if humans are to do better than chimpanzees, we must cooperate. This is critical in all environments, but once we move out of the tropical forest, where we moved with the ripening fruit, it became absolutely imperative. We could either exist in tight cooperative groups, or we die. The rules we develop to insure cooperation are what we call morality. As our societies and cultures become more complex, especially as we compete with each other for resources, the rules become more complex. There are layers upon layers in our morality. It is so deep and dense, we take it for granted, as if it is ingrained in our DNA. It's not. We must learn these rules and abide by them as we grow.

Right and wrong are meaningless without the context of cooperation in order for our group to survive.

May I venture some direct questions, in the hope of direct and honest answers?

1) Is there anything in my posts that suggests that people should NOT cooperate with one another? If there is, would you please point it out to me?
2) Do you believe that humans are born with a brain that is 'tabula rasa', or a 'blank slate' (figuratively)?

We are arguing over whether there are any human acts which are right or wrong, without regard to their context. I stress cooperation because it is critical for survival and moral codes allow cooperation. I don't believe you argued that we shouldn't or don't cooperate.

One must remember, before any of this can have meaning, we must be able to define our group. There is a definite and distinct difference in the way we treat others of our group and outsiders.

As for blank slates, humans may retain some of our animal instincts, but we can't migrate without a map, build a dam just because we hear running water, and we don't fight other males because we smell a female in heat. Our social structure, our family structure, and the ways we deal with members of our group are learned. We are not born with this knowledge or ability.

 

[Bomb#20]

Consider this question: why is it moral to own property? Why can you possess something you don't use or need, but can prevent me from taking it, or using it?
...
I'm listening. Can society function with no concept of personal property? What conditions would have to exist where everyone could have whatever was needed, without denying anything to another person?

The only thing I can imagine is a very dreary environment where there would be enough food and water for sustenance, but very little variety. We would of course be naked, so I hope the nights are cool and there is plenty of shade.
...
What I described is the life of a troop of chimpanzees. Humans may have been content with that kind of life at one time, but apparently it got old.

You'll have to go back further than chimpanzees to find a society without property ownership. Once monkeys stop eating all the food in their hands the second it gets there and start saving some for later, who gets to eat saved food becomes an issue. It's moral to own property -- i.e., to prevent another from using something -- because ought implies can, and in most cases it's physically impossible for everybody to get to use the same thing. So the problem to be solved is who should own what, not whether there should be any owning going on. And owning things you don't use is mostly a moot point -- when people and other chimpanzees aren't using something but still exclude others, they're normally saving it for future use -- that's the whole reason there's something to be owned in the first place.

Why can you possess something you don't need? That's another way to ask "Why isn't everything owned by whoever needs it most?". You wrote "Once we decided we could own stuff, this immediately led to disputes and fights." That's backwards. There were always disputes and fights. Chimps owning food another chimp needs more is a way to reduce disputes and fights. There's never going to be any consensus about who needs a piece of food most. It's hard to see how an "Everything is owned by whoever needs it most." rule could possibly evolve. In a population where uneaten food will be grabbed by any monkey who thinks he needs it and a fight will start whenever there are two who think they need it, genes for eating every bit of food as soon as you pull it off a plant will be selected for, and genes for grabbing uneaten food even if you're only slightly hungry will be selected for; but a monkey who picks a fruit and carries it around until a hungrier monkey takes it will be deselected.

At the risk of repeating myself again, if humans are to do better than chimpanzees, we must cooperate. This is critical in all environments, but once we move out of the tropical forest, where we moved with the ripening fruit, it became absolutely imperative. We could either exist in tight cooperative groups, or we die. The rules we develop to insure cooperation are what we call morality. As our societies and cultures become more complex, especially as we compete with each other for resources, the rules become more complex. There are layers upon layers in our morality. It is so deep and dense, we take it for granted, as if it is ingrained in our DNA. It's not. We must learn these rules and abide by them as we grow.

