By the way, here is an analysis of a merging of morality and religion prior to monotheism:
http://www.nafcon.dircon.co.uk/christian4.html
i accuse you of dishonesty and you reply with crap about search engine tech?.
You 'accuse' me because you do not know any better. The book is simply popular.
there is somthing whacked about the structure of this. what is "rewarding with morality"?
…rewarding with earthly goods. You must realize for instance that the sacrifice of humans, which you may deem immoral, was considered perfectly moral; in fact, it was holy, as far as that sacrifice was to a deity that demanded human sacrifice.
with morality? give me reference
http://www.epcc.edu/ftp/Homes/monicaw/borderlands/17_aztecs_ruled.htm
You can alternatively, simply read a good book on Mexican history.
everything except the origins of their morality
You realize they had a god of morality-- Quetzalcoatl, no?
It should be simple for you to see that if religion is a way of life, then the rules governing how you live will necessarily be based on that religion.
if you approach things in this manner i have no problem with it.
that is logical. it makes sense. there is a paucity of data and an application of commonsense as evinced here is probably is the best explanation.
"neccessarily" could be replaced "probably" in order to err on the side of caution. you can never tell if there is a head out there itching to nitpick
No, necessarily applies because of the sentence structure. The sentence is tautological; a way of life means rules for life.
If you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."(dawkins)
lies all lies. the "selfish gene" should have been dumped into the trash long time ago. dawkins unneccessarily chooses to empasize a particular drive that humans have over others. back in the wilderness it would have been impossible to survive alone. making decisions that favor oneself alone will result in a weakening of the group or result in ostracization. reciprocity seem to be a fundamental trait. if you share with others they will share with you. selfishness does not pay
I think you oversimplify things to fit your argument. Reciprocity is not a fundamental trait that stands on its own without the self; reciprocity is exercised simply because both parties receive a desire in return. The individual has a desire and insofar as he/she cannot accomplish that desire or aim by himself or herself, he/she will seek the help of others-- with the promise of help as the lure. The notion of simply ‘giving’ (excluding that between the parent and the child) is in itself, an invention of society. Wittgenstein, if I recall, makes the argument that altruism (outside the fundamental group) is instinctive. He asserts that pity and the like for instance are traits we have a priori-- without experience, a trait that is part of our being-- a primitive, if you will, mindset that is indistinguishable from the human. I tend to disagree with that notion. Morality, laws and the like exist for a reason; without them, we will have people raping, etc. Instinctive altruism or your idea that, as humans needed each other to survive, they must not be naturally selfish, is a flawed idea simply because selfishness is self evident in all the vices. However, what is termed a vice is relative...
note: these observations are specific to certain time period. in these modern times, rational thought and intelligence has developed to such an extent that it is possible to engineer our biological systems to our liking. inheritance is not a prominent factor in human nature. it has been subsumed by rational thought. i focus on a certain stage in our evolution (grunt grunt!)
I think this focus weakens your argument. If rationality does note precede this "time period" of yours, then the notion of caring for others outside the fundamental was simply a product of a need to survive-- the self.
lets look at apes, what do they do? take care of the handicapped/kids, groom me, i groom you, share food, striving for a peaceful community ala breaking up fights and shit. punishments if above is transgressed.
Yea, let's look at apes. If you want to be groomed and I don't need grooming, I will ignore you; you will move on to another. The altruism between the parent and the child is biological. In addition, ape groups have different dynamics than a human society that exists past the basic groups—clan, family.
It depends fully on the group
now would you have that the apes sat down in a council and deliberated a code of conduct? or would it be more plausible that they choose to favor those innate drives that advance their wellbeing over those that do not? the initial impetus for morality was instinctive in nature
Your conclusion does not follow from the argument. A human society can include individuals who never have to encounter one another, and can provide functions that do not affect each other. The dynamics are necessarily different when the level of organization goes up. You cannot simply equate ape society to human society for sake of argument.
the gene wants to perpetuate itself. this does not correlate to the notion that the gene is thus selfish
Of course it does. When the choice exists between choosing between itself and another gene that helped prolong the original gene's survival, it will choose itself. Hence, the gene is selfish.
I see that you are trying, and I was thus, easy on you-- even though you suggest otherwise. If I feel that you have a strong argument, I won't be so "easy" on you, my moronic fellow sciforumer.
