a discussion of ethics/moral without a religious basis

[Age]

WHEN would there be 'a time's that 'being flexible' would, supposedly and allegedly, 'undermine evolutionary fitness'?

Easy! Whenever (that means "any time") being flexible undermines evolutionary fitness!

Is there ANY 'time' that being 'flexible' would undermine 'evolutionary fitness'?

If yes, then will you provide ANY examples?

[Skepdick]

Is there ANY 'time' that being 'flexible' would undermine 'evolutionary fitness'?

Yes. Obvously.

If yes, then will you provide ANY examples?

Age. You live in the 21st cenutry with full access to the world's knowledge. Why are you so incapable of finding the examples that you seek once the general concept/principle/abstract idea has been given to you?

Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime...

You can get better answers in 5 seconds from ChatGPT than any of the idiots (myself included) on this forum.

Consider the following statement in context of evolution and adaptation "People appear to see the world as they are wired to see it, and their ability to adapt or evolve depends on the flexibility of their wiring."

Now also consider the perspective "Some times flexible wiring helps adaptation.
Some times flexible wiring undermines fitness."

Could you provide an example as to when flexibility undermines fitness?

Certainly! The concept of "flexible wiring" in this context can be thought of as the capacity for an organism (including humans) to change its behavior or physiology in response to varying environmental conditions. While such flexibility can often be advantageous, enabling an organism to cope with new and changing circumstances, there are instances where it might actually be a disadvantage — that is, it might undermine an individual's fitness (its ability to survive and reproduce). Here is an example:

Example: Anti-predator Behavior in Prey Animals

Flexible Wiring:

Imagine a prey animal, such as a small bird, that has the ability to adjust its anti-predator behavior based on the perceived level of threat. When it senses a predator, it might flee to cover; when the threat is lower, it might continue foraging. This flexibility allows the bird to balance the need to avoid predators with the need to find food.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In an environment where the type and level of predation threat varies over time (e.g., due to migration of predators, changes in vegetation that affect visibility, etc.), this flexibility can be highly beneficial. The bird can adapt its behavior on-the-fly, minimizing the time and energy it spends hiding when the threat is low, and rapidly taking cover when a threat is detected. This adaptability might mean the difference between starving and surviving in a harsh and variable environment.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

Now imagine a scenario where the environment is very stable and the threats are predictable. In such a context, the flexible “wiring” of the bird might actually be a disadvantage. For example, if the bird is too skittish and reacts to every minor disturbance (like wind-blown leaves or non-threatening animals), it might spend an excessive amount of time hiding and not enough time foraging. This could lead to malnutrition and lower reproductive success.
Alternatively, if the bird's flexible wiring makes it too bold, it might not respond quickly enough to actual threats, leading to a higher risk of predation.
In both scenarios, a less flexible individual that consistently responds in a 'middle-ground' manner — not too skittish, but not too bold — might actually have higher overall fitness in this stable environment.
This example illustrates that while flexibility can be a powerful tool for adaptation in a variable and unpredictable world, it can be costly or maladaptive in more stable and predictable environments. In stable conditions, consistently effective behaviors and strategies (which could be considered as 'rigid' or 'fixed') might be more reliably successful, and thus favored by natural selection, over flexible ones that involve constantly adjusting and recalibrating.

Can you give me another example?

Certainly! Here is an example, this time related to immune system responses:

Example: Immune System Responsiveness in Organisms

Flexible Wiring:

Consider the "wiring" of an organism's immune system, which includes its ability to detect and respond to potential pathogens like bacteria, viruses, and other foreign invaders. A highly responsive immune system might quickly mount a strong defensive reaction upon encountering potential pathogens, while a less responsive system might have a more muted reaction.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

Having a flexible and responsive immune system can be highly beneficial in environments where an organism is exposed to a wide variety of pathogens. In such environments, a quick and robust immune response can neutralize infections before they become severe, thereby promoting the health and survival of the organism.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

However, an overly responsive immune system can also have significant drawbacks. For example, it might attack harmless substances (like pollen or certain foods), leading to allergies. Even more seriously, it might misrecognize the organism’s own cells as foreign, leading to autoimmune diseases in which the immune system attacks the body's own tissues.
In addition, a very strong immune response can sometimes cause more harm than the infection it is fighting. This is known as immunopathology. For instance, some of the symptoms of viral infections, including severe cases of the flu or COVID-19, are not caused directly by the virus itself but by the body's intense inflammatory response to the infection. In these cases, a milder immune response might actually lead to better outcomes, even if it allows for a somewhat higher viral load.
In environments where the risk of severe infection is low (perhaps because of good sanitation, few other individuals to catch infections from, or a generally low prevalence of pathogens), the costs of an overly responsive immune system (allergies, autoimmunity, and immunopathology) might outweigh the benefits of being able to quickly clear infections. In such environments, individuals with a less responsive immune system might have higher overall fitness.
This example illustrates a key principle of evolutionary biology: traits that are beneficial in one context (here, a strong and flexible immune response in a pathogen-rich environment) can be costly in another context (e.g., in a cleaner environment with less exposure to pathogens). Natural selection can shape these traits differently in different populations or species, depending on the specific trade-offs they face in their respective environments.

Do you have any more examples?

Certainly! Here is another example, this time related to social behavior and group living in animals:

Example: Social Flexibility in Group-Living Animals

Flexible Wiring:

Consider animals that live in social groups, such as meerkats or wolves. These animals might have flexible social behaviors, allowing them to either cooperate with group members or compete with them, depending on the situation. This flexibility might involve being able to quickly switch between being aggressive and being submissive, or between sharing food and hoarding it.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In a fluctuating environment, where food availability and predation risks vary over time, flexibility in social behavior can be very beneficial. For example, when food is plentiful, it might be advantageous for an individual to share food with group members, as this can strengthen social bonds and help ensure that others will share in return when times are tough. When food is scarce, the same individual might benefit from being more competitive and less willing to share.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

However, in a more stable environment, this kind of social flexibility might be less beneficial. For example, an individual that is constantly switching between cooperative and competitive behavior might be less trusted by its group members, which could lead to social isolation or increased conflict within the group.
This instability can have real costs. For example, an individual that is perceived as unreliable might be less likely to receive help in times of need, such as when it is sick or injured. It might also have lower reproductive success if it is seen as a less desirable mate due to its unpredictable behavior.
In a stable environment where the ‘rules’ of social interaction are consistent and predictable, it might be more beneficial for an individual to have a more consistent (i.e., less flexible) social strategy. For instance, an individual that is consistently cooperative might build stronger and more stable social bonds, which could lead to higher reproductive success over the long term.
This example illustrates the concept that behavioral flexibility, while often advantageous, is not always the best strategy. The costs and benefits of flexibility can depend heavily on the environmental context and the specific challenges that an individual or species faces. In stable and predictable environments, a more consistent and reliable behavioral strategy might be favored by natural selection, whereas in more variable and uncertain environments, flexibility might be the key to survival and reproductive success.

What else?

Sure! Here is another example, this time related to the timing of reproduction in animals:

Example: Timing of Reproduction in Seasonal Environments

Flexible Wiring:

Consider animals living in a seasonal environment where the optimal time for giving birth varies from year to year due to fluctuations in weather, food availability, or predator presence. Some animals may have flexible reproductive strategies, allowing them to adjust the timing of their breeding season in response to environmental cues.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In an environment with unpredictable seasons, a flexible reproductive strategy could be highly beneficial. For example, if an unusually warm spring arrives early, animals with flexible reproductive timing might be able to breed earlier, giving their offspring a head start on growth and development. This flexibility allows these animals to take advantage of good conditions when they arise, potentially leading to higher survival and reproductive success for their offspring.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

On the other hand, flexibility in reproductive timing can have costs. For example, animals that breed too early in response to warm temperatures might be taking a significant risk: if the weather turns cold again, their young could be exposed to harsh conditions and have a lower chance of survival.
In addition, constantly changing the timing of reproduction might disrupt an animal’s ability to synchronize its breeding season with those of other members of its population, which could lead to difficulty in finding a mate.
Animals with a more fixed breeding season might avoid these risks. For instance, they might consistently breed at a time of year when the weather is most likely to be good, on average, even if this means they sometimes miss out on opportunities to breed in especially favorable conditions.
In a more stable and predictable environment, the risks of a flexible breeding strategy might outweigh the benefits, and a more fixed and predictable breeding season might be favored by natural selection.
This example shows that the flexibility to adjust to changing conditions, while it can be a powerful advantage in some environments, carries inherent risks and costs that may outweigh the benefits under other circumstances. Natural selection may favor different strategies under different conditions, leading to a diversity of reproductive strategies in different populations or species depending on their specific environmental contexts.

