Why Be Moral?

[RCSaunders]

Anyway, not only did the Nazis think they knew what a "Jew" was, so do Jews...the Nation of Israel in particular.

You really don't get it, do you? There are only individual human beings. There are no groups, or classes, ethnicities, or races that are in any way special, inferior, or superior to others. Any view that regards individuals as more or less important because of some class or ethnicity they claim or belong to is RACISM. Anyone who claims membership in any class, ethnicity, or race as if that membership conferred some kind of value or importance on them is a racist.

It is one of few things that I believe Christians do that is genuinely evil, and that is the promotion of racism.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyway, not only did the Nazis think they knew what a "Jew" was, so do Jews...the Nation of Israel in particular.

You really don't get it, do you?

Oh, you're going to go this way, are you?

You're going to ignore cases like the Kulaks, the Maoist intelligencia, the victims of pedophiles and rapists, and so on, and pretend to be offended that I used a word the State of Israel uses. Because, you say, it's "evil." Though nothing is "evil," you will also have to say, because you've already said we define these things individually.

But in this case, you'll make an exception. Because you hope it derails the logic train here.

Yep, I get it. I sure do.

[Age]

Okay.

Thank you for your long and detailed response. Before I can properly respond, there is one question I have to ask, so I know what you basic premise is.

In your opinion, is the world you are directly conscious of, that is, what you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste, the real existence as it actually exists? Or is it something else?

Because of what the 'you' actually IS, which is not yet known by most people, when 'you' have used the word 'you' here I would have to make an assumption about what 'you' are talking about, which, as you already, I do not like to assume any thing at all. So, I will answer this in a slightly different way from what 'you' might have been expecting.

What this body, which is typing these words, sees, hears, feels, smells, and tastes, from the environment around it, actually and really exists. That is these five senses actually exist and the environment actually exists as well. This is the real existence. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, because the information, which is fed through those five senses of the body, from the environment around that body, interacts with the previously gained thoughts/information, which is already stored within the brain can and does affect the legitimacy of the accuracy of the current information coming in. Obviously the current information coming in is absolutely true, right, and correct, but sadly and unfortunately the currently stored and held thoughts can and does distort the actual accuracy of information.

For example: A new born human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste ONLY what actually exists, and ONLY 'that'. Whereas, a much older human body will see, hear, feel, smell, and taste absolutely ANY THING, which the 'you' (the person) inside assumes or believes exists, and ONLY 'that'.

Now, to truly understand this much better, let us say; A new born human body wakes up, it sees objects, hears sounds, feels hungry, smells things, and tastes nutrients. Whereas, a much older human body wakes up, it sees an alarm clock that did not go off, hears thoughts within its head continually saying, "I am late work", "I have to go to work to make money", "I have to pay the rent", "I need a new car", "I can't be late to work", et cetera, et cetera., feels rushed, stressed, worried, nervous, anxious, et cetera, et cetera., smells human made perfumes, deodorants, et cetera, and tastes whatever it can ram down its throat as quick as it can because it is in a rush to make money.

All of these things are a "real existence", but not of what 'actually exists', but rather of that one's own making.

See,
A baby sees objects, like an actual clock, which actually exist. An elder sees the same object, but also sees 9.03am, which does not actually exist.
A baby hears noise, like an actual motor vehicle, which actually exist. An elder hears the same object, but also hears "I need a new car", which is not actually true.
A baby feels hunger, like when it is actually hungry, which actually exists. An elder feels hunger, but also eats at other times just for taste, which is certainly not actually needed.
A baby smells scents, like its own actual feces, which actually exist. An elder smells the same scents, but also covers them up, which is not actually necessary at all.
A babe tastes nutrients, like actual milk, which actually exist. An elder tastes milk, and a variety of other completely unnecessary things, which are obviously not needed in any way, shape, nor form.

Human babies live in and with the One and only real "world". Whereas, human elders make up many varied types of unreal "worlds".

In explaining this I am not sure I did it any justice. But in essence, the real existence as it actually exists is experienced in new born human babies, but in elder human beings the real existence as it actually exists can and does all to easily get distorted by the conscious thoughts, which exist because of the body's previous past experiences.

A new born human body experiences things as they really ARE. A older human body experiences things as they are wanted to be, or thought to be.

Once I know your view on the nature of reality itself, I'll know how to understand your comments and questions.

If you want to know my views on 'reality', itself, then this is a whole other matter.