What makes you think it isn't ingrained in our DNA? Property rights are a human universal. Chimpanzees cooperate; they respect property rights; and it's hard for cooperation to evolve without property rights. Cooperation, at root, is a food storage technology -- you store the food you don't need right away in another animal's body, and when he has some he returns the favor. Inventing a food storage technology that works and that won't be torpedoed by natural selection for uncooperative genes is not an easy trick to pull off. There are only so many solutions. Wasps have one: a wasp is more closely related to her sister than to her own daughter so she has no incentive not to share. Vampire bats found another -- they store the food in their own bellies, so needier bats can't take it, and when they choose to share they regurgitate the blood to one another. Chimpanzees invented a third solution: property rights.

 

[Bronzeage]

You'll have to go back further than chimpanzees to find a society without property ownership. Once monkeys stop eating all the food in their hands the second it gets there and start saving some for later, who gets to eat saved food becomes an issue. It's moral to own property -- i.e., to prevent another from using something -- because ought implies can, and in most cases it's physically impossible for everybody to get to use the same thing. So the problem to be solved is who should own what, not whether there should be any owning going on. And owning things you don't use is mostly a moot point -- when people and other chimpanzees aren't using something but still exclude others, they're normally saving it for future use -- that's the whole reason there's something to be owned in the first place.

Why can you possess something you don't need? That's another way to ask "Why isn't everything owned by whoever needs it most?". You wrote "Once we decided we could own stuff, this immediately led to disputes and fights." That's backwards. There were always disputes and fights. Chimps owning food another chimp needs more is a way to reduce disputes and fights. There's never going to be any consensus about who needs a piece of food most. It's hard to see how an "Everything is owned by whoever needs it most." rule could possibly evolve. In a population where uneaten food will be grabbed by any monkey who thinks he needs it and a fight will start whenever there are two who think they need it, genes for eating every bit of food as soon as you pull it off a plant will be selected for, and genes for grabbing uneaten food even if you're only slightly hungry will be selected for; but a monkey who picks a fruit and carries it around until a hungrier monkey takes it will be deselected.

At the risk of repeating myself again, if humans are to do better than chimpanzees, we must cooperate. This is critical in all environments, but once we move out of the tropical forest, where we moved with the ripening fruit, it became absolutely imperative. We could either exist in tight cooperative groups, or we die. The rules we develop to insure cooperation are what we call morality. As our societies and cultures become more complex, especially as we compete with each other for resources, the rules become more complex. There are layers upon layers in our morality. It is so deep and dense, we take it for granted, as if it is ingrained in our DNA. It's not. We must learn these rules and abide by them as we grow.

What makes you think it isn't ingrained in our DNA? Property rights are a human universal. Chimpanzees cooperate; they respect property rights; and it's hard for cooperation to evolve without property rights. Cooperation, at root, is a food storage technology -- you store the food you don't need right away in another animal's body, and when he has some he returns the favor. Inventing a food storage technology that works and that won't be torpedoed by natural selection for uncooperative genes is not an easy trick to pull off. There are only so many solutions. Wasps have one: a wasp is more closely related to her sister than to her own daughter so she has no incentive not to share. Vampire bats found another -- they store the food in their own bellies, so needier bats can't take it, and when they choose to share they regurgitate the blood to one another. Chimpanzees invented a third solution: property rights.

What makes me think property rights are not ingrained in our DNA. It's probably my unpublished data gathered while raising toddlers.

 

[Bomb#20]

What makes me think property rights are not ingrained in our DNA. It's probably my unpublished data gathered while raising toddlers.

Toddlers? You mean, people who toddle? Why were they toddling? Had you fostered them out to a family from a culture where the grown-ups toddle instead of walking normally^H^H^H^H "normally"?

 

[Bronzeage]

What makes me think property rights are not ingrained in our DNA. It's probably my unpublished data gathered while raising toddlers.

Toddlers? You mean, people who toddle? Why were they toddling? Had you fostered them out to a family from a culture where the grown-ups toddle instead of walking normally^H^H^H^H "normally"?

No, I mean unsocialized small humans. It is an enlightening experience.