Can you give something more directly applicable to modern-day humans?

Absolutely! Here's an example related to human cognitive flexibility and decision-making in modern life:

Example: Cognitive Flexibility and Decision-Making in Human Careers

Flexible Wiring:

Consider cognitive flexibility, which involves being open to new information and able to adapt one’s thinking and decision-making in light of this new information. In the context of modern-day human careers, this might involve the ability to switch career paths, learn new skills, and adapt to new technologies or work environments.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In a rapidly changing job market, where new industries are constantly emerging and old ones are transforming or disappearing, cognitive flexibility can be a major asset. For example, someone who is open to learning new skills might transition smoothly from a declining industry to a growing one, or might more quickly adapt to new technologies that are transforming their field.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

However, high cognitive flexibility can also have downsides. For instance, someone who is constantly switching careers or jobs might fail to build up the experience and seniority that often come with staying in a single path and may suffer from chronic job instability and stress. This could lead to lower lifetime earnings, less job security, and higher levels of chronic stress — all of which could, in principle, impact one’s health and well-being.
Additionally, an extremely flexible individual might be more likely to be swayed by trends or fads, constantly changing their path based on the latest information or opportunities. This could lead them to abandon rewarding or potentially successful paths prematurely, or to make impulsive decisions that have negative long-term consequences.
In stable and predictable career fields where long-term experience and expertise are highly valued and rewarded, having a more focused and steady approach, rather than constantly adapting and changing, might lead to greater overall ‘fitness’ in terms of financial security, career satisfaction, and personal well-being.
This example illustrates a fundamental trade-off in human decision-making, which is very much a part of our modern life. Flexibility and adaptability can be essential in navigating a complex, fast-paced world, but they can also lead to instability and stress when taken to an extreme. Finding the right balance between flexibility and stability is a challenge that each individual faces in their own life, career, and personal circumstances, and different levels of flexibility may be optimal for different people depending on their goals, values, and environment.

[Trajk Logik]

one of the things that happens in any discussion of ethics and/or
morals, is this question of justification....

how do we ''know'' that any certain action is actually ethical, moral?

VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY, as I keep SAYING and REPEATING here.

ANY behavior that is AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by ALL as being GOOD or Right, and which one would want done to 'them' as young children is what IS ACTUALLY ethical, and/or moral.

How MANY TIMES do I have to KEEP SAYING 'this' BEFORE 'it' IS HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

There is NO USE in me reading the rest of what you wrote here BECAUSE 'you', among "others", OBVIOUSLY WILL NEVER even READ and REPLY to what I just SAID and WROTE here.

There are specific reasons why I don't converse with certain people..
and you are one of them.. and why?
Your ''answers" are so idiotic and simplistic, that an 8 year old would
be embarrassed to hold those ideas

I agree. Who could be so narcissistic as to believe that everyone should have read all of their prior posts in other threads to know what they mean and always agree with them? I wouldn't even waste my time responding to them anymore. When you see one of their posts just keep scrolling down.

let us look at the 10 commandments... without any religious context...

let us go the big one first, thou shall not kill....
on what basis can we justify that commandment? On its own terms...
think about it... that is a very good rule in life... thou shall not kill anybody,
is a good rule regardless of whether it comes from the bible or not...

I agree. Being religious doesn't make one moral. Just look at all the immoral acts by the religious.

I don't believe in any objective morality. We have goals as individuals. As members of a social species most of us have a instinctive need to collaborate and work with others to achieve bigger things than what we could do alone. Being members of the same species we often share the same goals so it may appear at times that there is an objective morality, but we all know that not everyone agrees on everything. There are murderers. There is war. There is defending yourself and the one's you love, which may require killing. So, "thou shall not kill" is not an objective moral rule. Even the god in the Bible contradicts his own rule by advocating for the death of non-believers and unruly children.

one of the questions of morality/ethics is this...

on what basis do we conceive of morality/ethics?

On the basis of goals and goal-driven behaviors. Sometimes our goals come into conflict. Sometimes they compliment each other. Whenever someone acts in a way that hinders you achieving your goals (like staying alive, keeping your loved ones alive, keeping the things you have earned, being happy, etc.) they are perceived as being immoral. When someone acts in a way that promotes your goals, they are perceived as being moral.

Just think of all the moral dilemmas that have been conceived of and typically used in such discussions as this. Think of the situation where someone steals food from a grocery store to feed their family. Is it moral to steal food from a grocery store? What about the owner of the store that has to feed his family and keep a roof over their head. Think of all the employees that work there and now may be out of a job because the owner cannot afford to employ them because some people now think it is okay to steal food because others are doing it and getting away with it. If you are poor there is government assistance so there is no need to steal food. I haven't heard any stories in any Western cultures where people have starved to death. There is no need to steal food.

I would like to believe that the golden rule is the only rule we need. Just do to others as you would want done for yourself. On the other side of the coin, what you do to others should be done to you. If you kill someone you should be killed since that is how you want to be treated based on the golden rule.

Will everyone agree to follow the golden rule? No. There are people that kill others and steal from others and then try to get away with it without any consequences to themselves. So it is really our own job as individuals to protect ourselves and our belongings, which may include paying taxes that support law enforcement, and/or buying a gun. We can't even rely on the government to protect us and that justice will be applied equally.

Money and power goes to people's heads. To create a more equal and just society money and power should be eliminated. If you work or contribute to society by performing some service or making some product that benefits society you should be able to have anything you need or want. In such a case, most everyone would have what they need or want without it being a competition to have more than someone else, or to have what someone else has. Term limits on government officials should be imposed and citizens should have to contribute their time to working in government just like we are called upon to perform jury duty. It should never be the case that being in government should enrich yourself or fatten your pockets. It should be a duty that everyone performs at least once in their life. Of course we would need to revamp the educational system so that everyone has the skillset to perform such duties of administration. Hopefully some day these dreams can be realized, but not until we stop allowing ourselves to be divided by the same politicians who are enriching themselves and will do anything to stay in power.

[Age]

Is there ANY 'time' that being 'flexible' would undermine 'evolutionary fitness'?

Yes. Obvously.

If yes, then will you provide ANY examples?

Age. You live in the 21st cenutry with full access to the world's knowledge. Why are you so incapable of finding the examples that you seek once the general concept/principle/abstract idea has been given to you?

WHY did you PRESUME that I am SO INCAPABLE of finding examples?

I have ALREADY PROVED that I AM TOTALLY CAPABLE of FINDING OUT if you have ANY ACTUAL examples, or NOT.

Now, IF there ACTUALLY ARE ANY examples AT ALL, we WILL WAIT to SEE, FROM you.

you CLAIM that there ARE, OBVIOUSLY, but you have YET TO SHOW ANY.

Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime...

BUT TELLING a man that there ARE 'times' when 'being flexible' WOULD UNDERMINE 'evolutionary fitness' does NOT necessarily mean that 'it' is true. Thus, THE WAIT for you to provide THE PROOF.

You can get better answers in 5 seconds from ChatGPT than any of the idiots (myself included) on this forum.

So WHY do you then not just COPY 'those answers' and write them down here, for us to LOOK At and SEE?

Consider the following statement in context of evolution and adaptation "People appear to see the world as they are wired to see it, and their ability to adapt or evolve depends on the flexibility of their wiring."

BUT, what APPEARED to that one person does NOT necessarily mean that WHAT APPEARED does ACTUALLY happen AND occur.

Also, will you EXPLAIN EXACTLY HOW 'people ARE, supposedly, 'wired' to see 'the world'?

ARE 'people', for example, supposedly, 'wired' DIFFERENTLY?

If yes, then HOW, and WHY, EXACTLY?

Now also consider the perspective "Some times flexible wiring helps adaptation.
Some times flexible wiring undermines fitness."

Could you provide an example as to when flexibility undermines fitness?

