Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
| Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
|---|---|
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 11:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:It's the same theory. Thuryl's original paragraph went on to mention "100% sure they would never suffer any adverse consequences". It is obvious that if you cannot be sure that you were forgiven, then you cannot be sure there will be no adverse consequences. -------------------- "Blink and you're dead... Don't turn your back, don't look away and don't blink." Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 12:06
Profile
Homepage
quote:Stop saying stupid things like this. You have no reason to believe I'm anything but calm. If there's something you object to in my posts, describe it correctly. quote:If absolute morality is hard-wired, and it's not the same as Christian values, then what does that say about Christian values? [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 12:07: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 13:18
Profile
Homepage
Explicit explanation time! Humans banded together in social groups tens of thousands of years ago. Or maybe millions, if you'll accept that our social impulses evolved from the herd behavior of other animals (which you won't, I know). Rationally, we're better off with agreements not to murder each other. We don't usually function rationally, however. Fortunately, sociopathic behavior tends not to be evolutionarily advantageous, while earning the trust of your neighbors does. Thus, those who produced more offsprings with their genes and memes were the ones who had sympathy, empathy, and all those other lovely traits. The result: a world in which most people are hard-wired to be nice to each other. Sort of. Note that there's no morality in that hard-wiring. It happened because it was to everyone's advantage. We can call it moral now because we all believe it's moral, but there's nothing inherently right about it. Plenty of groups have and continue to show empathy towards members of the group but little or none towards members of other groups. Thus, we get ethnic cleansing. The Holocaust. Darfur. If they go against our hard-wiring, why do they happen? —Alorael, who thinks Thuryl's theory is quite simple. It has nothing to do with forgiveness and everything to do with awareness. If nobody ever becomes aware that you have committed a crime, would you feel guilty? Would you feel less guilty than if others knew what you did? If you answer no, you're either a liar or hard-wired differently. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 13:45
Profile
quote:There have been failed attempts by some in psychology to claim that some current behavior is genetically inherited from our primitive ancestors and therefore people can't help it. So far it testing with chimps research has found that primates are hard-wired for a sense of moral outrage. In an experiment, two chimps preformed the same task and one got a favorite food reward and the other got a bland food reward. The one with the bland food looked at what the other got and threw it's food back at the researcher. They haven't got a translation of what the chimp said, but it seemed to be expressing that it wanted nothing rather then getting less for the same work. There was also something about the researcher that probably would be autocensored. So we will complain about not getting what we want. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 22:20
Profile
Christian values are based on Christian doctrine which we are not programmed to follow. Some of these values are natural, but as I said we need guidance and can get off track. When I used “hard-wiring” I didn’t mean it as if morality works like instinct. We can do whatever we want. Conscience gives us a nudge, but we can work against it and minimize or even stop the nudges. The word “callous” comes to mind. quote:It depends on the crime, but generally I would say yes I would feel guilty if no one (except God) knew. My guilt relative to people knowing would again depend on the crime and who knows. For example, if the crime was of the nature that finding out would hurt people then them knowing about it would increase guilt as it would contribute to human suffering which is wrong. This fits in perfectly with the understanding that we feel guilt simply for the fact that we’ve done something that we think is wrong. Let’s say you are stealing $100 from your grandmother’s purse. As you are removing the bill your grandmother walks in on you. You have a long discussion during which you tell her you are sorry and she promises you are forgiven and that she did the same thing to her grandmother when she was your age and they were closer after her grandma found out and she now feels closer to you. Immediately after saying this she drops dead because of a brain aneurism. The only person who will ever know you stole from your grandma is dead. You are a hardcore atheist. You have the house swept for bugs and cameras and there are none. Is there any guilt? I think there is. We want people to have a high opinion of us. When they don’t we feel bad regardless of the reason. That feeling along with guilt can bring us pretty low, but they are separate. I've done some things I'm very ashamed of myself. In one case in particular 13 years have passed. I have long since apologized and been forgiven and I’m not embarrassed if anyone finds out. Possible repercussion at this point is virtually nil. At the very most some folks I never see have a bad thought come to mind when they hear my name for doing stupid teenager stuff. I still feel bad about it though. I don’t think that feeling is uncommon. I just don’t see how this theory explains that. quote:If preservation of humanity is not right then I guess nothing is. This is the amoral, animalistic thinking that follows evolutionary reasoning that is the fundamentalist’s nightmare. I think it terrifies some hardcore atheists too. I’ve heard and read them say so. I’ve got to think about this some more… ----- Moral outrage from chimps?! I never cease to be amazed by animals. I wonder why they concluded it was moral outrage though and not simply envy, which is common for the “higher” animals. The former would imply some sense of fairness. Do animals have that? I wonder. