Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but they usually have guardians and caregivers of some sort who apply the same controls as parents.
Religions are morally wrong.
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
Homeless kids are probably mostly thieves but surely all are not murderers. What's that word for kids who grow up in the woods alone? Gah, drawing a blank. Anyway, those kids probably don't have ethics as we generally think of it, but perhaps they do have ethics of a sort. I'd think they'd be a lot more crude than most who are rasied in a society.
Socialization leads to ethical something or another because the exposure to other humans is interactive / consequential - forcing one's mind to cope in some manner with behavior choices regarding social interaction.
I think language language and socialization are pre-reqs for ethics, but I'm not sure about that language. I just don't know if right, wrong or fairness could be concieved of without language to bring the notions to mind.
Wesmorris:
Feral children is what you were looking for.
Feral children is what you were looking for.
Obviously.
Support that. I'm having a hard time thinking of a place isolated of religion that could clearly cancel your statement. That's the thing, there is so much religion it can't be separated to say if you're right or not. It's inconclusive but you've chosen to say otherwise.
A strict materialist couldn't have morals, but even those who claim to be them, generally aren't... strictly speaking.
Conscience is self-enforcing. Any human, relgious or not can have a conscience.
But you said it's self-enforcing so you wouldn't need regulatory authorities. Make up my mind damnit, if you're so authoritarian.
I perceive my own life and existence in the same manner that I perceive Bob, the caveman.
Bob is sitting there, minding his own business, when the idea of morality or lack thereof enters his mind. So he looks at the caveman next to him and ponders the idea of just killing him for the mere sake of it, no specific reason, just because he can.
Bob thinks about it and comes to the conclusion that Jim, (the other caveman), is the best fire starter he's ever met. Without Jim it is likely that Bob will go the way of the dinosaur, (haha!). Bob decides that the best thing for himself is to leave Jim alive. By leaving Jim alive Bob will have warmth. Next to Jim is John, and Bob thinks about killing him too for no reason, just for the sake of it. Thing is, Bob realises, is that John is the best hunter he's ever met. If he kills John for no good reason then he will likely starve to death.
In every instance, certain acts will result in a larger negative for the perpetrator than the victim.
However, Bob looks at Shaun. Now Shaun is one of those guys, doesn't do much but is right here and now giving weird looks towards the hot cavewoman that Bob has his eye on. Hence it isn't long before Shaun is a corpse and Bob is happy.
The act in that instance resulted in a greater positive to Bob.
Hence we see through selfishness, this so called "morality" is born and continues. You're not with your wife because of all the things you can do for her, you're with her because of all the things she can provide for you. You make sacrifices and do the "right thing" on the basis that it serves your own needs. You get nothing of value from coming round here and sucking my ass hence you don't ever do it. If you contend that you are willing to do something that provides no personal benefit but personal detriment then feel free to come round here and clamp your lips on my bottom.
Ok says the theist.. what about the old granny that's drowning.. Why jump in and save her when you might very well die in doing so?
The answer is inevitably the same, indeed you hear it whenever listening to the 'hero'... "I couldn't live with myself if I let her drown" etc. Me? No, I don't care, I'd let the old bag drown and done with it. If it was a child? I would take the chance, I would go through the risk of my own personal death because the benefit, (their survival), outweighs my inability to live with myself if I let one die in front of my eyes.
You will find that "morality" is identical for the theist, atheist, materialist, sunday paper reading, thursday masturbating, rosebreeder until the risk outweighs the consequence - hence why when society breaks apart the first thing people do is loot the local newsagents. All those otherwise "moral" individuals in prison came to a position where the act actually outweighed the risk.
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Animals themselves have de fact moral systems. Certain behaviors are looked on well by the pack, others are frowned upon. Beyond that individual animals have the equivalent to moral codes and this can be seen most easily in group of higher primates (other than us) where some are very kind, others bullies and worse, etc.
Crudity, to me at least, is another can of beans. Colonial societies, for example, have often confused their refinement with subtler or better morals than the 'savages' they were in the business of committing genocide on or treating like pets. One culture's politeness can seem like an ornamental tic to a member of another culture, especially if said member is being removed from traditional lands after watching his wife being raped by a soldier from the 'advanced' culture.
We should never confuse - I am choosing the modal verb consciously here - complexity of mannerism with morality.
Not that I think you were, I simply used your wording as a jumping off point and I seem to have, quite pleasantly in fact, reached a limb in another tree.
I meant it as in like 'unrefined' or 'hard to relate to', but yes of course.