Certainly! The concept of "flexible wiring" in this context can be thought of as the capacity for an organism (including humans) to change its behavior or physiology in response to varying environmental conditions.

But then that is just HOW EVERY organism IS, EXACTLY.

So, when 'you' WRITE and SAY 'flexible wiring', then ALL 'you' ARE, essentially, SAYING and PROPOSING IS just HOW a 'thing' IS, itself, ANYWAY.

Which BROUGHT 'me' to MY CLARIFYING QUESTION, but which 'now' is REDUNDANT, as 'you' are now SAYING and CLAIMING that absolutely EVERY 'thing' that HAPPENS and OCCURS IS BECAUSE OF this so-called 'flexible wiring', which absolutely EVERY 'organism' has ANYWAY.

While such flexibility can often be advantageous, enabling an organism to cope with new and changing circumstances, there are instances where it might actually be a disadvantage — that is, it might undermine an individual's fitness (its ability to survive and reproduce).

I KNOW that 'this' IS what 'you' SAID and WROTE, PREVIOUSLY. And, what you SAID and WROTE, PREVIOUSLY, IS WHY I ASKED you if you had ANY examples. Which I AM STILL WAITING FOR.

AND, I WILL get to MY POINT AFTER I SEE ANY examples FROM you.

Here is an example:

Example: Anti-predator Behavior in Prey Animals

Flexible Wiring:

Imagine a prey animal, such as a small bird, that has the ability to adjust its anti-predator behavior based on the perceived level of threat.

Is there AN animal, (or organism), that does NOT so-called 'prey' on SOME 'thing' for 'its' continued survival or existence?

If yes, then WILL you NAME that or those animals/organisms?

When it senses a predator, it might flee to cover; when the threat is lower, it might continue foraging. This flexibility allows the bird to balance the need to avoid predators with the need to find food.

Was there A human being, PREVIOUSLY, that thought or BELIEVED that a so-called 'prey animal' is SOLELY and ONLY A 'prey animal' and thus did NOT do absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE?

What you are SAYING and SUGGESTING above here is like a "doctor", "mother", "pharmacist", "runner", or "motor cyclist" do NOT do absolutely ANY OTHER 'thing' OTHER than what 'you', human beings, have LABELED and NAMED 'those things'.

So-called LABELED and NAMED 'prey animals' DO ACTUALLY DO OTHER 'things' than just 'prey' 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

'Those animals' ARE JUST like, and EXACTLY like, ALL OTHER animals, (including 'you', human beings,) in that ALL of 'you', ANIMALS, SEEK OUT food/nutrients, while also SEEKING OUT to protect, "yourselves", FROM "others".

'This' is JUST the Natural WAY and ORDER OF 'things'. Or, in other words 'this' is JUST ANOTHER ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, of 'things'.

In fact being 'that way' is JUST HOW 'evolutionary fitness' IS and WORKS.

So, HOW, EXACTLY, could being 'THE EXACT WAY' 'evolution', itself, has CREATED AN 'animal' to BE 'the way' that 'it' IS, EXACTLY, somehow, according to 'you', the one human being here known as "skepdick", UNDERMINE 'evolutionary fitness', ITSELF?

For the VERY WAY A 'thing' IS, is EXACTLY DUE TO and BECAUSE OF 'evolution', itself, HAVE MADE 'that' and EVERY 'thing' 'the way' 'they' ARE, TO 'fit in' PERFECTLY WITH absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE.

ALSO, REMEMBER 'you' SAID and CLAIMED that, ' being 'flexible' WOULD UNDERMINE 'evolutionary fitness ', ITSELF.

That being ABLE TO CHANGE, or just 'being flexible', would mean that one WOULD LAST FOREVER, or would NOT 'undermine one's OWN survival, is OBVIOUSLY NOT True. But, 'being flexible' ALSO does NOT mean that 'being flexible' WOULD UNDERMINE 'evolutionary fitness' NEITHER. 'Being flexible', or JUST BEING ABLE TO CHANGE, or ADAPT, like ALL 'things' ARE, and DO DO, especially 'you', human beings, is NO guarantee of one living FOREVER, or NOT so-called 'undermining their OWN survival and reproduction.

How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In an environment where the type and level of predation threat varies over time (e.g., due to migration of predators, changes in vegetation that affect visibility, etc.), this flexibility can be highly beneficial.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' IS 'flexible', in this regard ANYWAY. 'Being so-called 'flexible' IS HOW the Universe WORKS. This IS what 'evolution', itself, IS and ENTAILS.

Absolutely EVERY 'thing', besides maybe the BELIEF-system, itself, IS ADAPTING and CHANGING. The Universe, Itself, IS, seemingly CONTRADICTORY, STEADFAST in this CONSTANT-CHANGE, or 'flexibility'.

The CONSTANT so-called 'type and level of predation' OF COURSE and OBVIOUSLY 'varies over time', EXACTLY like ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' ELSE 'varies' 'over time', except, OF COURSE, for the Universe, Itself, which is ALWAYS CONSTANTLY STAYING the EXACT SAME, in that 'It' IS ALWAYS 'evolving' AND 'changing' IN a CONSTANTLY-VARYING WAY.

The bird can adapt its behavior on-the-fly, minimizing the time and energy it spends hiding when the threat is low, and rapidly taking cover when a threat is detected. This adaptability might mean the difference between starving and surviving in a harsh and variable environment.

NO one, which I am aware of anyway, was ASKING absolutely ANY 'thing' about 'helping adaptation'.

See, to me, so-called 'flexibility' is NEEDED in order TO ADAPT.

How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

NO one, which I am aware of anyway as well, was ASKING absolutely ANY 'thing' about undermining' 'fitness', itself.

I ASKED you, 'Is there ANY 'time' that being 'flexible' would undermine 'evolutionary fitness'?'

See, 'evolutionary fitness' would be in relation to that saying, 'Survival of the fittest', which, by the way, and CONTRARY to popular BELIEF in the days when this is being written, has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to the 'strength' of 'an organism' or 'an animal', but to do WITH 'those' that FIT IN WITH, or ADAPT TO, the 'environment', itself.

Now imagine a scenario where the environment is very stable and the threats are predictable.

Of which 'the time' that this would and could exist for would be so minor to be of ANY real IMPORTANCE here.

In such a context, the flexible “wiring” of the bird might actually be a disadvantage. For example, if the bird is too skittish and reacts to every minor disturbance (like wind-blown leaves or non-threatening animals), it might spend an excessive amount of time hiding and not enough time foraging. This could lead to malnutrition and lower reproductive success.

THE WAY the SO-CALLED 'wiring' IS in EVERY single 'thing' IS EXACTLY HOW 'evolution', itself, HAS, PREVIOUSLY, DESIGNED 'it' TO BE.

Also, 'you' speak of 'wiring' as though 'it', itself, is somehow DIFFERENT in 'things'.

The so-called 'wiring', itself, is the EXACT SAME. 'you', individual human being organisms or animals, however, JUST NATURALLY 'behavior' DIFFERENTLY.

AND, 'this' is NOT because 'you' are 'wired' DIFFERENTLY, but SOLELY BECAUSE of 'your' VERY DIFFERENT, and individual, 'past experiences', ONLY.

Alternatively, if the bird's flexible wiring makes it too bold, it might not respond quickly enough to actual threats, leading to a higher risk of predation.
In both scenarios, a less flexible individual that consistently responds in a 'middle-ground' manner — not too skittish, but not too bold — might actually have higher overall fitness in this stable environment.

AGAIN, an 'individual thing's' ABILITY to ADAPT, 'react' or 'behave', or in other words an 'individual's' ABILITY TO 'FIT IN', has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to to do WITH 'evolutionary fitness', itself, which is what 'you' WERE talking ABOUT, PREVIOUSLY.

This example illustrates that while flexibility can be a powerful tool for adaptation in a variable and unpredictable world, it can be costly or maladaptive in more stable and predictable environments.

Even if this example did illustrate such a 'thing', which 'it' did NOT anyway, illustrating such A 'thing' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do WITH what 'you', PREVIOUSLY, SAID and CLAIMED, and WITH the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED 'you', "skepdick".

So-called 'flexibility' exists WITHIN ALL 'organisms', including even the 'organism' KNOWN as 'earth'. See even planets, stars, and galaxies HAVE TO 'FIT IN WITH' 'the environment', surrounding 'them', JUST AS WELL.