 

[Bomb#20]

Toddlers? You mean, people who toddle? Why were they toddling? Had you fostered them out to a family from a culture where the grown-ups toddle instead of walking normally^H^H^H^H "normally"?

No, I mean unsocialized small humans. It is an enlightening experience.

I know what you mean. Unsocialized small humans toddle; it's why we call them "toddlers". Humans can't walk when they're born. They can't walk normally when they're 1. Nonetheless, walking is an instinctive behavior that humans start doing when their brains develop far enough, and start doing right when their brains develop further, regardless of culture.

The point is, observing children whose brains are too underdeveloped to do morality fail to do morality is not a sensible reason to infer that morality is cultural and not instinctive. "Coded in DNA" and "innate" are not equivalent.

 

[WAB]

You'll have to go back further than chimpanzees to find a society without property ownership. Once monkeys stop eating all the food in their hands the second it gets there and start saving some for later, who gets to eat saved food becomes an issue. It's moral to own property -- i.e., to prevent another from using something -- because ought implies can, and in most cases it's physically impossible for everybody to get to use the same thing. So the problem to be solved is who should own what, not whether there should be any owning going on. And owning things you don't use is mostly a moot point -- when people and other chimpanzees aren't using something but still exclude others, they're normally saving it for future use -- that's the whole reason there's something to be owned in the first place.

Why can you possess something you don't need? That's another way to ask "Why isn't everything owned by whoever needs it most?". You wrote "Once we decided we could own stuff, this immediately led to disputes and fights." That's backwards. There were always disputes and fights. Chimps owning food another chimp needs more is a way to reduce disputes and fights. There's never going to be any consensus about who needs a piece of food most. It's hard to see how an "Everything is owned by whoever needs it most." rule could possibly evolve. In a population where uneaten food will be grabbed by any monkey who thinks he needs it and a fight will start whenever there are two who think they need it, genes for eating every bit of food as soon as you pull it off a plant will be selected for, and genes for grabbing uneaten food even if you're only slightly hungry will be selected for; but a monkey who picks a fruit and carries it around until a hungrier monkey takes it will be deselected.


What makes you think it isn't ingrained in our DNA? Property rights are a human universal. Chimpanzees cooperate; they respect property rights; and it's hard for cooperation to evolve without property rights. Cooperation, at root, is a food storage technology -- you store the food you don't need right away in another animal's body, and when he has some he returns the favor. Inventing a food storage technology that works and that won't be torpedoed by natural selection for uncooperative genes is not an easy trick to pull off. There are only so many solutions. Wasps have one: a wasp is more closely related to her sister than to her own daughter so she has no incentive not to share. Vampire bats found another -- they store the food in their own bellies, so needier bats can't take it, and when they choose to share they regurgitate the blood to one another. Chimpanzees invented a third solution: property rights.

What makes me think property rights are not ingrained in our DNA. It's probably my unpublished data gathered while raising toddlers.

Toddlers (and I've raised two) are most definitely born with the concept of 'mine'. What they don't understand is the concept of 'right' - which has to be learned - and the concept of reciprocity. The concept of 'right' has its negative/opposite built in: If I can claim that something is mine, than I must understand and grant to anyone else the 'right' to claim something as 'theirs'.

Toddlers have to be taught that the claim to property (mine!) is reciprocal, and can only function under the law of reciprocity: If I can claim something as 'mine', I have to be willing to allow every other individual the right to claim something as 'his/hers'. The concept of property cannot and does not function without the concept of reciprocity.

NOTE: in advanced societies, no one can claim property without earning it. (Toddlers are not up to this level). Goals are achieved and earned at the expenditure of energy, and those who are able-bodied and of sound, adult mind, who are unwilling to expend energy, are therefore not entitled to a claim to property, unless said property has been inherited, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Spinoza, and even Ayn Rand, have said this far better than I can.

*deleted this bit here*

 

[Bronzeage]

No, I mean unsocialized small humans. It is an enlightening experience.

