Morality is a religious construct?

[(Q)]

IOW, you have no desire to contribute, only opinionate. What a surprise.

You're one to talk of contributing. By knowing exactly what you'd say on this thread, considering it's exactly what you've said all along, how is that contributing? You haven't changed your tune one iota. You've received the exact same answers to the same questions you asked before.

Predictable, hence pointless.

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't know.
I'm fairly sure it exists.
But that's why I'm "contributing" to this thread in the hopes that it will eventually kick out something to give me a lead.

Yes, why would human beings consciously cultivate righteousness as the basis of cooperative society?

 

[S.A.M.]

Possible lead?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6278907.stm

Hmm, cause or effect?

 

[Oli]

We developed a section of our brain to cater for a social/ religious construct?
That would explain me then - nature's answer to stupidity.

 

[S.A.M.]

We developed a section of our brain to cater for a social/ religious construct?
That would explain me then - nature's answer to stupidity.

More like, if you look for something you may find it?

I'm wondering if some ideas of right or wrong have been ubiquitous in widely disparate cultures. Transmission would be through active enforcement on children, so why does it persist? Murderers do know murder is wrong, but soldiers justify it. So why the concept that murder is wrong, when there are instances that justify it?

 

[Oli]

More like, if you look for something you may find it?

Like God?

I'm wondering if some ideas of right or wrong have been ubiquitous in widely disparate cultures.

And once again Saiyyadati you lead me into previously unknown waters (to me). Shukran Katheeran. I assume that's the case, but it IS an assumption. I have more reading to do now.

Murderers do know murder is wrong, but soldiers justify it. So why the concept that murder is wrong, when there are instances that justify it?

You mean "those who murder for a particular purpose" as opposed to "serial killers" and the like? Aren't the latter those who don't know that it's wrong, and can't see that it is?

"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. . . . If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives."
- Charles Darwin

Just found these - rapidly skimming them now:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/madigan.html

The second is (reportedly) heavily religion-biased but supposedly has some good points.

 

[S.A.M.]

And once again Saiyyadati you lead me into previously unknown waters (to me). Shukran Katheeran. I assume that's the case, but it IS an assumption. I have more reading to do now.

Good, I love to delegate.

You mean "those who murder for a particular purpose" as opposed to "serial killers" and the like? Aren't the latter those who don't know that it's wrong, and can't see that it is?

Thats a POV isn't it? According to them, they are merely following their instincts.

If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives

Again, why would some acts "deserve" approbation and love? Isn't that merely a subjective expression of already deep seated views on right and wrong?

Just found these - rapidly skimming them now:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/madigan.html

The second is (reportedly) heavily religion-biased but supposedly has some good points.

Interesting, let me chew on these.

 

[Oli]

Good, I love to delegate.

Barakah?

Thats a POV isn't it? According to them, they are merely following their instincts.

I think one of those links said they don't KNOW that it's wrong. Isn't sociopathy an inability to empathise or see others as human as oneself. If you're not a human like me then I don't owe you any morality?

Again, why would some acts "deserve" approbation and love? Isn't that merely a subjective expression of already deep seated views on right and wrong?

It said receive, not deserve - maybe you get approbation from others so that when they do something similar they will get it from you and others. Enlightened self-interest? Keep the buddy system going?

Interesting, let me chew on these.

Maalesh.

 

[S.A.M.]

I think one of those links said they don't KNOW that it's wrong.

Sez who? The ones who don't have the same instincts? So who doesn't follow whose driving needs?

It said receive, not deserve - maybe you get approbation from others so that when they do something similar they will get it from you and others. Enlightened self-interest? Keep the buddy system going?

Self-interest plus alpha leader?

Maalesh.

JAK.

 

[Oli]

Sez who? The ones who don't have the same instincts? So who doesn't follow whose driving needs?

From the first paper:

The person should now be considered an individual who is stricken with a deficit that has denied them the capability of feeling and interpreting their actions like the rest of us can.

Self-interest plus alpha leader?

It's possible, and then codified?

JAK.