In stable conditions, consistently effective behaviors and strategies (which could be considered as 'rigid' or 'fixed') might be more reliably successful, and thus favored by natural selection, over flexible ones that involve constantly adjusting and recalibrating.

BUT that there ARE NO ACTUAL 'stable conditions' means what you SAID and WROTE here is MOOT anyway.

Can you give me another example?

Certainly! Here is an example, this time related to immune system responses:

Do you usually, PUBLICLY, ASK "your" OWN 'self' QUESTIONS, and then ANSWER 'those QUESTIONS', also PUBLICLY?

Example: Immune System Responsiveness in Organisms

Flexible Wiring:

Consider the "wiring" of an organism's immune system, which includes its ability to detect and respond to potential pathogens like bacteria, viruses, and other foreign invaders. A highly responsive immune system might quickly mount a strong defensive reaction upon encountering potential pathogens, while a less responsive system might have a more muted reaction.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

Having a flexible and responsive immune system can be highly beneficial in environments where an organism is exposed to a wide variety of pathogens. In such environments, a quick and robust immune response can neutralize infections before they become severe, thereby promoting the health and survival of the organism.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

However, an overly responsive immune system can also have significant drawbacks. For example, it might attack harmless substances (like pollen or certain foods), leading to allergies. Even more seriously, it might misrecognize the organism’s own cells as foreign, leading to autoimmune diseases in which the immune system attacks the body's own tissues.
In addition, a very strong immune response can sometimes cause more harm than the infection it is fighting. This is known as immunopathology. For instance, some of the symptoms of viral infections, including severe cases of the flu or COVID-19, are not caused directly by the virus itself but by the body's intense inflammatory response to the infection. In these cases, a milder immune response might actually lead to better outcomes, even if it allows for a somewhat higher viral load.
In environments where the risk of severe infection is low (perhaps because of good sanitation, few other individuals to catch infections from, or a generally low prevalence of pathogens), the costs of an overly responsive immune system (allergies, autoimmunity, and immunopathology) might outweigh the benefits of being able to quickly clear infections. In such environments, individuals with a less responsive immune system might have higher overall fitness.
This example illustrates a key principle of evolutionary biology: traits that are beneficial in one context (here, a strong and flexible immune response in a pathogen-rich environment) can be costly in another context (e.g., in a cleaner environment with less exposure to pathogens). Natural selection can shape these traits differently in different populations or species, depending on the specific trade-offs they face in their respective environments.

Do you have any more examples?

Certainly! Here is another example, this time related to social behavior and group living in animals:

Example: Social Flexibility in Group-Living Animals

Flexible Wiring:

Consider animals that live in social groups, such as meerkats or wolves. These animals might have flexible social behaviors, allowing them to either cooperate with group members or compete with them, depending on the situation. This flexibility might involve being able to quickly switch between being aggressive and being submissive, or between sharing food and hoarding it.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In a fluctuating environment, where food availability and predation risks vary over time, flexibility in social behavior can be very beneficial. For example, when food is plentiful, it might be advantageous for an individual to share food with group members, as this can strengthen social bonds and help ensure that others will share in return when times are tough. When food is scarce, the same individual might benefit from being more competitive and less willing to share.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

However, in a more stable environment, this kind of social flexibility might be less beneficial. For example, an individual that is constantly switching between cooperative and competitive behavior might be less trusted by its group members, which could lead to social isolation or increased conflict within the group.
This instability can have real costs. For example, an individual that is perceived as unreliable might be less likely to receive help in times of need, such as when it is sick or injured. It might also have lower reproductive success if it is seen as a less desirable mate due to its unpredictable behavior.
In a stable environment where the ‘rules’ of social interaction are consistent and predictable, it might be more beneficial for an individual to have a more consistent (i.e., less flexible) social strategy. For instance, an individual that is consistently cooperative might build stronger and more stable social bonds, which could lead to higher reproductive success over the long term.
This example illustrates the concept that behavioral flexibility, while often advantageous, is not always the best strategy. The costs and benefits of flexibility can depend heavily on the environmental context and the specific challenges that an individual or species faces. In stable and predictable environments, a more consistent and reliable behavioral strategy might be favored by natural selection, whereas in more variable and uncertain environments, flexibility might be the key to survival and reproductive success.

What else?

Sure! Here is another example, this time related to the timing of reproduction in animals:

Example: Timing of Reproduction in Seasonal Environments

Flexible Wiring:

Consider animals living in a seasonal environment where the optimal time for giving birth varies from year to year due to fluctuations in weather, food availability, or predator presence. Some animals may have flexible reproductive strategies, allowing them to adjust the timing of their breeding season in response to environmental cues.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In an environment with unpredictable seasons, a flexible reproductive strategy could be highly beneficial. For example, if an unusually warm spring arrives early, animals with flexible reproductive timing might be able to breed earlier, giving their offspring a head start on growth and development. This flexibility allows these animals to take advantage of good conditions when they arise, potentially leading to higher survival and reproductive success for their offspring.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

On the other hand, flexibility in reproductive timing can have costs. For example, animals that breed too early in response to warm temperatures might be taking a significant risk: if the weather turns cold again, their young could be exposed to harsh conditions and have a lower chance of survival.
In addition, constantly changing the timing of reproduction might disrupt an animal’s ability to synchronize its breeding season with those of other members of its population, which could lead to difficulty in finding a mate.
Animals with a more fixed breeding season might avoid these risks. For instance, they might consistently breed at a time of year when the weather is most likely to be good, on average, even if this means they sometimes miss out on opportunities to breed in especially favorable conditions.
In a more stable and predictable environment, the risks of a flexible breeding strategy might outweigh the benefits, and a more fixed and predictable breeding season might be favored by natural selection.
This example shows that the flexibility to adjust to changing conditions, while it can be a powerful advantage in some environments, carries inherent risks and costs that may outweigh the benefits under other circumstances. Natural selection may favor different strategies under different conditions, leading to a diversity of reproductive strategies in different populations or species depending on their specific environmental contexts.

Can you give something more directly applicable to modern-day humans?

Absolutely! Here's an example related to human cognitive flexibility and decision-making in modern life:

Example: Cognitive Flexibility and Decision-Making in Human Careers

Flexible Wiring:

Consider cognitive flexibility, which involves being open to new information and able to adapt one’s thinking and decision-making in light of this new information. In the context of modern-day human careers, this might involve the ability to switch career paths, learn new skills, and adapt to new technologies or work environments.
How Flexibility Can Help Adaptation:

In a rapidly changing job market, where new industries are constantly emerging and old ones are transforming or disappearing, cognitive flexibility can be a major asset. For example, someone who is open to learning new skills might transition smoothly from a declining industry to a growing one, or might more quickly adapt to new technologies that are transforming their field.
How Flexibility Can Undermine Fitness:

However, high cognitive flexibility can also have downsides. For instance, someone who is constantly switching careers or jobs might fail to build up the experience and seniority that often come with staying in a single path and may suffer from chronic job instability and stress. This could lead to lower lifetime earnings, less job security, and higher levels of chronic stress — all of which could, in principle, impact one’s health and well-being.
Additionally, an extremely flexible individual might be more likely to be swayed by trends or fads, constantly changing their path based on the latest information or opportunities. This could lead them to abandon rewarding or potentially successful paths prematurely, or to make impulsive decisions that have negative long-term consequences.
In stable and predictable career fields where long-term experience and expertise are highly valued and rewarded, having a more focused and steady approach, rather than constantly adapting and changing, might lead to greater overall ‘fitness’ in terms of financial security, career satisfaction, and personal well-being.
This example illustrates a fundamental trade-off in human decision-making, which is very much a part of our modern life. Flexibility and adaptability can be essential in navigating a complex, fast-paced world, but they can also lead to instability and stress when taken to an extreme. Finding the right balance between flexibility and stability is a challenge that each individual faces in their own life, career, and personal circumstances, and different levels of flexibility may be optimal for different people depending on their goals, values, and environment.

WRITING ALL of 'this' down here was completely UNNECESSARY BECAUSE as far as I AM AWARE ONLY 'you', "skepdick", were WONDERING and ASKING ABOUT, 'How 'flexibility' can undermine 'fitness'?', and/or 'How 'flexibility can help 'adaption'?'