I know what you mean. Unsocialized small humans toddle; it's why we call them "toddlers". Humans can't walk when they're born. They can't walk normally when they're 1. Nonetheless, walking is an instinctive behavior that humans start doing when their brains develop far enough, and start doing right when their brains develop further, regardless of culture.

The point is, observing children whose brains are too underdeveloped to do morality fail to do morality is not a sensible reason to infer that morality is cultural and not instinctive. "Coded in DNA" and "innate" are not equivalent.

It could also be argued that the socialization process is integral to brain development and without it, behavior coded by DNA would never appear. How would we test such a thing. In any moral code, it is considered wrong to deprive children of care and nurturing, just to satisfy our curiosity.

If you have more evidence that humans are good by nature and not by social forces, I would be interested to see it.
It is a tempting idea, in that it does relieve us of some responsibility for our behavior, which some people might find comforting.

 

[arkirk]

I know what you mean. Unsocialized small humans toddle; it's why we call them "toddlers". Humans can't walk when they're born. They can't walk normally when they're 1. Nonetheless, walking is an instinctive behavior that humans start doing when their brains develop far enough, and start doing right when their brains develop further, regardless of culture.

The point is, observing children whose brains are too underdeveloped to do morality fail to do morality is not a sensible reason to infer that morality is cultural and not instinctive. "Coded in DNA" and "innate" are not equivalent.

It could also be argued that the socialization process is integral to brain development and without it, behavior coded by DNA would never appear. How would we test such a thing. In any moral code, it is considered wrong to deprive children of care and nurturing, just to satisfy our curiosity.

If you have more evidence that humans are good by nature and not by social forces, I would be interested to see it.
It is a tempting idea, in that it does relieve us of some responsibility for our behavior, which some people might find comforting.

A sperm is not a person. An egg is not a person. Each however have built in potentials to (given the right circumstances) to develop into a person. It is the interaction of people that leads to this development taking place. Without the interaction of adults, no children come into existence.

We need to understand that genetics only provides a potential that has to be realized by social interaction. It is true that the more amenable a person's genetics is to socialization, the more likely they are to pass their genetics on to later generations. Why can't we accept that some genetic traits give us the potential to develop into members of our society without guaranteeing it? We need to understand however that social animals require nurturance. This is true even with relatively primitive life forms. Even bees provide an environment and a nurturance for their larval forms.

Human development is a slow process compared to that of other animals. It also is a very complex one and fraught with many environmental possibilities that could hinder that development. How a human behaves in a social context is very largely dependent on the form of the society in which it develops. Isn't it really just the combination of genetics and the prevailing social conditions, the milieu in which a person must develop that is most important. If one gives too much significance to the genetics, one misses the need for adequate and beneficial social conditions necessary for human development.

It is reasonable to expect that conditions can exist in society that severely limit or foreclose the potentials genetics would allow an individual under other circumstances. It seems to me that a society should strive to allow individuals to participate on as egalitarian basis as possible to assure the individual develops preferences that benefit both him/herself and not lose sight of his/her membership in society at large.

When one concludes his/her existence is a constant battle for survival within his society with all the other members of society, the individual becomes alienated and antisocial. We seem to have a culture that regularly asserts that competition with our own species is somehow a good thing.

 

[Bronzeage]

It could also be argued that the socialization process is integral to brain development and without it, behavior coded by DNA would never appear. How would we test such a thing. In any moral code, it is considered wrong to deprive children of care and nurturing, just to satisfy our curiosity.

If you have more evidence that humans are good by nature and not by social forces, I would be interested to see it.
It is a tempting idea, in that it does relieve us of some responsibility for our behavior, which some people might find comforting.

....
It is reasonable to expect that conditions can exist in society that severely limit or foreclose the potentials genetics would allow an individual under other circumstances. It seems to me that a society should strive to allow individuals to participate on as egalitarian basis as possible to assure the individual develops preferences that benefit both him/herself and not lose sight of his/her membership in society at large.