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 22:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, now, there's the crux of the issue, isn't it? If you think God knows, then that isn't nobody. quote:If you're paranoid enough to have the house swept for bugs and cameras, chances are you're paranoid enough to believe that there might still be cameras there even if you didn't find them. :P Personally, I would think any guilt about the theft would be swamped by guilt about possibly contributing to her death, which it is reasonable to think that people might partly blame you for, even if you weren't responsible -- after all, you were the last person to see her alive, so people are always going to wonder if you did everything you could to get her prompt medical attention. If guilt is caused by doing something wrong, then why do people who live through major disasters feel survivor's guilt even when they've done nothing wrong? It's because it's reasonable for them to believe that other people will wonder if they could have done more to save others. Your theory fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon. quote:As far as I'm concerned, the two are basically the same thing; one's just wrapped up in higher-sounding language than the other. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 22:36: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 23:11
Profile
They probably wonder if they could have done something themselves to help others. There may be concern that others would also think the same thing, but I wouldn't call that feeling guilt. They are very different. You could be completely innocent and know it and still feel bad if someone thinks you're guilty. This is akin to someone thinking you're unintelligent or unattractive. It's not guilt though. I gave grandma a brain aneurism and had her drop dead immediately so you couldn't be responsible and no one would think you are. Moral outrage and envy are the same? If the chimp with the good treat was upset, then I'd be impressed. That's what a concern about fairness can do. That's what makes us more than them. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 00:06
Profile
quote:Thuryl has just established that belief in God is the ultimate underpinning of morality. :P -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 00:21
Profile
Now if I can just get him to remove the "belief in." ;) Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 00:40
Profile
Homepage
I don't think the claim that religion can have an influence on one's beliefs and actions is particularly controversial even among atheists. :P SoT is, of course, deliberately mischaracterising my position for humorous effect; it's rather a big leap from "one possible underpinning" to "the ultimate underpinning". [ Friday, July 20, 2007 00:42: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6068
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 01:23
Profile
[QB][/QUOTE]And what, in Catholocism, of papal infallibility? When Pope Urban II started the first crusade, calling for all Christians to wage war against the Turks (and even promising automatic remission of sins as a perk), is this not for Catholics the statement of direct Divine Will to wage war? And what of Pope Sixtus VI's support of the Inquisition? [/QUOTE] Papal infaliability was not declared until after the Crusades, and the Inquisition was not the massacre of civil rights it is made out to be today. [ Friday, July 20, 2007 01:24: Message edited by: Chief Spider watching The Simpsons ] -------------------- "Sometimes I get all hungry! And then I catch some flies! They fly into my webs! They are really yummy guys!" -Spider Posts: 209 | Registered: Monday, July 4 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 03:06
Profile
My vague term 'ultimate underpinning' is not a banner I will fight under but a smokescreen behind which I retreat. Some graemlins are still black and white. Still, Thuryl's arguments indicate that utility only goes so far in support of morality: there are cases in which naive game theory would seem to prefer immoral behavior. This seems to me to undermine Thuryl's claim that morality is a meaningless concept. It may be unnecessary in cases where utility leads to the same conclusions, but what about the other cases? If morality is still in any way preferable to immorality in these cases, then I expect Thuryl could say that there must in fact be some kind of utilitarian substitute for the idea of morality, even here. If Thuryl won't say that, I will. But the nature of the utility involved here must be rather less trivial than the utility of not being murdered. Insisting that this non-trivial, generalized utility is still just utility, and not morality, would be mere quibbling over arbitrary terminology. If morality simply means a particular non-trivial form of utility, that's hardly meaninglessness. And hierarchical rank among terms this abstract is pretty loose, really: one could just as well say that self-preservation is an aspect of morality. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 03:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, now, hang on there. By "immoral behaviour" do you mean "behaviour which is actually immoral by some absolute Platonic standard of morality written in the heavens", or "behaviour which my society regards as immoral", or perhaps "behaviour which I personally regard as immoral"? If the first, your premise would seem difficult or impossible to prove. If the second, "unethical" seems a preferable term to "immoral". If the third, well, intuitions differ. [ Friday, July 20, 2007 03:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 04:13