NO one that I KNOW OF ASKED 'those QUESTIONS' NOR even WANTED TO KNOW what 'you' thought in regards to 'THOSE QUESTIONS'.

Some of those RESPONSES however, and by the way, appear to be somewhat ROBOTIC like, and thus NOT REALLY FITTING IN WITH what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True ANYWAY. 'They' are just more like what some of 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY 'thought' or BELIEVED WAS true, BACK in the days when this was being written. Just like HOW human beings, PREVIOUSLY, to ANY 'time' WERE 'thinking' and BELIEVING 'things' that were ACTUALLY NOT True AT ALL, or PARTLY.

[Age]

There are specific reasons why I don't converse with certain people..
and you are one of them.. and why?
Your ''answers" are so idiotic and simplistic, that an 8 year old would
be embarrassed to hold those ideas...let us look at one such answer

Kropotkin: ''how do we ''know'' that any certain action is actually ethical, moral? "

AGE: VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY, as I keep SAYING and REPEATING here.

ANY behavior that is AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by ALL as being GOOD or Right, and which one would want done to 'them' as young children is what IS ACTUALLY ethical, and/or moral.

How MANY TIMES do I have to KEEP SAYING 'this' BEFORE 'it' IS HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

K: now, name me a "behavior" that is agreed with and accepted by all?

BUT 'you', "peter kropotkin", have IMPLIED, ALREADY, that 'you' ALREADY KNOW MY 'answer' here WOULD DEFINITELY BE SO IDIOTIC AND SIMPLISTIC, that even an eight year old child WOULD BE EMBARRASSED TO HOLD that EXACT SAME 'idea/answer', right?

And, IF 'you' STILL can NOT YET WORK OUT the 'behaviors', which ARE AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY ALL, which, by the way, THE ANSWER/S ARE ALREADY WITHIN 'you', then what do 'you' IMAGINE IS STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' FROM DISCOVERING, UNCOVERING, and FINDING those ANSWERS?

Which, by the time, ANY and ALL 'eight year old children' ALREADY KNOW ALSO.

Furthermore, what IS KNOWN, AGREE WITH, and ACCEPTED BY ALL, UNCONSCIOUSLY, is NOT necessarily YET KNOWN, CONSCIOUSLY, by 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this was being written.

and I am not even talking about the second part of your statement,

Okay.

about what we teach the children, but what behavior or value do
we know of, that is accepted by all..

simple enough question...

Kropotkin

Did 'you' REALLY NOT NOTICE and SEE the HYPOCRISY and CONTRADICTION in this reply of 'yours' here "peter kropotkin"?

IF 'you' ANSWER, Yes, AND EXPLAIN WHERE and WHAT 'it' IS, EXACTLY, THEN I WILL ANSWER the QUESTION 'you' posed, and ASKED 'me'.

But if 'you' ANSWER 'No', then I WILL EXPLAIN WHERE and WHAT 'your' HYPOCRITICAL and CONTRADICTORY behavior AND words ARE, EXACTLY. AND THEN ANSWER 'your' SIMPLE ENOUGH CLARIFYING QUESTION, which 'you', by the way, BELIEVE there IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY for there TO BE AN ANSWER TO, correct?

[Age]

one of the questions of morality/ethics is this...

on what basis do we conceive of morality/ethics?

for example, if we accept the idea of a universal, overarching
morality, then do we fit, jam human beings into that universal,
overarching morality?

WHY would absolutely ANY think or even IMAGINE that WITH the one and ONLY 'One universal and overarching morality' that 'human beings' would HAVE TO BE 'JAMMED' INTO this 'One Morality'?

Are there SOME human beings who think SO HIGHLY of "themselves" that 'they' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'human beings' are ABOVE, BEYOND, or APART FROM absolutely EVERY 'thing' ELSE?

or said another way, do we fit human beings
into a moral system, regardless of what they might individually
believe or do we create an ethical/moral system based on
what we know man/human beings to be... do we fit the ethical system
into the man or do we fit the human being into the ethical system?

'you' do NOT 'fit' ANY 'thing' IN WITH absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE.

ALL 'things' FIT IN, TOGETHER, PERFECTLY, and 'this' HAS BEEN and IS BEING DONE FOR 'you'. That 'you', adult human beings, DID DO 'things', back in the days when this was being written, and prior, which OBVIOUSLY do NOT 'FIT IN WITH' 'other things' IS JUST OBVIOUS and JUST what 'you' DID.

BUT the reason WHY 'you' DID Wrong, was a NECESSARY PART FOR 'you' to COME-TO-KNOW what 'you' WILL, and SOME HAVE DONE.

The True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct Moral-system EXISTS WITHIN 'you', human beings, 'you', however, have JUST HAD TO 'evolve' in a PARTICULAR WAY to UNCOVER, FIND, SEE, and UNDERSTAND 'THIS SYSTEM', and 'THIS WAY'.

In other words, COMING-TO-KNOW thy 'Self' brings WITH 'It' a REVEALING and KNOWING of A LOT of other 'things' AS WELL.

the ethics/moral system today, fits the man, the human being into
the ethical system...

The so-called 'moral system' of 'the day', in when this was being written, was NOT 'moral' NOR 'ethical' AT ALL.

JUDGING, PUNISHING, HUMILIATING, BELITTLING, FIGHTING, WARRING, and KILLING, among other 'things', IS NOT 'morality' NOR 'ethical' AT ALL, and NONE of this 'misbehavior' FITS IN WITH ANY True AND REAL 'moral nor ethical system', AT ALL.

it doesn't matter what the human being believes
in, because they have to adjust to the system, and in the other way,
the system fits into what human beings are/believe in...

BUT WHAT 'system', EXACTLY?

Is that the SAME 'system', which a LOT of 'you', adult human beings, SAY and USE when EXPLAINING WHY some 'things' HAPPEN and WHY 'you', ALLEGEDLY and SUPPOSEDLY, have absolutely NO 'control' AT ALL over? This type of BLAMING also appeared to be a VERY POPULAR 'BLAME' among the self-called 'de-part-mental', or 'governmental', workers.

if we believe human beings to be evil, then we create a system
that mirrors that belief...

LOL 'you', adult human beings, BACK THEN, BELIEVING that 'human beings', "themselves", to be 'evil' SHOWS and PROVES just how DISTORTED and Wrong 'your' thinking and seeing HAD BECOME.

But YES, if 'you' BELIEVE some 'thing' IS TRUE, then 'you' WILL MAKE A 'system' 'mirroring' 'that BELIEF'.

As IS SO WELL PROVEN True.

See, ONLY WHEN 'you' STARTED BELIEVING that living IN Peace and IN Harmony did 'this way' of LIFE and LIVING START BECOMING True, and Reality. But, 'you', human beings, BACK in the days when this is being written ARE STILL some way of YET AGREEING WITH, LEARNING, ACCEPTING, and KNOWING.

if we hold that human beings are naturally
good, then we create or build a system that reflects that belief...

Here we have ANOTHER example OF 'it HAS TO BE "one OR the other", and TAKING "sides".

Human bodies are JUST born, NEITHER 'good' NOR 'bad', but WITH the ABILITY to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'.

if we don't believe in what human beings hold to be true, then
regardless of what they believe in, they must fit into the
moral/ethical theory of the day....

WHY do 'you', human beings, even 'grow up' BELIEVING that 'you' HAVE TO BELIEVE 'things'?

LEARN and UNDERSTAND 'THE ANSWER', THEN, and ONLY, THEN 'you' COULD, and WILL, be ABLE TO REASON, soundly AND validly.

from a society's standpoint, it is far easier to fit people into
a system than adapt the system to the people...

LOL
LOL
LOL

And WHAT 'system' are 'you' REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

It would HAVE TO BE some human made up 'system', as ALL human beings ARE JUST IN, and FIT IN PERFECTLY WITH, ALL EACH and EVERY 'universal system' ANYWAY.

no matter what we privately believe in, we get crammed
into a system that forces us to hold ''public'' values or
morals... I may privately disagree with abortion, but
the system couldn't care less about that... one view fits all...
and that is what morality and ethics mean today...
one ethical theory fits everyone...

but is that true?