?? New word? I miss the lessons... :bawl:

 

[S.A.M.]

From the first paper:

Us against them, hmm?

It's possible, and then codified?

Quite possibly. So its about power then? A structured hierarchy?

?? New word? I miss the lessons... :bawl:

Standard convention in Muslims

JAK= Jazakallah Khairan (Thanks, or literally, may God bestow all good things on you)

We can start lessons again after end of June.

 

[Oli]

Us against them, hmm?

So you don't think that "type" has something missing? Or are you doing Satan's eggnog?

Quite possibly. So its about power then? A structured hierarchy?

Possibly to start with (I don't see it as such now). There are benefits to be achieved from morality (or a belief that it exists), so it's a mutual support thing, no? (This from the guy that refuses flat out to do "team training"!).

JAK= Jazakallah Khairan (Thanks, or literally, may God bestow all good things on you)

That's in my dictionary. I thought it was, but couldn't be sure.

We can start lessons again after end of June.

Saiyyadati min al-Yasmin Ibtasaamaat ilai, Shukran Jazeelan.
:worship:

 

[S.A.M.]

So you don't think that "type" has something missing? Or are you doing Satan's eggnog?

Just thinking, does good exist without bad? Is it only relative?

Possibly to start with (I don't see it as such now). There are benefits to be achieved from morality (or a belief that it exists), so it's a mutual support thing, no? (This from the guy that refuses flat out to do "team training"!).

But it still requires the division of people into acceptable or inacceptable, so what determines that aspect?

That's in my dictionary. I thought it was, but couldn't be sure.


Saiyyadati min al-Yasmin Ibtasaamaat ilai, Shukran Jazeelan.
:worship:

Wallahi lazim, sounds like you're doing well enough on your own.

 

[Oli]

Just thinking, does good exist without bad? Is it only relative?

It is relative, but CAN one exist without the other? Do we need bad to recognise good?

But it still requires the division of people into acceptable or inacceptable, so what determines that aspect?

You mean morality divides? In and of itself? Not from my personal perspective and my own moral structure. Or just judges the difference?

Wallahi lazim, sounds like you're doing well enough on your own.

And there you prove yourself wrong. Help!

 

[S.A.M.]

It is relative, but CAN one exist without the other? Do we need bad to recognise good?

Hey, I'm asking you!

You mean morality divides? In and of itself? Not from my personal perspective and my own moral structure. Or just judges the difference?

Is it individual or group? And if its group, is it merely a case of majority wins?

And there you prove yourself wrong. Help!

You mean wallahi lazim? Something like Absolutely, by God!

 

[Oli]

Hey, I'm asking you!

You're asking me? Wadooino?
I hope that they're not dependant upon each other. But... hmmm. Why do I always let you sucker me into these conversations?

Is it individual or group? And if its group, is it merely a case of majority wins?

Both of course, if we're talking about judging the difference between good and bad. The individual's judgement is formed and informed by the group within which that individual lives/ works/ plays, surely? Majority wins? Mostly, I'd say. And when it doesn't then the individual has to live with potential ostracism (to one degree or another) or worse.

You mean wallahi lazim? Something like Absolutely, by God!

Shukran.

 

[S.A.M.]

You're asking me? Wadooino?
I hope that they're not dependant upon each other. But... hmmm. Why do I always let you sucker me into these conversations?


Both of course, if we're talking about judging the difference between good and bad. The individual's judgement is formed and informed by the group within which that individual lives/ works/ plays, surely? Majority wins? Mostly, I'd say. And when it doesn't then the individual has to live with potential ostracism (to one degree or another) or worse.


Shukran.

Still stuck on how and what determines the distinction between "good" and "bad"

Need to cogitate but later. Gotta work.

 

[Oli]

Maafi mushkila, Saiyyadati. Later.

 

[Oli]

Just found a paper on the neurobiology of morality - looks like it may be hardwired into us.

But the paper happens to be written in Estionian
I'm dead in the water on that...

 

[one_raven]

Avatar, I'm pretty sure, can read Estonian.