Profile
Is there really a meaningful distinction between "ethical" and "moral"? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 04:18
Profile
I guess I mean, any of the above. Any theory that one action is somehow better or wiser or more right than another, when it doesn't have an obvious motivation in terms of such simple utility as not getting murdered, would seem to me to be a theory of morality, modulo arbitrary terminology. I seem to use morality and ethics as approximate synonyms. It may be that one solution to this philosophical question, of how such apparently non-utilitarian problems are to be decided, has already been found — by our genes. Massive evolutionary algorithms can be great for finding complex solutions. But that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist, any more than the fact that a massive computer has now solved checkers means that checkers strategy is a meaningless concept. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 05:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ethics implies a degree of social agreement and codification, and it can therefore be objectively determined whether an act is ethical or not (at least, it can if the ethical code is sufficiently well-defined). Breaching a code of ethics (for example, when a journalist reveals a source) is, by definition, unethical, even if some people believe it's the morally right thing to do under some circumstances. If you want to define ethics as the explicitly codified norms of a group and morals as the unwritten ones, well, I suppose that could be a useful distinction. The problem is that when you start using one word to mean a whole lot of related but different things, it's bound to lead to confusion. [ Friday, July 20, 2007 05:34: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 06:18
Profile
quote:I personally think saying "morality is an aspect of self-preservation" would be more correct, but let's just leave it to that. -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 06:40
Profile
Absolutely moral decisions are always utilitarian. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 08:20
Profile
I'm curious about the various usages of the terms "guilt" and "guilty." It seems I am, in some cases, reading them as absolutes, while in others they seem to be personal reactions (feelings) to certain actions. For example, I could feel guilty because I'm watching a movie instead of doing the dishes. I could feel guilty because I'm working instead of watching a movie. I could feel perfectly fine for lifting a mp3 off the web. I could feel guilty for pirating shareware, but perfectly okay with pirating a $5000 piece of software I only need once. It seems to me that we each have our own softcoded sense of guilt, which can be tied to religion, but not necessarily. What makes one person feel guilt isn't the same for another, and unless you follow a more general code of morality neither is right or wrong. The continuum includes some folks that feel guilt for just about anything, and others that feel guilt for nothing. On the experiment mentioned by Randomizer, I not entirely sure that requiring chimps to have human emotions (sharing/moral outrage at inequity) would be any more productive than having humans share chimp emotions, whatever those may be. -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 09:33
Profile
I think it's connected to a sense of responsibility towards others. If you have a roommate and it's your job to do the dishes,but you opt to chill out in front of the TV, you did not carry out your community responsibility and therefore feel guilt. If you live alone there's no guilt. You may convince yourself that you are not responsible to pay for software you'll only use once thereby removing guilt. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 10:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:You are quite wrong, there. -------------------- "Blink and you're dead... Don't turn your back, don't look away and don't blink." Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 11:58
Profile
I had a lazy friend who had no guilt over not doing work when there was someone else who could do it. Now when he lived alone, he actually did it since there was no one but him to do it. Regarding Papal infallibility, it was made retroactive even though the Catholic church had several old papal decisions that they would rather forget ever happened. After all they couldn't have infallibility appear suddenly and imply then that the older popes were nuts and not anymore. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 14:05
Profile
I would think he didn't feel a sense of responsibility towards them or he felt it, but he was to lazy to let his guilt influence him. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3428
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 14:42
Profile
Homepage