Kropotkin

OF COURSE the G.U.T.O.E. FITS, and WORKS, WITH absolutely EVERY 'one', and TOGETHER as One.

[Age]

Now we consider another aspect of ethics/morals...
that of needs...

we human beings have needs... of food, water, shelter, health care,
education....

WHY do 'you', "peter kropotkin", think or BELIEVE then 'you', human beings, NEED 'education'?

WHY can EVERY OTHER animal live and survive WITHOUT 'education' but 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, can NOT live WITHOUT 'education'?

and we have psychological needs of love, esteem,
safety/security, of a sense of belonging....

And, WHY do 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, could NOT live NOR survive WITHOUT 'these things'?

much of our morals/ethics clash is with our bodily needs....

LOL ONLY 'your', INDIVIDUAL, 'morals/ethics so-call 'clash with 'your' bodily needs. But 'this' ONLY HAPPENS and OCCURS BECAUSE 'your' INDIVIDUAL 'morals/ethics' do NOT MATCH, NOR FIT IN WITH, what human bodies, and 'you', people, ACTUALLY DO NEED, IN Life.

What 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, ACTUALLY think or BELIEVE ARE 'needs', EXACTLY, on just about most occasions, are JUST DISTORTED PERCEPTIONS anyway. The SAME applies for 'your' moral/ethics AS WELL. That is; in the days when this is being written, what 'you' think or BELIEVE IS 'right' AND 'good', EXACTLY, on just about most occasions, are JUST DISTORTED PERCEPTIONS.

I need to feed my family so I go out and steal food from Kropotkin's
store.. stealing is considered wrong and yet, I am stealing to feed my
family...

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of just how GREEDY and SELFISH the human being HAD BECOME in the days when this is being written.

which as I have stated before, I can understand.. I get that..
but most people don't steal food, they steal booze.....

I can at least create a justification for stealing food, but
at no point can I create a justification for stealing booze...

BUT OTHER people CAN "justify" 'stealing booze' or OTHER 'things' right?

the question of morals comes down to, perhaps, the question of
morals vs our needs... I need money, so I steal it...

LOL
LOL
LOL

There has NEVER been a 'human being who NEEDS 'money', and there WILL NEVER BE, AS WELL.

Now the question becomes, is your need for money outweigh ethical, moral
considerations?

'This question' here is JUST STUPID.

is our needs more compelling than being moral or ethical?

It was 'this way' of LOOKING AT, SEEING, and QUESTIONING OF, 'things', WHY 'those human beings, BACK THEN, took SO LONG to COME-TO-KNOW what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right IN Life.

ONLY what IS 'Right' BY ALL, IS an ALL RIGHT behavior, and ONLY 'the behaviors' that ARE ALRIGHT, BY and TO ALL, or AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED BY ALL, can be Truly 'Justified'. And, what IS Truly 'Justified' IS ONLY 'that' what IS JUST IN Life.

and for most people who steal for example, their own personal needs outweigh
the needs of the society or other individuals within that society....

'These people', BACK THEN, WERE SO SEVERELY DISTORTED that 'they' ACTUALLY thought or BELIEVED that 'money' WAS a NECESSARY PART of Life, and living. Some of 'these people' ACTUALLY BELIEVED that WANTING 'money' was 'just' AND 'right'.

BACK THEN, it was like absolutely NO adults had YET REALIZED and COME-TO-KNOW that besides 'money' being ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY that the 'love-of-money', or the 'want-of-money' was the third root of ALL 'evil'.

and how can we justify that?

'you', or ANY 'one', can ONLY 'Justify' 'that', which CAN BE AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED BY absolutely EVERY one. EVERY 'thing' else is NOT 'Just'. See, ONLY what IS 'Just' TO absolutely EVERY one can be, Truly, 'Justified'.

on what ground/basis can we say that the
individual needs outweigh the needs of the society or a group within
that society/state?

UNDERSTAND 'this', absolutely NO one HAS an 'individual need' that NO one else does NOT HAVE.

'This', like EVERY 'thing' ELSE I SAY and CLAIM CAN and WILL BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD, ACCEPTED, and AGREED WITH. That is; IF absolutely ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED, and CURIOS.

the very basis of crime is on this very point...where my needs outweigh
the society needs....and then who is right?

It WAS 'this way' of LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' WHY 'those people', BACK IN the 'OLDEN DAYS', were SO FAR BEHIND 'us', and in what 'we' 'now' KNOW and UNDERSTAND.

is the individual needs outweigh
the society or a group needs within the society?

A STUPID QUESTION, AGAIN.

I cannot see any religious basis in this discussion of needs.... who needs
are greater, the individual or the group/society?

NEITHER.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY one's 'NEEDS' ARE the EXACT SAME.

Now, if ANY one wants to DISAGREE here, then JUST EXPLAIN WHY.

And, if ANY one wants to CHALLENGE me, then PLEASE DO SO.

Also, if ANY one wants to QUESTION me, TO SEEK CLARITY, then, ALSO, PLEASE DO.

so we remain on secular grounds in this discussion.... the Buddhist claim
that because of needs, we live a unhappy life... needs are what drive
discontentment in our life....

Well so-called "buddhists" ARE Wrong, just like EVERY OTHER one of 'you', adult human beings, CAN BE, and ARE, here.

if we remove our needs (which we
have a hard time disconnecting from our wants, which is quite different
than our needs.. I want something is far different than I need something)[/quote]

VERY True.

'Wanting' some 'thing' can be VERY DIFFERENT from 'needing' some 'thing'.

AND,

'you', adult human beings, do NOT YET REALLY KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between what 'you' WANT, and what 'you' NEED, IN Life. And SO WHY 'you', people, have a HARD TIME 'disconnecting'.

one might say, I am stealing that big screen TV because I "need" that
tv... nah, that is a want, not a need...and perhaps on that basis we
can begin to understand ethics/morals...

LEARNING HOW TO SEPARATE 'needs' FROM 'wants', AND, UNDERSTANDING HOW 'wants' CAUSED and CREATED GREED and SELFISHNESS, then LEADS TO BECOMING LESS and LESS GREEDY and SELFISH.

the want vs the needs...

If 'you' think or BELIEVE that 'you' KNOW the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between 'wants' AND 'needs', then WILL 'you' EXPLAIN the DIFFERENCE?

SEE, once one LEARNS and KNOWS the DIFFERENCE, then LEARNING LOTS of the OTHER 'things', which WILL LEADS 'you' ALL TO True 'world Peace', BECOMES FAR SIMPLER and FAR EASIER.

I want a new car, so I steal it.... but do I need a new car, is a new
car a bodily need, is wanting a new car even a psychological need?
I suspect much of what we consider to be wants/needs are
really just our ego acting up... my ego wants a new car to get respect...
vs I need a new car to get to work and make money to pay for my
family needs.....

LOL
LOL
LOL

Even that, LAUGHABLY, so-called 'need' IS a HUGE 'want' of JUST 'the ego', ONLY.

Even when 'these people', BACK THEN, were 'TRYING TO' argue and fight for some 'thing' 'they' STILL could NOT get past their OWN DISTORTIONS, DISTORTED BELIEFS, GREED, and/or SELFISHNESS.

in this question of needs and wants, much of it is driven by ego....
and now we are talking about psychology... the unconscious mind
acting on us...the ego driving us into taking actions that are immoral
or illegal...I am willing to bet that ego drive as much immorality
and unethical actions as anything else... to seem like a "big shot"
I commit crimes... against individuals, the state, groups within a state
(Corporations and the like)...... and therein lies the ego of
ethics/morality...

so to think about this... we have needs, we have wants
and we have ego,

Who and/or what IS 'this we', which, SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY, HAS 'these things'?

It may well be SHOWN that even 'this statement' OF 'yours' was the result of AN 'individual ego'.

three aspects of morals and ethics...
a man who kills his wife for cheating on him, is ego at work,
pure and simple...no one cheats on me... that is an ego driven
statement...

LOOKING AT and TALKING ABOUT 'individual scenarios' WILL NEVER LEAD TO FINDING and UNCOVERING what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY 'Moral' AND 'Ethical'.