To me, what is experienced in the now, is not 'reality' but rather what is 'really happening'.

'Reality', itself, is what is happening in the 'real' "world". That is; the "world" that we ALL want to live in. The "world" that we are living in now, when this is written is certainly NOT the 'real' "world". 'Reality' or the 'real' "world" is that way of life we ALL want and desire.

Thanks again,

RC

I am not sure if all of this was explained in any way that was understood by you, or by others. But, if further clarifying questions are asked then this can all be explained very simply and very easily. The more specific the clarifying question asked, then the more accurately the answer can be explained, and the more defined or more definite the answer will be as well.

[Age]

The theist calls it soul.

A deist, like me, might call it spirit.

If some one writes, "one's spirit", and then they are asked, "What is "one's spirit"? Then the answer to that clarifying question is: I might call 'it' spirit?

Does not really help in clarifying any thing at all really.

A non-believer calls it mind or self.

Call it what you like.

It's you, as person/free will.

So, "one's spirit" is essentially just "one's self" anyway, or just a "you", is this what you are saying now?

Also, can a 'you' only be a person/free will, can they not be person/determined?

Lot of folks in-forum, however, see personhood as legal fiction, see soul or spirit as superstition, see mind or self or free will as illusory.

For these folks, morality is just, I guess, consensus.

So, what is 'morality', to you?

[RCSaunders]

Yep, I get it.

Good!

[henry quirk]

"Does not really help in clarifying any thing at all really."

okay

#

"can a 'you' only be a person/free will"

yep

#

"can they not be person/determined?"

nope

#

"So, what is 'morality', to you?"

you wouldn't get it

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is fundamentally about good over evil conditioned upon optimal for humanity.

I'm afraid that explanation won't actually help .

The truth is that we don't know "what is optimal for humanity." We know what we want, we know what we like, and we know what we're inclined to, and even what will increase our chances of getting certain advantages...but we don't know what is truly "optimal" for humanity unless we also know what humanity is FOR. After all, there are not just good things that feel good to us, but there are things humans sometimes value that take sacrifice, pain, work, suffering and commitment on our part -- that's quite ordinary, really -- so to say, "optimal" doesn't answer the question "Optimal for what purpose or goal?"

RC's got that somewhat right. He's right to say that we need an objective (or end, or outcome, or telos) in order to justify our values. But he's stopping a little short of giving us what we need, at the moment, because that objective also needs grounding in something. And so far, we don't have that from him. But I hold out hope that maybe he's got something.

You have missed my critical point from our other discussions.

Note I have been promoting we need a secular ideal objective absolute moral ought [the ultimate GOOD and sub-goods] as a GUIDE. That is justified via empirical evidence upon the principles of Morality [PURE].

Once we have established what is the objective that is ultimately and ideally Good, then we rely upon Ethics[Applied and practical] to optimize what is "GOOD' within our existing constraints towards the ideal.

RC's is just dependent on the independence of the individual which is groundless, very vague and flimsy which could generate possibly some 'good' people, but also evil people like Hitler, Stalin, despots, mass murderers, mass rapists, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

... abdication of moral responsibility for others.

No human being is born a slave of other human beings. No one is born with a duty to or responsibility for anyone else's life. Everyone is born with their own mind and must choose to use them or not, to learn all they can or not, to make the best choices they can or not, to waste their life allowing their desires, feelings, whims and gullibility to determine their choices or not. It is not anyone's responsibility to make choices for others (it is wrong to do so, it's called oppression), and every individual's life and experience is determined by that individual's choices.

You are simply making claims but without justifications nor grounds.

What you are claiming is like putting rudderless boats in the middle of the ocean.

Every individual is responsible for their own choices and actions and the consequences of those actions, not the consequences of other's choices and actions. I think even you can see that it would be wrong to punish you for the actions of someone else, it would be wrong to put you in jail if your neighbor robbed the bank. But it apparently becomes difficult for you to see, if your neighbor makes choices that result in his sickness, poverty, or self-destruction, it is just as wrong to hold you responsible for that. But that is exactly what the evil idea of a, "moral responsibility for others," would mean.