1. Religion would react as it always does to new facts, it will adapt; and try to subjugate. [Example: Intelligent Design] Aside: Though, personally, I think the best, most expediant, and most enlightened path comes from the fusion of science and "spirituality" [note: NOT religion] if you really want to know what comes after life, why your body exists the way it does, and why your spirits are as they are; in the name of all thats holy, look into it, please, analyze it, tear it appart, experiment and research it, divise, expand, and scruitinize techniques for collecting the kind of information nessicary. And most importantly, don't come to the table with an expectation to find anything, much less any specific thing, let what is to be found, be found. 2. People in general, probably wouldn't change that much; unless it were the discovery of sentient life [INCREDIBLY unlikely.] If anything, non-sentient extra terrestrial life would provoke people to expand the current theory behind xenobiology, and probably invent a few new fields; Xenobotanist, Xenozoologist, and Xenoeconomist. [With human instincts as they are, the second goal after understanding is exploitation.] 3. Religion and Morals are related, but not in the way most theists seem to think. Psychologically, biologically, and dare I say it, spiritually, life is connected; the more complex the stronger and deeper the connection can go, most midrange to higher mammals exhibit empathy of some sort or another, though the intellect of the primates seems to allow them to use it selectively. Your spirit, body, and mind; all in concert generate your sense of right and wrong, because we can all look at something that happens to another and say "I'd hate if that were me..." or "What... why can't that happen to me...?" If you can't its actually considered a psychological, and sometimes biological abnormality; its called sociopathy. And as religions are our attempts to justify and explain ourselves, it only makes sense (at least without better tools at our disposal) that we'd try to fit morality into it. However, the prior doesn't create or generate the former in any way shape or form... only redefines or intensifies our inner sense of "morality." [There are always exceptions, masochists and sadists; and while I know a handful of them, I don't think any of them would like being homeless, and destitute, so there are things that are "universally bad" or at least nearly universally. 4. Aside from "religious morals" and "personal morals" there are also "social morals", and "economic morals" and the four categories often cross contaminate. Which is why so many well meaning religions end up with such screwed up senses of proper and improper; thats what happens when you have people and countries practicing a religion. 5. I agree that human blood-thirst hasn't really increase, they just have more efficient ways to quench it. Its much harder to kill a million people with knives and bows, while walking or riding horseback and rowing skiffs; that it is while wailing powered ships, driving trucks, and firing off fully automatic weapons. The body count just goes up so much quicker. 6. Darwinism is right, social darwinism is a sociopathic meal ticket. Sentient species are generally social species, humans are not normally "solitairy predators" we depend on one another to survive efficiently. And while darwinism most likely does still apply, it most likely doesn't apply on individuals; it applies on larger organisms made up of them, societies, and "ways of thinking." 7. The golden rule has been around for a VERY long time, in various forms of course, but its been there. Christ wasn't the first, but he wasn't a conman, or a rip-off artist; great minds think alike. 8. Just like any "composite organism" (states, organizations, businesses, etcetera), religions can rot from the inside. Anyone within any of those sorts of things is a part of the whole, and a single, twisted individual if not kept in check, or allowed to grow powerful can be the equivalent to a cancer. -------------------- HIHI!!!! *hugs indescriminantly* take that, FEEL THE LOVE!!!! Posts: 47 | Registered: Wednesday, September 3 2003 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Friday, July 20 2007 14:43
Profile
The doctrine of papal infallibility was adopted at the first Vatican council in 1870. It stipulates that (and from here on I speak of Catholic doctrine, which I do not myself profess) the Pope is infallible when and only when "in discharge of his office ... he defines that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole Church". In other words, the Pope is as fallible as anyone else in everything but the narrow subject of deciding what are the essential Catholic doctrines concerning faith and morals. He does not have, and no Pope is deemed ever to have had, infallibility in things like inciting crusades. The Pope is not even infallible on topics of faith and morals in general; only on defining which ones are necessary for all Catholics to believe. If all he does is declare that a view is correct, without declaring that it is necessary for all Catholics to believe, then he is fallible. And even on the precise question of necessary Catholic beliefs concerning faith and morals, the Pope is only infallible if he speaks 'in the discharge of his office'. This is the famous 'ex cathedra' clause. If the Pope is just chatting with friends after dinner, and enunciates a dogma to them, he is fallible. If he formally issues the dogma, he is infallible (according to Catholic theory). Papal infallibility has only been invoked once, in 1950, when Pius XII declared it a necessary Catholic belief that Mary was taken up bodily to heaven at the end of her earthly life. I think this pretty much rules me out as a Catholic. I'd actually have a slightly easier time believing it, than accepting that it was necessary to believe it. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |