Is the human species hard-wired for "moral" conduct

M

MatthewA

Registered Member
Is there some "higher" transcendental force that has determined moral order and law or has the human animal evolved specific regions in the brain that compel us to cooperate, to be repelled by antisocial acts and tendencies? Citing the research of Antonio Damasio and others, Matthew Alper's "The God Part of the Brain" (www.godpart.com) explores the possibility that moral consciousness emerged in our species as an evolutionary adaptation meant to keep our selfish inclinations in check so as to make us a more survivable species.

"Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from philosophers and priests and biologized." -E.O. Wilson
 
E O wilson kicks ass.
He's saying what I've been saying forever. We should look for the original code of ethics that is naturally ingrained in the homo-sapien species. These church ethics are fake and people are surprised when no one abides by them, we were never meant to.
Thou shalt do whatever the fuck comes naturally to them.
 
Original ethics? The idea is absurd. Morality is completely subjective, there is no secret code of objective morality that humans are "supposed" to follow. When it comes down to it there is no objective right or wrong, only right toward a specific goal, or wrong toward a specific goal. Objective morality works only if you feel that you have some sort of objective higher purpose in the world. I call that kind of thinking delusions of grandeur.
 
No, every animal has a code of ethics.
Its just evolved behaviour that breeds true. Humans would have it if there weren't so damn many unfit assplugs breeding.
Now each human has his own little natural ethics but because of the inefficiency of natural selection in humans we are getting some pretty screwed up codes. This was attempted to be put into order by religion and law but that system is fucked, it doesn't stop the problem it just keeps punishing the problems that it is allowing to carry on.
Let people like E O wilson who understand this decide who breeds and eventually you would see people becoming one species as opposed to a muddled up mess, there would be absolutely no need for law at all. Everyone would have the same ethics. They would be whatever E O bred for.
You could breed people like you could breed dogs. You can breed dogs to have certain traits and temperements, natural selection does it slowly to get the same result but we can do it pretty damn fast, we should be doing it to ourselves, we could fix EVERY problem in the world.
The problem people would have with this is would require culling, ironically the reason that bothers them is it clashes with their fake ethical codes that are the problem in the first place.
 
There is one rule: Survival of the species/self. All ethical codes generated from this basic rule.

To blatantly generalize: Do not Kill another human spurned Ok so now we can live together if you do not steal...which spurned... ok now don't fuck my wife...which spurned...since I think I think I can trust you...do not lie...bla fucking bla

Ethics 'biologized'? LMAO. Not as long as humans live in groups.
 
Why? :confused: are humans the only animals living in groups?

Ps: Don't LMAO EO :mad: He's probably the biggest name in science today. Anyone who is respected respects EO wilson.
Maybe, just maybe *gasp* he's a little smarter than us
:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
No, every animal has a code of ethics.
Its just evolved behaviour that breeds true. Humans would have it if there weren't so damn many unfit assplugs breeding.
Now each human has his own little natural ethics but because of the inefficiency of natural selection in humans we are getting some pretty screwed up codes. This was attempted to be put into order by religion and law but that system is fucked, it doesn't stop the problem it just keeps punishing the problems that it is allowing to carry on.
Let people like E O wilson who understand this decide who breeds and eventually you would see people becoming one species as opposed to a muddled up mess, there would be absolutely no need for law at all. Everyone would have the same ethics. They would be whatever E O bred for.
You could breed people like you could breed dogs. You can breed dogs to have certain traits and temperements, natural selection does it slowly to get the same result but we can do it pretty damn fast, we should be doing it to ourselves, we could fix EVERY problem in the world.
The problem people would have with this is would require culling, ironically the reason that bothers them is it clashes with their fake ethical codes that are the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...

HAHA don't tell me that you actually believe this garbage? Take a god damned history class, or just go turn on the television and turn it to the history channel. Do you know who already had this completely insane notion? Do you know what they called it? What you are describing is Hitler's Eugenics program.

Guess what, all of those Untermenchen whom you feel are unfit to breed are doing the species a favor. You clearly don't know anything about evolution, because in order for it to work reliably we need lots of variation. Unity makes the species weak. Diversity is what makes us adaptable and innovative, the alternative is stagnation and death.

Animals don't have a moral code, by the way. Morality is an arbitrary and abstract system, other animals simply don't have the capacity for it.

I hate to quote Jerrek of all people, but go get a refund on your education; you payed too much.
 
What?!
The species is weak as piss right now.
Diversity is good, but out breeding to any "runt" is called overbreeding, which is bad. Nature culls and thats what makes a wild species strong. Nature doesn't cull us so if we had any brains we would cull be culling ourselves. We realise this with dogs, the weak members of the litter wouldn't make it in the wild, they could in domestic situations, but we KNOW that letting them survive and breed would weaken the breed. I happen to be involved with breeding protection dogs so I know what I'm talking about. This isn't a matter of "what I believe" its flat out fact. I 100% know I am correct, I'll go so far as to say I've never been so sure of anything I've said at sciforums before.
If the majority of any species are allowed to pass on their genes they fuck up the species. There needs to be a balance. There's a thin line to tread that only nature seems to be able to walk straight on. "Survival of everyone because they are nice people" doesn't work. Even if you don't know your science it should be obvious after watching one episode of jerry springer, or watching the news for that matter.
 