Here is a family [#1] with a husband and wife and four children. They are not wealthy but are well fed and clothed and live in a well tended modest home, all supported by the husband who chose to study to make the most he could of himself and to acquire a good job earning enough to provide for himself and his family. Their neighbor family [#2] consists of a woman and four children and a man, not her husband, who spends his days drinking and watching sports on his welfare provided TV or playing games on his welfare provided cell phone. The children are fed junk food, (no one chooses to cook), are not well clothed, except for the woman, the home is slowly deteriorating (nobody chooses to clean or fix anything). One day the buildings in that neighborhood are inspected (supposedly for tax evaluation) and the neighbor family's [#2] home is condemned as unlivable and unsafe, and the family looses the home.

Your view of a, "moral responsibility for others," would require the individual who worked to fulfill the responsibility for his choices to his wife and his children to also take responsibility for the choices of his neighbor whose wrong choices left a woman and children in, "need." But that would require the sacrifice of [#1] neighbor's fulfilling his true responsibility to his own family for the sake of another's wrong choices. It is punishing the good for being the good for the sake of the bad. If that is not immoral, nothing is immoral, and the whole thing becomes a mad scramble to see who can make the biggest claims on other's obligations to their neighbor.

Your interpretation is a ridiculous straw-man, I don't think that is what is IC's meaning of "moral responsibility for others."
His meaning of "moral responsibility for others" is more like, one's actions do not end up killing and doing evil to others.

All that happened in Nazi Germany was only possible because most Germans were not independent individuals. An independent individual never identifies oneself or anyone else as anything but individual human beings, never as members of any class, race, ethnicity, or ideology. What happened in Germany would have been impossible to a society of independent individuals because there could not have been anyone who regarded any unchosen aspect of a human being, what one is born with, as a matter of significance, only what an individual actually did and made of himself matters to independent individuals.

If no one had have regarded some non-essential, like one's heredity or nationality or race as important, there could not have been a Nazi Germany.

I have no sympathy for anything anyone suffers because they claim some value for themselves because they are a member of some class. If one identifies (or identifies others) as anything other than individual human beings, if they, "proudly," proclaim, "I'm a such'n'such," or, "I'm a proud to be whatever," and suffer because of that identification, they deserve it. Racism has two sides, those who evaluate others according to non-essentials, and those who evaluate themselves according to non-essentials. Human nature is the essential, race and ethnicity are non-essential.

You are not your brother's keeper. What being your brother's keeper really means is being your brother's boss. He makes his choices, you make yours. If you make bad choices it is not up to your brother to clean up after you.

What happened in Germany was the consequence of the choices of those it happened to. It was a horrible disaster, but the inevitable consequence of the moral views that dominated the beliefs of the individuals.

What happened in Germany is not because of the absence of independence.
The term 'independence' is too loose to be used in this case.

What happened in Germany was a lack of the GUIDANCE of what is Ultimately and Morally Good, i.e. the Pure Moral Principles.
In addition, due to the time then, and even now, there are no effective framework and system of morality and ethics to develop the individual person towards the ideal moral objective.
As such, in the present state, it is possible for terrible evil dictators and evil prone people to emerge around the World - this is so empirically evident.

The best optimal framework and system we have at present is unfortunately the rickety Christianity's theistic moral system grounded on a mixed of pacifist and other limited maxims from an illusory God. I have to admit this works optimally for the present given the existing constraints but not for the future and longer run.
Whilst the Christianity's moral model works to a degree with some 'good' elements, the problem is, it is not grounded on an ULTIMATE GOOD basis but rather it is grounded on an illusion and falsehood.

What is needed from now onward is a secular effective framework and system of morality and ethics grounded on absolute objective moral standards [oughts] justified from empirical evidences.
In addition, the critical actions needed within the above is the neural rewiring [foolproof] of each individual of their inherent moral competences to align with the ultimate Good.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Anyway, not only did the Nazis think they knew what a "Jew" was, so do Jews...the Nation of Israel in particular.

You really don't get it, do you? There are only individual human beings. There are no groups, or classes, ethnicities, or races that are in any way special, inferior, or superior to others. Any view that regards individuals as more or less important because of some class or ethnicity they claim or belong to is RACISM. Anyone who claims membership in any class, ethnicity, or race as if that membership conferred some kind of value or importance on them is a racist.

Your thinking is very narrow.

Tribalism [us versus them] as encoded in the DNA/RNA and embedded deep in the brain, which gave rise to racism and other "group-ism" was critical to humanity survival long time ago.
This Us versus Them is still valid for the present humans to some degree.
Point is, because acting within groups has facilitated the survival of the human species, it is deeply embedded in the brain [adapted], the individual human cannot get rid of this primal instinct on demand at present.