Manifest destiny as a moral act of course. It's odd to me that I have to be thankful to a bunch of imperialistic, thieving murderers for my very existence I guess.
Indeed.
Glad you landed safely.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I would think that most people have a similar debt - I mean, somewhere down the line. Those who don't are mostly in alternate universes.
Too true.
And now that I think about it, I'm post-insulted at your implications Simon Anders! How could I possibily profess more than my opinion? Even were I to claim 'objective proof', that's still just me making some claim that you may or may not agree with.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I don't have a problem with either claims to knowledge or opinions. In other words I see no reason to reject everything that falls into those categories. But if I see claims to knowing that are presented by someone who, it seems to me, is saying things that should make them hesitant to phrase this in certain terms. If I read their philosophy and they are making it clear that certain things are beyond their knowledge I will find it odd if they then make statements of certainty about them. I don't think, given what you said or implied about minds and how one comes to knowledge, you could know what other people experience in relation to a god.
I could be wrong. Perhaps you were not contradicting yourself. But that was my problem with what you said.
I don't want to get into some postion of linguistic police, but if I meet someone who is tentative here and absolutely certain there, then I assume these differences mean something.
You can always come back to me and say, well, I don't really know. Which, essentially you did. But then after you would speak about what was going on with certainty again. What really was going on in believers, etc. I found it annoying.
I mean, you seem like a write it out off the cuff kind a guy. Me, too. So this kind of thing happens.
I also don't really take people as singular organisms. Someone can walk around and say they are not racist, and then I see that they treat black people differently. They speak out against racism and sometimes are clearly anti-racist or not racist. And then I see exceptions. Should I assume that one moment's overview of themselves is the real them. "I am not racist. I see blacks as the same as whites." Or can a person be more complicated. They are both racist and not racist. I mean, hell, I am. (which seemed important to add given the charged example I am using).
I think I was responding to something unresolved in you. At least it came off as unresolved. You want to talk with certainty about what other minds and god are limited to. You want to be certain about that using deduction and your own experience of your own mind.
Something you are damn well sure about. And something that you also view at times as an opinion. Sometimes you are sure you do know what is going on over there. At other times you know this fits oddly with your philosophy.
If I meet this on one page of text, it is going to stand out and I reacted in this case.
I hope this does not come off as too post-defensive.
Live long and prosper.
Simon.
I'm damn well sure about my opinion on some things, damnit.
The point to bringing it back up was that I'd forgotten one of the points that led me to my strange perspective to begin with:
That no matter how strongly we are convicted of what we know... purported knowledge is from a mind, and a mind is simply a perspective. So there are matters we may agree are fact, but our agreement says nothing as to 'reality' (given the whole logical fallacy thing), but just means that our agreement is popular with at least us - and regardless, all statements of fact are really just opinions that may indeed be factual... or not.
The stuff I said, though I may have mis-stated some of it, is really what I think of the repurcussions of a perspective trying to relate to its environment. I think there are some inherent limitations, blah blah blah the stuff I said. But it's ME saying them and as I've mentioned, could be I'm a moran.
The point to bringing it back up was that I'd forgotten one of the points that led me to my strange perspective to begin with:
That no matter how strongly we are convicted of what we know... purported knowledge is from a mind, and a mind is simply a perspective. So there are matters we may agree are fact, but our agreement says nothing as to 'reality' (given the whole logical fallacy thing), but just means that our agreement is popular with at least us - and regardless, all statements of fact are really just opinions that may indeed be factual... or not.
The stuff I said, though I may have mis-stated some of it, is really what I think of the repurcussions of a perspective trying to relate to its environment. I think there are some inherent limitations, blah blah blah the stuff I said. But it's ME saying them and as I've mentioned, could be I'm a moran.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
You sure about that. Now, I know. I am being a prick. But the thing is we can't go one step out into abstraction and there feel more certain. I know. You are stating and opinion. But you see what I mean, anyway, even if you think I am a prick about it or somehow being fussy for no reason. Someone reading the above could get the impression that if we talk about 'reality' we are coming from a perspective, but if we are talking about our limitations and the 'fact' that we are coming from a perspective, now we can know for sure. This subject area is locked down. But if we get into quasars and neuropeptides we have to be more tentative.
What, you dissing the Morans? I think one of them is an engineer and I know some Morans in Dover who recently invented a device that can I.D. dog poop for CSI teams.
The Dunds however really do not know their asses from their ids. Hence the common use of that clans name as an insult.