'you', people, NEED TO LEARN HOW and WHY 'you', people, ARE the WAY that 'you' ALL ARE. That is; IF 'you' REALLY WANT TO LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and REASON here.

and clearly thinking about this, ego driven beliefs drives as
much crime as needs and wants...so, if we become aware
of our ego, we can, in theory, reduce the crime rate in America...

What A RIDICULOUS WAY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'.

Even here is A PRIME example of 'the ego' AT WORK. ONLY what WILL effect 'things' AROUND 'this ego' IS what 'this one' WANTS.

but psychologically, we can be driven into committing other immoral
or unethical act... we can commit immoral acts of cheating on our
spouse because we were deprived of love as a child... that can be
one motivation of why we cheat on our spouse... as well as
cheating on our spouse by ego driven concerns... I can cheat
because I am above common concerns of the average person...
I am superior to the crowd and thus I am able to justify
cheating on my wife... that is an ego statement...
if it isn't about needs or want, it is about ego...
now one might ask, isn't wants about ego/
it seems to me that ego is a greater topic and wants
are a subtopic within ego....

so, we can think about ethics and morality as being a
question about needs, wants and ego....

Kropotkin

'We' CAN.

'We', ALSO, COULD DO the OTHER 'things' that WILL and DOES ACTUALLY FIND ANSWERS and CREATES SOLUTIONS.

[Age]

The capacity for (and quality of) ethics and morality seems to be built-into each person... perhaps from birth... to varying degrees, which may or may not be teachable or expandable.

People appear to see the world as they are wired to see it, and their ability to adapt or evolve depends on the flexibility of their wiring.

What IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY Right, and GOOD, IN Life, IS WITHIN, or BUILT-INTO, each and EVERY human being, arguably BEFORE birth, and IS KNOWN, but UNCONSCIOUSLY. Now, as human beings 'evolved' what WAS UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN became CONSCIOUSLY KNOWN.

And, what 'you' ALL, individually or separately 'think' is right, and good, IN Life, was just LEARNED, from 'your', individual and separate, births.

[Peter Kropotkin]

now to continue my thoughts on ethics/morals....

from where do ethics/morals come from? what is the basis
for ethics/morals?

ethics/morals come from that society/state ism's and ideologies...
for most of history, our ethics/morals came from a religious
ism's and ideologies...so, the ethics and morals of the Greek society
comes from a couple of standpoints... first is the Greek religion
and the second, from Homer... you cannot understand Greek culture
and development without some understanding of Homer...
the very Greek idea of ''arete" or excellence comes from Homer..
and that idea was very powerful during the height of Greek power...
originally "arete" meant military excellence, then the concept
gradually came to mean excellence in all aspects of Greek life...
seeking excellence in all aspects of life included physical, the
original Olympic games, the writing of plays, all of these were examples
of the Greeks pursuing excellence...

so, if you want to understand the Greeks moral/ethics, one has
to understand Greek religion and the society in Greece...the ism's
and ideologies that drove Greek life...(now I use Greek as one
state, whereas Greece actually had dozens of independent states,
of which Athens was one, Sparta another and other Greek states included
Corinth, Miletus, Argos, Syracuse and Magara.. to name a few)

and if you want to understand Medieval morals and ethics, you
need to understand the profound influence the church had on
Medieval society/state....

whereas in the modern day world, we, as of right now, have
lost the influence of the ism's and ideologies that drove
us from centuries... our morals and ethics come from
the Christian religion, which in this day and age, has
lost its impact, influence that it once had...
thus, we have lost our "moral" compass.. which was
the Christain based morals and ethics... if you don't believe
in god, you can't believe in the rules established to get one
to heaven...why behave according to the ten commandments,
when I don't believe in heaven? and this is where we are at today...
we have no morals because we have lost our faith, our belief
in ism's and ideologies that drove those ethical/moral beliefs....

we don't know what is right and wrong because we don't have
an ism or an ideology that drives that ethical/moral beliefs...
ethics and morals are a creation of the ism's and ideologies
people have....if we hold to secular values, then our morals
and ethics must have a secular basis...and that is what
Nietzsche was working on..... creating moral values and beliefs
based on human values...not religious values or beliefs...

a secular ethics or morals....and what standard should we use
if, if we are basing ethics and morals on secular values?

therein lies the problem with ethics and morals in this modern day...
on what standards are we using to base our ethics/morals on?
''thou shall not'' is a religious based ethics...
and so, what values or beliefs should we engage with to create
ethics/morals?

this is a particular vexing problem because if we look at
our political world, we see politicians lies and cheat and steal
with impunity...and on what values should we engage with,
in terms of politicians? doubt me.. look at the IQ45 presidency..
look at how many criminal charges he is facing because he lied,
cheated, stole, before, during, and after his term....
and millions defend him.. and that is the shocking thing...
his criminality is being defending... on what values can
a criminal be defended on? the only leg IQ45 can stand on is
the very dangerous idea that the president is above the law...
in which case we have no justice in America today...
justice must be equality before the law... if anyone can, for any reason,
escape that justice, then justice has ended in Americ today...
if is justice for all, or justice for none...if you can escape justice
because of wealth or power or titles or who you know, then
there is no justice in America today....

and that is where we are at today... with no justice in America if,
if IQ45 can escape being held accountable for his actions...
we no longer have justice in America...we no longer have
any morals or ethics...if we have nothing to tie them to...
so, on what basis should we be held accountable in terms
of an ism or ideology?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

in thinking about ethics/morals, I am wondering what could
become the basis of ethics/morals?

I believe one of the basis of ethics/morals is another concept, that of
justice.. Justice done correctly is really equality... everyone being
treated equally is justice... to single out one person, for or against,
is being unjust.. to single out a group, for or against, is unjust...

if you want to treat people "morally" ''ethically'',
you have to start with Justice...for in being just, you are being
moral... an example of this is the current case of IQ45... he is being
treated with kid gloves due to his former position, that of being president...
and yet, that very act of being extremely deferential, due to his
former title, is an act of being unjust...for justice requires, no demands
that everyone is being treated equally...

that young kid name Jack Texeria has been in jail for months due
to his handling of classified material and yet, IQ45 did the exact
same thing and yet, he is not in jail.... how is the justice?
how is that being moral, if one person is being treated differently for
the same act? so it seems that ethics/morals are also questions
of justice...

and we reach the next stage which is this: is being ethical, being moral
also the same as obeying the law? In other words, is the law, an ethical
moral agency?

and the answer is clearly no... for it was legal to have slaves, to
jail Jews for being Jewish, the Holocaust was legal.. to make
women and slaves personal property was legal... and today, abortions
are basically illegal and some hold that having an abortion is not
only illegal, but immoral, unethical... and yet, others believe that
abortions are ethical, moral actions.. and so the question of a
legality of something and it being moral/ethical is still a problem....
for being legal or illegal has very little bearing on the ethics/morals
of something.... so, we cannot hold to the law as being an ethical,
moral understanding of behavior... the two, the law and ethics seem
to be two different and distinct possibilities....
ethics and morals seem to be much more closely related to justice
than to the law....

what are other possibilities to ethics and morals in terms of concepts
we can relate to? we can relate ethics and morals to the concept of
wisdom..... for it does take wisdom to see if some act is ethical or
moral and how that action falls within the virtue of justice....

and if ethics/morals are, as I have suggested, about being
situational ethics, in which the situation creates the ethics, then
we must be wise enough to see what are our moral possibilities
that exist within a certain situation....

what does it mean, ethically to live, as existentialist believe,
authentically? I think, that ethics and living authentically
may not be in line.... for us to be authentic, we might have
to act unethically...but not illegally... again, there is a difference
between ethics and the law...and we can do legal things and still
act unethically...so if we are to be "true" to oneself, and acting
unethically is part of this, then what standard are we going to
follow? ethics or being authentic? what standard are we going to
follow and why that standard and not another?

Kropotkin

[LuckyR]

in thinking about ethics/morals, I am wondering what could
become the basis of ethics/morals?

I believe one of the basis of ethics/morals is another concept, that of
justice.. Justice done correctly is really equality... everyone being
treated equally is justice... to single out one person, for or against,
is being unjust.. to single out a group, for or against, is unjust...

I think, that ethics and living authentically
may not be in line.... for us to be authentic, we might have
to act unethically...but not illegally... again, there is a difference
between ethics and the law...and we can do legal things and still
act unethically...so if we are to be "true" to oneself, and acting
unethically is part of this, then what standard are we going to
follow? ethics or being authentic? what standard are we going to
follow and why that standard and not another?