Therefore by our inherent human nature, you cannot demand the individual to be ultimately independent.
Nature itself has indicated there is survival-value in groups.
Yes, racism can be negative in the extreme but morally all humans ought to strive towards one group i.e. one race, the human race, instead of specific race by color, genes, etc.

Individuality and independence are sub-optimal strategies.
What is most optimal are the right group strategies which can generate synergy for the survival and preservation of the human species as each individual are "programmed" with such a potential.

[Age]

"Does not really help in clarifying any thing at all really."

okay

#

"can a 'you' only be a person/free will"

yep

#

"can they not be person/determined?"

nope

#

"So, what is 'morality', to you?"

you wouldn't get it

That is one way of showing that one does not actually know something.

Do not provide an answer for just me. Provide an answer so other readers will know what you are referring to in 'moral' topics.

[Age]

Anyway, not only did the Nazis think they knew what a "Jew" was, so do Jews...the Nation of Israel in particular.

You really don't get it, do you? There are only individual human beings. There are no groups, or classes, ethnicities, or races that are in any way special, inferior, or superior to others. Any view that regards individuals as more or less important because of some class or ethnicity they claim or belong to is RACISM. Anyone who claims membership in any class, ethnicity, or race as if that membership conferred some kind of value or importance on them is a racist.

Your thinking is very narrow.

Tribalism [us versus them] as encoded in the DNA/RNA and embedded deep in the brain, which gave rise to racism and other "group-ism" was critical to humanity survival long time ago.

Why and how?

Obviously community and working together is how and why there are human beings still existing in the days of when this is written. So, what proof could there be that tribalism ("us" verses "them") was critical to humanity survival long time ago?

This Us versus Them is still valid for the present humans to some degree.

What do you mean "to some degree".

"us" verse "them" is in just about every human being in just about every degree.

'you', "veritas aequitas", are living proof of just how much the "us" verse "them" attitude is in about every degree of all you write and say.

Point is, because acting within groups has facilitated the survival of the human species, it is deeply embedded in the brain [adapted], the individual human cannot get rid of this primal instinct on demand at present.

"us" verse "them" was gotten rid of a long time ago. The very reason why you say you cannot get rid of this made up "primal instinct" on demand at present, when this is written, is so that you can 'try to' "justify" your very racist and hateful views, comments and remarks.

Therefore by our inherent human nature, you cannot demand the individual to be ultimately independent.
Nature itself has indicated there is survival-value in groups.

And what group is bigger than the ALL of One group?

Yes, racism can be negative in the extreme but morally all humans ought to strive towards one group i.e. one race, the human race, instead of specific race by color, genes, etc.

So, why are 'you' one of the most racist ones here?

Individuality and independence are sub-optimal strategies.
What is most optimal are the right group strategies which can generate synergy for the survival and preservation of the human species as each individual are "programmed" with such a potential.

Just another PRIME EXAMPLE of one attempting to "justify" ones own hatred.

[RCSaunders]

... abdication of moral responsibility for others.

No human being is born a slave of other human beings. No one is born with a duty to or responsibility for anyone else's life. Everyone is born with their own mind and must choose to use them or not, to learn all they can or not, to make the best choices they can or not, to waste their life allowing their desires, feelings, whims and gullibility to determine their choices or not. It is not anyone's responsibility to make choices for others (it is wrong to do so, it's called oppression), and every individual's life and experience is determined by that individual's choices.

You are simply making claims but without justifications nor grounds.

You don't have to agree. If you don't agree than you must believe the opposite of what I said.

I said, "No human being is born a slave of other human beings," so you must believe some people are born slaves of other human beings.

I said, "No one is born with a duty to or responsibility for anyone else's life," so you must believe some people are born with a duty to or responsibility other's lives.

I said, "Everyone is born with their own mind and must choose to use them or not, to learn all they can or not, to make the best choices they can or not, to waste their life allowing their desires, feelings, whims and gullibility to determine their choices or not, so you must believe some (or all) people are not born with their own minds, do not have to choose to use them, do not have to learn all they can, are able to make the best choices without knowledge, and should waste their lives letting desires, feelings, whims, and gullibility determine their choices.

I said, " It is not anyone's responsibility to make choices for others (it is wrong to do so, it's called oppression), and every individual's life and experience is determined by that individual's choices," so you must believe it is some individual's responsibility to make choices for others, that it is OK to control and oppress others, that an individual's life and experience is not determine by that individuals choices and actions.