When one concludes his/her existence is a constant battle for survival within his society with all the other members of society, the individual becomes alienated and antisocial. We seem to have a culture that regularly asserts that competition with our own species is somehow a good thing.

Why would a group encourage behavior detrimental to the group? The battle for survival is not "within the group." It is within the world. Egalitarianism is a luxury which can only be afforded by very successful groups.

 

[arkirk]

....
It is reasonable to expect that conditions can exist in society that severely limit or foreclose the potentials genetics would allow an individual under other circumstances. It seems to me that a society should strive to allow individuals to participate on as egalitarian basis as possible to assure the individual develops preferences that benefit both him/herself and not lose sight of his/her membership in society at large.

When one concludes his/her existence is a constant battle for survival within his society with all the other members of society, the individual becomes alienated and antisocial. We seem to have a culture that regularly asserts that competition with our own species is somehow a good thing.

Why would a group encourage behavior detrimental to the group? The battle for survival is not "within the group." It is within the world. Egalitarianism is a luxury which can only be afforded by very successful groups.

Groups encourage behavior detrimental to themselves all the fucking time, Bronzeage. Look at our own country and our own legislature. Tell me that is not detrimental behavior...and torn end to end with competition between members. All it takes is a few successful spoilers or greedy glory seekers to destroy a group. The real battles for survival are within the group. Often a group attains to a certain level of consensus only to make a 180 degree turn and find itself sacrificed on the altar of somebody's ego or betrayal. True, the group can't afford this, but that is the nemesis of the group...battles for dominance. By extension this self destructive quality makes itself known in wars. It is merely an extension of the same dynamic that destroys groups.

Everybody has an ego. Cooperation requires the voluntary curbing or at least masking of the aggressive and domineering aspects of the personalities of the members. It requires the acceptance of common interests and common moral preferences of the members. Sometimes with a large group, the secret is not to ask too many concessions of the members and allow them their freedom to dissent. Dissent is not necessarily competition.

When we look at foreign cultures whose religions we do not accept, what are we to do? Make war on them? License our domination of them and give ourselves the license to exploit or enslave or kill them? There is another path to be taken by the wise. It is empathy for the individuals caught in that culture. It is understanding that it would be possible if you had led their lives, you conceivably could think and do as they do. Knowing this feeds the patience people need in order to cope with our differences.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why would a group encourage behavior detrimental to the group? The battle for survival is not "within the group." It is within the world. Egalitarianism is a luxury which can only be afforded by very successful groups.

Groups encourage behavior detrimental to themselves all the fucking time, Bronzeage. Look at our own country and our own legislature. Tell me that is not detrimental behavior...and torn end to end with competition between members. All it takes is a few successful spoilers or greedy glory seekers to destroy a group. The real battles for survival are within the group. Often a group attains to a certain level of consensus only to make a 180 degree turn and find itself sacrificed on the altar of somebody's ego or betrayal. True, the group can't afford this, but that is the nemesis of the group...battles for dominance. By extension this self destructive quality makes itself known in wars. It is merely an extension of the same dynamic that destroys groups.

Everybody has an ego. Cooperation requires the voluntary curbing or at least masking of the aggressive and domineering aspects of the personalities of the members. It requires the acceptance of common interests and common moral preferences of the members. Sometimes with a large group, the secret is not to ask too many concessions of the members and allow them their freedom to dissent. Dissent is not necessarily competition.

When we look at foreign cultures whose religions we do not accept, what are we to do? Make war on them? License our domination of them and give ourselves the license to exploit or enslave or kill them? There is another path to be taken by the wise. It is empathy for the individuals caught in that culture. It is understanding that it would be possible if you had led their lives, you conceivably could think and do as they do. Knowing this feeds the patience people need in order to cope with our differences.

I believe you are having trouble with the definition of group. Simply sharing geography is not sufficient. If you want to make sense of morality, you need to look at a smaller group of people who depend upon one another for survival and ask why they behave the way they do. As the number in a group expands, you will find groups now compete with other groups, within the larger group. A group may encourage behavior detrimental to other groups, but never to itself.