Kropotkin

Well, in my experience what one does is only partially related to one's personal moral code, one's community's ethical standard and/or the law. There are numerous other variables to consider when deciding which action to take and at times morals, ethics andthe law may not be in the top five considerations.

[Trajk Logik]

in thinking about ethics/morals, I am wondering what could
become the basis of ethics/morals?

I believe one of the basis of ethics/morals is another concept, that of
justice.. Justice done correctly is really equality... everyone being
treated equally is justice... to single out one person, for or against,
is being unjust.. to single out a group, for or against, is unjust...

What does it mean to be moral or ethical? What does moral and ethical mean? You seem to be equating morality/ethics with justice, which is I think is an example of morality/ethics but not equal to morality or ethics.

As I stated earlier, it has to do with our goals. Morality and ethics is a subjective perspective (there is no objective morality/ethics) of other people's actions in relation with your own goals. Immoral acts are those acts by others that hinder your goals. Moral acts are the acts of others that promote your goals.

[Peter Kropotkin]

in thinking about ethics/morals, I am wondering what could
become the basis of ethics/morals?

I believe one of the basis of ethics/morals is another concept, that of
justice.. Justice done correctly is really equality... everyone being
treated equally is justice... to single out one person, for or against,
is being unjust.. to single out a group, for or against, is unjust...

What does it mean to be moral or ethical? What does moral and ethical mean? You seem to be equating morality/ethics with justice, which is I think is an example of morality/ethics but not equal to morality or ethics.

As I stated earlier, it has to do with our goals. Morality and ethics is a subjective perspective (there is no objective morality/ethics) of other people's actions in relation with your own goals. Immoral acts are those acts by others that hinder your goals. Moral acts are the acts of others that promote your goals.

K: so, by your theory, my goal is to murder as many people as possible,
and, again by your theory, ''Immoral acts are those acts by others that hinder
your goal"

so, am I acting morally in wanting to murder and others who try to stop
me are acting "immorally?" that is an interesting twist on morality...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

perhaps, perhaps ethics and morals are/is the
relationship between us individually and us collectively....

I, individually, have goals, needs, wants all driven by
ego... and the society/state has its own goals and needs
and wants and the conflict between the two, are the conflicts
between the one and the many...some personal goals/desires
are socially acceptable... and some are not...the ego drive to
be rich is socially acceptable, but to become rich by killing people
is not socially acceptable... and where is that line being drawn?
the harm it does to the individual, which is assumed to
also damage the society/state too...

but let us flip the script, let us look an "immoral" act done
by the state and attempt to understand it...

the dropping of atomic bombs in WW 2....
everyone pretty much concedes that dropping the bomb was
immoral, but in its defense, the person says, look at how
many lives it saved? a minor act of evil to save millions of lives..
a fair trade one might say..... but that is an assumption...

it is an assumption that Japan would have kept fighting on..
with street to street fighting all the way into Tokyo..
but the truth is really that the US and its allies would have
carpet bombed Japan for months if not years before the invasion...
giving Japan plenty of time to end the war... and in end what actually
happened was that we killed thousands of Japanese people
instead of Americans and other allies.. and we called that being
''moral" but to my mind, it brings up an interesting point...

Americans have, traditionally anyway, have put American lives
ahead of, before the lives of other nationalities....
the entire Vietnam war was one long admission that American
lives counted more than Vietnamese lives... that Americans
had a "hierarchy'' of which some people had more value than others....
for example, white Americans had more value than blacks.. and men
had a greater value than women... and American Indians had far less
value than "real" Americans.. it is easy to justify the genocide of the
American Indian if we assume they have less value then we do...

in fact, one could write the history of America in terms of its
bigotry and prejudice against others....for decades during the
19th century, the Irish immigrants into America were the victims
of a great deal of prejudice and bigotry... in the decades before
the Civil War, there were signs in storefronts, No IRISH allowed...
and the bigotry was a two sided bigotry... both in terms of
nationality and in terms of religion.. Catholicism....
and this bigotry was not aimed at just the Irish, but
Italians also faced it.. and as late as the election of 1960,
JFK was attacked for being Catholic...

so, is this bigotry and prejudice, moral, ethical or it is immoral
and unethical and as always, why?

and today's bigotry and prejudice is against gays and trans people...
and once again, is it moral, ethical or is it immoral, unethical
and why? and is tomorrow bigotry and prejudice against liberals
and democrats? that is exactly what Desantis said, if president, that he will
make laws against being liberal and specifically against being ''WOKE''
And another round of bigotry and prejudice at work...
and is this bigotry and prejudice, moral, ethical?

we seem to limit our discussions of ethics and morals around such
big acts as murder and rape and other such things, but really
isn't prejudice and bigotry also about ethics and morals?
we seem to question some aspects of behavior, but not all
aspects of behavior... and we can see that the society/state
itself can engage in immoral and unethical actions, that
it condemns in individuals..... capitalism punishment for
example....

a whole lot of questions and not many answers....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

in thinking about this, this idea of ethics/morals,
one problem has been that our actions, the laws,
have been "ad hoc"...done of the moment and without
any theory to back it up.... for an example, the right
wing, for the moment, "ad hoc" believe that part of the problem
in America is mail in ballots.. and the solution is to prevent
mail in ballots.... and both the question and the answer
are, as I have suggested, are ''ad hoc"
there is no long term understanding of this idea.. past, present or
future... mail in ballots have been around since the Civil War in America
and solve a very important problem, how to get people who are quite
far away from America to be able to vote? and one group that this affects
is the military branch, quite often stationed thousands of miles away from
their home state...so to disenfranchised those who only use mail in ballots,
is to disenfranchised our military from voting....and it disenfranchises those
who live in say, England or China... and it disenfranchises young kids in collages
far away from their own state...and this last group is the real target of
right wing disenfranchising... for it is believed that the young tend to
vote democratic... and heaven forbid we allow kids to vote for whom
they want to vote for...

and this one example is how these ''ad hoc" theories tend to damage others
outside of the ones it was meant to damage..

or to say this another way, "ad hoc" actions/laws tend to miss the point
because there is not overall theory behind the ''ad hoc'' laws..
you see a problem and you deal with the problem but
without any overall comprehensive theory, ''ad hoc'' theories
tend to fail....which is one of the problems with the liberal theory
of ethics/morals.... we see a problem and try to solve said problem
without any overall understanding of the problem... drug use is rampant
in San Francisco as it is in most major cities... but local laws attempting
to stop the drug use, will fail... and why? because drugs are
a national problem and a national problem requires a national solution...
local ''ad hoc" laws will do little to solve a national problem..
may as well put a band aid on a shotgun blast in a person...
you can say, at least I did something.... no, not really...
and most local laws are really nothing more than a band aid
on a problem...

so, you want to discuss the question of ethics and morals?
then you have to think about it as being bigger than
a city like SF or a state, California.... national problems like
the question of ethics and morals need national solutions...

what is the point of having ethics/morals? to make existence
a smother journey for us all... human behavior needs rules to
understand how to act with other human beings... without
the rules of etiquette and the rules of being nice to others,
we would always be in a state of conflict with others...
this is the point of morals/ethics.. to remove conflicts with
others... so our rules/laws should work toward removing
conflicts with others...and for the most part, it does....

the society/state/civilization works better when it has little or
no conflicts... the more conflicts that arise in a state/society,
the greater the danger of that state/society falling apart...

so in a very real way, morals and ethics is really a conflict resolutions
devise....it is a path, but only a path to resolving conflicts..
and we have other paths/morals/ethics to resolve conflicts...

for Marx for example, conflict resolution was really resolving
conflicts between the owners of the means of production
and the workers... Marx didn't see that conflicts could occur
between the workers themselves.. he only saw conflict between
the workers and their overlords... which he resolved by having
the workers overcome these owners of the means of production
and workers owning the means of production could come into conflict
over the use of the means of production....so Marx theory of
conflict resolution failed on a pretty significant point....

one of the questions we must ask and answer in terms of morals
and ethics is this idea of conflict resolution...how are we to resolve
conflicts between us? much of our human behavior revolves around
this point of conflict resolution...

Kropotkin