Is that right?

Every individual is responsible for their own choices and actions and the consequences of those actions, not the consequences of other's choices and actions. I think even you can see that it would be wrong to punish you for the actions of someone else, it would be wrong to put you in jail if your neighbor robbed the bank. But it apparently becomes difficult for you to see, if your neighbor makes choices that result in his sickness, poverty, or self-destruction, it is just as wrong to hold you responsible for that. But that is exactly what the evil idea of a, "moral responsibility for others," would mean.

Here is a family [#1] with a husband and wife and four children. They are not wealthy but are well fed and clothed and live in a well tended modest home, all supported by the husband who chose to study to make the most he could of himself and to acquire a good job earning enough to provide for himself and his family. Their neighbor family [#2] consists of a woman and four children and a man, not her husband, who spends his days drinking and watching sports on his welfare provided TV or playing games on his welfare provided cell phone. The children are fed junk food, (no one chooses to cook), are not well clothed, except for the woman, the home is slowly deteriorating (nobody chooses to clean or fix anything). One day the buildings in that neighborhood are inspected (supposedly for tax evaluation) and the neighbor family's [#2] home is condemned as unlivable and unsafe, and the family looses the home.

Your view of a, "moral responsibility for others," would require the individual who worked to fulfill the responsibility for his choices to his wife and his children to also take responsibility for the choices of his neighbor whose wrong choices left a woman and children in, "need." But that would require the sacrifice of [#1] neighbor's fulfilling his true responsibility to his own family for the sake of another's wrong choices. It is punishing the good for being the good for the sake of the bad. If that is not immoral, nothing is immoral, and the whole thing becomes a mad scramble to see who can make the biggest claims on other's obligations to their neighbor.

I don't think that is what is IC's meaning of "moral responsibility for others."

Go read what he wrote again with his explanation. It is the only thing the vile idea that anyone is born with a responsibility for other can mean.

All that happened in Nazi Germany was only possible because most Germans were not independent individuals. An independent individual never identifies oneself or anyone else as anything but individual human beings, never as members of any class, race, ethnicity, or ideology. What happened in Germany would have been impossible to a society of independent individuals because there could not have been anyone who regarded any unchosen aspect of a human being, what one is born with, as a matter of significance, only what an individual actually did and made of himself matters to independent individuals.

If no one had regarded some non-essential, like one's heredity or nationality or race as important, there could not have been a Nazi Germany.

I have no sympathy for anything anyone suffers because they claim some value for themselves because they are a member of some class. If one identifies (or identifies others) as anything other than individual human beings, if they, "proudly," proclaim, "I'm a such'n'such," or, "I'm a proud to be whatever," and suffer because of that identification, they deserve it. Racism has two sides, those who evaluate others according to non-essentials, and those who evaluate themselves according to non-essentials. Human nature is the essential, race and ethnicity are non-essential.

...

What happened in Germany was the consequence of the choices of those it happened to. It was a horrible disaster, but the inevitable consequence of the moral views that dominated the beliefs of the individuals.

What happened in Germany is not because of the absence of independence.

I never said it was. Read it again. I said it was because of racism, and that independent individual's cannot be racist. Only those with views that are not individualistic and independent can be racists and almost always are.

What happened in Germany was a lack of the GUIDANCE of what is Ultimately and Morally Good, i.e. the Pure Moral Principles.

No. What happened in Germany was because the individual's in Germany were racist, believed in government solutions to individual problems and that it was moral to interfere in others lives and the use of force was justified, and perhaps, the worst thing, when those in danger were warned, they refused to heed the warning and take measures to protect themselves believing that their neighbors, society, the law, or government would protect them.

[RCSaunders]

... That is these five senses actually exist and the environment actually exists as well. This is the real existence. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, because the information, which is fed through those five senses of the body, from the environment around that body, interacts with the previously gained thoughts/information, which is already stored within the brain can and does affect the legitimacy of the accuracy of the current information coming in.

We aren't going to agree, then, because you do not distinguish what is directly perceived (percepts) from what our knowledge of what we perceive, (concepts). It is a epistemological mistake. No amount of knowledge changes what we perceive. That is post-modernist nonsense with no basis whatsoever. What a boy sees when he looks at an apple is identical to what a botanist specializing in apples sees when looking at an apple. Seeing an apple is perception. A boy will know very little about an apple beyond what it looks and tastes like while botanist will know about the entire nature of apples. If what the boy saw and what the botanist saw when looking at an apple were not the same no knowledge about apples would be possible.

