moral relativism

[popeye1945]

Morality is relative to an objective, which is usually survival.
We can differentiate between moral behaviors that are naturally selected and those which are human additions, making complex systems possible.
In both cases, group welfare is the objective, even at the cost of individual freedoms.

Morals are a collective limits on individual behaviors.

Biology is the only rational foundation for human morality, which attempts to secure survival and well-being. There is no other source of knowledge and wisdom than the conscious subject. In the absence of biological consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless. This commonly held knowledge is the only way humanity will master itself, meaning acquiring self-control. Freedom and morality are mutually exclusive.

[Pistolero]

If man's morals contradict nature, then the consequences will not be suffered by nature.
If, for example, man decides that it is moral to have sex with animals, or children, then the consequences of his hubris will be suffered by him, alone.


What you are advocating, if I am not mistaken, is that man replace the abstraction of God - defined in the Abrahamic tradition - with humanity - defined by whom?
Postmodernism?
Which ideology will bind the totality of mankind into a cohesive whole, within which it can create its own reality?
Will such a project remain immune to nature?

Why, for instance, have there been no societies that made transsexualism or pedophilia or incest or bestiality the highest moral virtue?

[Belinda]

Yes...the source of morality is biology.
Particularly survival strategies that necessitate cooperation and tolerance.

Morality is a set of codes men wrote, reflecting behaviors they deemed to be necessary.
Moral behaviors evolved, and then were written down.
They were given divine origins to ensure men's acquiescence.

All social species exhibit the same 'moral behaviors.'

Men, add to these moral rules their own amendments to make complex systems possible, such as the ethical rules against adultery.

Would you consider that compassion ,and fairness, inhere in several mammalian species ?

Young pre-moral children, older feral children raised by a different mammalian species, and adults from several mammalian species exhibit compassion and fairness.

Humans are arguably the only species that codify morality. This is because human language is the only language that deals in social growth through metaphor.

[Pistolero]

Would you not consider that compassion ,and fairness, also inhere in several mammalian species ?

Yes... because without them cooperative strategies are impossible.

Young pre-moral children, older feral children raised by a different mammalian species, and adults from several mammalian species exhibit compassion and fairness.

And we also see it in other social species, like dolphins, apes, canines, elephants etc.

So, no god nor a dogma is necessary for this behavior to be naturally selected, because ti offers an advantage.
What men do is they encode such behaviors, converting them to language.....which can be weaponized.
Men also add amendments to modify these innate behaviors, so as to make more complex systems possible.

Morals are not arbitrary, nor subjective.
They require no divine origins and no conspiracy to impose them.

[Belinda]

If man's morals contradict nature, then the consequences will not be suffered by nature.
If, for example, man decides that it is moral to have sex with animals, or children, then the consequences of his hubris will be suffered by him, alone.


What you are advocating, if I am not mistaken, is that man replace the abstraction of God - defined in the Abrahamic tradition - with humanity - defined by whom?
Postmodernism?
Which ideology will bind the totality of mankind into a cohesive whole, within which it can create its own reality?
Will such a project remain immune to nature?

Why, for instance, have there been no societies that made transsexualism or pedophilia or incest or bestiality the highest moral virtue?

There are cultures where these behaviours are not criminalised either because the perpetrators are above the law, or because victims are dehumanised.

Transsexualism victimises nobody!

Having sex with animals is often extremely cruel,and devoid of compassion.It is in fact, rape.
Similarly adults having sex with children is cruel rape of the child by an adult.
We do, and we must, condemn certain cultures.We condemn Nazism. We condemn nationalism. We condemn racism. In short, we condemn all cultures of belief in which the rights of the individual is secondary to the rights of the society .

Insofar a 'moral relativism' means not supporting the weak and down trodden as against the strong and powerful, then moral relativism is wrong and evil.

[Belinda]

Would you not consider that compassion ,and fairness, also inhere in several mammalian species ?

Yes... because without them cooperative strategies are impossible.

Young pre-moral children, older feral children raised by a different mammalian species, and adults from several mammalian species exhibit compassion and fairness.