You're completely off your gord, you don't know what you are talking about. Genetic diversity is what drives evolution, and what sets our species limits for adaptability, period.

As for "those people you see on Jerry Springier" do you really feel that their failure (in your eyes) is due to genetics? We've already seen your plan tried before, and guess what, it doesn't work. It's nothing but a hopelessly bigoted and evil philosophy based completely on your own little fantasies of who is a good person and who is a bad person.
 
Whether you think its a good idea to selectively breed humans or not you can't deny overbreeding is detrimental to the genetic health of a species. Its scientific fact.

If I was serious about culling humans I'd probably include myself in the culling because I doubt I could survive in the wild. Especially in the wilds of africa where humans evolved and should be.
That would be the ideal requirement in my view. If you can survive with nothing in africa you deserve to breed, otherwise you are just hiding under mamma's skirt while she passes you sweets. (Keep in mind I too am hiding there and accepting sweets, but at least I know what i am; an incompetent organism not worthy of passing on my genes)
 
Drop the pretense, get all oily and half naked and WRESTLE!

Umm, hurts? I thought it was funny. But what is it when two guys fight, it's not a catfight though. But a "dogfight"? That sounds wrong.
I'm interrupting an interesting discussion. Sorry.
 
Originally posted by Mystech
Animals don't have a moral code, by the way. Morality is an arbitrary and abstract system, other animals simply don't have the capacity for it.
Click to expand...
They don't have a list of phoney morals like we have no. But they do have ingrained instinctual "morals".
If two male guinea pigs get into a fight the loser will expose his balls to admit defeat, the winner will never bite his nuts. All animals, especially mammals have a form of ethics that is ingrained into all the members of that species.

Humans don't share a common set, due to overbreeding.
I'll elaborate on this, you aren't an idiot mystech, you realise humans aren't magic super-animals right? It is agreed that the way evolution works is the same for all organisms correct?
Ok then you won't mind me explaining it in dog form, I just learned about this myself as I am just getting into breeding. I was like you, I assumed diversity would have to be beneficial. I always knew humans were screwed up but I never put it together untill a wise old bandog breeder pointed out the flaws in my program.

I was against line-breeding(which is basically inbreeding, you breed a particularly desirable dog to the most desirable dog from its own litter, daddy and daughter stuff, yeah gross), but with out doing that the crossing can go in any direction, producing unpredictable dogs and forcing you to cull more than you need to. You have to set a standard by selectively line breeding early on. Naturally, new species emerging will "set their standard" because there will be few of them. For a new species to evolve there needs to be something lacking in whatever species they are evolving from, when somethings lacking in a species they start lacking a vast population. The vampire finches of the galopogas evolved from 3 birds as recently as 1983. They didn't used to be vampires, they changed faster and set a standard due to their lack of genetic diversity. Now there's thousands of them.

Anyway, humans would have started out like that too, there would have been few aquatic apes or whatever due to el-nino and only a few survived. They then proceeded to incest it up and create homo-sapiens. Thats fine. We started out well. But when civilisation arose, the natural culling stopped. Families with 10 children would end up with 10 sets of grandchildren etc. Thats not a good thing, most of those kids should have died by way of lion or something, only the strong should have survived. Now all these shouldn't be organisms started breeding and shouldn't be babies were coming out, and breeding.

Its called over breeding in the dog world, people who want as much money as possible breed every pup they get, even if it has serious problems. This is frowned upon, for obvious reasons, its disintergrates and degrades ancient breeds of quality. You need to be selective with which dog from each litter will get the chance to breed. This improves the breed over time. It also sets temperement, which is something humans need. All members of a breed that has been well bred will share temperements. They will share ingrained morals.

Labradors have been bred to never bight people, neopolitan mastiffs have been bred to bite anyone that threatens their owner.
Humans have been bred to stick small animals in their asses, get off on having their balls crushed and fuck puppies. Some humans have been bred to care for the wellbeing of others and the state of the planet, others have been bred to want to eat other people while rubbing grease on their stomachs.
Now we "punish" people because they don't all share the same temperement, what a fucking joke, they've been bred to be criminals, they had the worst, most lenient breeder in town; society.

The only reason there is no set of morals ingrained into us is because we haven't been selectively bred to have a set like all other animals have. We made up an arbitrary set which just flaunts our shortcomings as a species.
In actual fact, mystech, we are the only animals that DON'T have morals, not the other way around.
 
This seems to be getting back to the nature vs. nurture argument. Our 'morality' as you call it could very well be the result of evolution(hence our ability to develop moral ideas) AS WELL as shaped and influenced by the people around us. . .
 
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
That would be the ideal requirement in my view. If you can survive with nothing in africa you deserve to breed, otherwise you are just hiding under mamma's skirt while she passes you sweets.
Click to expand...