Obviously the current information coming in is absolutely true, right, and correct, but sadly and unfortunately the currently stored and held thoughts can and does distort the actual accuracy of information.

HOW? There is no way what one knows can change what they see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. One can learn about the things they see, hear, feel, smell, or taste (which is knowledge) but that knowledge cannot change what that knowledge is about.

Consider your own examples:

1. A baby sees objects, like an actual clock, which actually exist. An elder sees the same object, but also sees 9.03am, which does not actually exist.
2. A baby hears noise, like an actual motor vehicle, which actually exist. An elder hears the same object, but also hears "I need a new car", which is not actually true.
3. A baby feels hunger, like when it is actually hungry, which actually exists. An elder feels hunger, but also eats at other times just for taste, which is certainly not actually needed.
4. A baby smells scents, like its own actual feces, which actually exist. An elder smells the same scents, but also covers them up, which is not actually necessary at all.
5. A babe tastes nutrients, like actual milk, which actually exist. An elder tastes milk, and a variety of other completely unnecessary things, which are obviously not needed in any way, shape, nor form.

1. A baby and an adult see exactly the same thing when looking at a clock. No one can, "see," what the position of the hands of a clock, "mean." That the position indicates 9:03 am cannot be seen, it is understood by means of concepts, not percepts. Knowing what time is indicated by a clock certainly does not change how it looks.
2. A baby and an adult hear the same thing in exactly the same way. What an adult is able to think about what is heard does not change how it is heard. Thoughts are not, "perceive," they are only formed and held by means of concepts, that is, language.
3. Actually we do not know what a baby (or any other organism) feels, because it is a conscious experience and no one can know what another consciously experiences. Whatever a baby feels when it is hungry it would be the same feeling an adult had when hungry. What one things by means of concepts does not affect that feeling in any way.
4. & 5. Are the same. You have confused perception, what is directly seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted, with our knowledge that thoughts about what is perceived.

The confusion is not your fault. It is what is being taught in all universities today and believed with all the credulity of religious faith.

If you are truly interested, you might have a look at two of my articles, one on epistemology, Epistemology, Concepts and one on the nature of perception, Perception.

[henry quirk]

"Does not really help in clarifying any thing at all really."

okay

#

"can a 'you' only be a person/free will"

yep

#

"can they not be person/determined?"

nope

#

"So, what is 'morality', to you?"

you wouldn't get it

That is one way of showing that one does not actually know something.

Do not provide an answer for just me. Provide an answer so other readers will know what you are referring to in 'moral' topics.

Okay.

In this place, no one really gives a damn, so: I'll pass.

[RCSaunders]

Anyway, not only did the Nazis think they knew what a "Jew" was, so do Jews...the Nation of Israel in particular.

You really don't get it, do you? There are only individual human beings. There are no groups, or classes, ethnicities, or races that are in any way special, inferior, or superior to others. Any view that regards individuals as more or less important because of some class or ethnicity they claim or belong to is RACISM. Anyone who claims membership in any class, ethnicity, or race as if that membership conferred some kind of value or importance on them is a racist.

Your thinking is very narrow.

Yes it is. It is trimmed to the maximum by the application of Occam's razor and a rejection of mystic nonsense and a refusal to accept any contradiction.

Tribalism [us versus them] as encoded in the DNA/RNA and embedded deep in the brain, which gave rise to racism and other "group-ism" was critical to humanity survival long time ago.

There are so many, such as yourself, who insist they are in some way controlled by something they inherited, that I am beginning to believe it is true, at least of those who make that claim. I do not believe in evolution as you do, but if human beings actually evolved and those who deny that everything they do is not determined solely by their own conscious choice, I have to presume they have not fully evolved into true human beings.

Since you obviously claim to be one of those who is not capable of only thinking and doing what you consciously choose, but are also driven by mysterious forces inherited through your DNA, it is probably impossible for you to understand or believe there are others who are not so limited. It is kind of sad that there are so many creatures, like some kind of chimera's, half animal and half human (and easily mistaken for humans) but not-quite-human.

True fully-evolved and developed human beings are not driven by anything inherited and all they think and do is by their own conscious choice.
[/quote]