Hahah, do you understand what adaptability is? Guess what, the entire world isn't like Africa, in fact, Africa isn't even like Africa any more (not the Africa of 500,000 years ago, or whenever humans started popping up). The very reason that diversity, mutation, and aberration is a good thing is because the world itself changes. Africa ain't going to be around forever, and if we grow away from our original habitat that makes the survival of the species a whole hell of a lot more likely to survive. I don't believe that there is any such thing as "Over breeding" not until it gets to a point where there just isn't enough resources to go around to sustain such a large population, but then I don't think we're necessarily talking about that, now are we?

Why is a human who is suited to live in the wilds of Africa best suited to be a power broker living in a pent house suite in New York City in your opinion? Why should your standard apply to anyone who has their own very secure niche too which they have become very well adapted?

In case you hadn’t noticed Humans have survived and prospered as a species because of the fact that we are so adaptable. We can live anywhere, and when our own particular natural traits fail us we have the ability to shape our environment to be better suited to our survival. If we simply remained living as a small number of ape-like beings living off the land in Africa, we’d probably have died off by now.
 
Originally posted by Xev
Drop the pretense, get all oily and half naked and WRESTLE!

Umm, hurts? I thought it was funny. But what is it when two guys fight, it's not a catfight though. But a "dogfight"? That sounds wrong.
Click to expand...

It's homoerotic is what it is, Xev. Go get the camera. With your steady hand filming it all I'm sure you'll make me a star.
 
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
But when civilisation arose, the natural culling stopped.
Click to expand...

Because compassion for our fellow man and becomeing masters of our environments rather than being subject to them has always been a central issue within civilization. The fact is that a civilized people do not "cull" their own, because there is simply no need to. If your African tribes had started killing people born with lighter shades of skin becaues they were not as protected from the sun and as such would get more skin cancer and "Weaken the species" then we certainly never would have ended up with people living in Europe, there would be no western civilization and nothing that it has produced would exist either.

What makes your criteria for a "Strong" species hold any weight at all? In the instance of your dogs, they are being bred for a purpose, bred toward a goal, and as such desireable traits are measured in terms of how they help or detract from that goal. In the instance of human survival, there is no such artificialy imposed goal to which we are trying to shape our genetic structure, and there never will be. Having a large diversity of genetic aberations makes the species stronger because we can never account for all of the situations which large population groups may eventualy encounter, and those who seem less suited for one environment may end up thriving in another while those who were on top in the old world now struggle just to stay alive. It's called adaptabililty and it's how Evolution works.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Families with 10 children would end up with 10 sets of grandchildren etc. Thats not a good thing, most of those kids should have died by way of lion or something, only the strong should have survived.
Click to expand...

What about a world where there are no lions? Why in your opinion should these certain children have died? If they have not died by way of lion, then doesn't that indicate that they were doing something right? And be it Genetic or behavioral (Guess what the two are distinctly different) it doesn't really matter, now does it?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Its called over breeding in the dog world, people who want as much money as possible breed every pup they get, even if it has serious problems. This is frowned upon, for obvious reasons, its disintergrates and degrades ancient breeds of quality.
Click to expand...

What it does is create pups that are farther and farther from the singular ideal model which the breeder is trying to achieve. This is a completely artificial standard and a completely arbitrary goal to try to reach. The only reason that these pups could be considered inferior is because they do not embody the same traits of the breed which the owner is trying to sell, or groom for dog shows, or chop up to put in hot dogs, or whatever exactly it is that you breeders do with your dogs.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
You need to be selective with which dog from each litter will get the chance to breed. This improves the breed over time. It also sets temperement, which is something humans need. All members of a breed that has been well bred will share temperements. They will share ingrained morals.
Click to expand...

Take a psych 101 class, Doc. Moralilty isn't ingraned, it's not genetic, it is a learned pattern of behaviors. Animals havn't got morals, and Humans do. Humans are the only species with the capacity for a moral code. Animals live off of instinct and varying small degrees of learned behavior.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
The only reason there is no set of morals ingrained into us is because we haven't been selectively bred to have a set like all other animals have. We made up an arbitrary set which just flaunts our shortcomings as a species.
Click to expand...

Humans do not operate primarily off of primitive instinct. We often like to use our very advanced brains and use a bit of abstract thinking now and again. If you're not ready to do that you can go and continue breeding with your dogs.
 
if i'm going to take anyone's opinion of this matter at face value, it would be eo wilson's.

i think the problem arises because people have a tendency to ignore their bodies. you also can't assume that people are programmed with flawless morals. we have certain inherited tendencies that can be trained out of us while others are trained in. animals basically have instincts to protect their life, offspring, mates, families, property, and territory (though not all of the above at all times). typically, animals feel it is moral to do whatever it takes to acheive the afore mentioned protection. people are not very moral animals but we like to pretend we are, hence all the made up moral codes we live by.
 
You seem to be confusing survival instincts and moral conduct. There is a very large difference between the two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top