And we also see it in other social species, like dolphins, apes, canines, elephants etc.

So, no god nor a dogma is necessary for this behavior to be naturally selected, because ti offers an advantage.
What men do is they encode such behaviors, converting them to language.....which can be weaponized.
Men also add amendments to modify these innate behaviors, so as to make more complex systems possible.

Morals are not arbitrary, nor subjective.
They require no divine origins and no conspiracy to impose them.

All this I agree .

[Pistolero]

If man's morals contradict nature, then the consequences will not be suffered by nature.
If, for example, man decides that it is moral to have sex with animals, or children, then the consequences of his hubris will be suffered by him, alone.


What you are advocating, if I am not mistaken, is that man replace the abstraction of God - defined in the Abrahamic tradition - with humanity - defined by whom?
Postmodernism?
Which ideology will bind the totality of mankind into a cohesive whole, within which it can create its own reality?
Will such a project remain immune to nature?

Why, for instance, have there been no societies that made transsexualism or pedophilia or incest or bestiality the highest moral virtue?

There are cultures where these behaviours are not criminalised either because the perpetrators are above the law, or because victims are dehumanised.

Transsexualism victimises nobody!

You miss the effect on group fitness.
Groups, like individuals, compete with other groups.
Any reduction of their fitness, no matter how slight, threatens the entire group.

Nature is unjust....and indifferent to human preferences.

[Belinda]

If man's morals contradict nature, then the consequences will not be suffered by nature.
If, for example, man decides that it is moral to have sex with animals, or children, then the consequences of his hubris will be suffered by him, alone.


What you are advocating, if I am not mistaken, is that man replace the abstraction of God - defined in the Abrahamic tradition - with humanity - defined by whom?
Postmodernism?
Which ideology will bind the totality of mankind into a cohesive whole, within which it can create its own reality?
Will such a project remain immune to nature?

Why, for instance, have there been no societies that made transsexualism or pedophilia or incest or bestiality the highest moral virtue?

There are cultures where these behaviours are not criminalised either because the perpetrators are above the law, or because victims are dehumanised.

Transsexualism victimises nobody!

You miss the effect on group fitness.
Groups, like individuals, compete with other groups.
Any reduction of their fitness, no matter how slight, threatens the entire group.

Nature is unjust....and indifferent to human preferences.

By that definition of 'nature' what you say is true. But it's not true of the human trait ofadaptability that social groups matter more than the individuals who comprise the group.

Your objection is typical of objections to the Christian ethic to aid the poor, the down trodden, and the despised. But on the other hand Christians are advised that it came with a sword to defend the good.
The Roman occupation of Palestine was bloody bad without a doubt, and there are parallels today ----regimes that take by force others' lands and very lives and liberties.

Humans can and do transcend 'nature' and still remain a viable species.

[Pistolero]

By that definition of 'nature' what you say is true. But it's not true of the human trait ofadaptability that social groups matter more than the individuals who comprise the group.

What matters more is up for debate.
Both matter.
The degree is where you disagree.

Morality is a naturally selected sacrifice of individual freedom, to gain the benefits of cooperation - synergy.
This individualism vs collectivism is the root of all political conflicts.
From Nietzsche to the Frankfurt School.

Your objection is typical of objections to the Christian ethic to aid the poor, the down trodden, and the despised. But on the other hand Christians are advised that it came with a sword to defend the good.

And your christian ethics reflect the slave morality that has been exposed as collectivist - Marxism is a secular adaptation of Christianity.

You cannot dismiss the negative effects of sexual dysfunctions, so you resort to the all-inclusivity of your preferred ethics.
Morals, as they've evolved, are discriminating.
The only way your ethical system survives is if it exterminates all alternatives, because it cannot compete.
It cannot exterminate them without resorting to subversive, emotional methods.

In other terms, God = humanity is being transformed into humanity = God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The degree to which men "transcend nature" - code for contradict natural order - determines the degree of self-contradictions they must employ to explain why they cannot adhere to their own principles.
So, no social system that has made pedophilia and bestiality, a virtue, has ever emerged, or survived....nor any society that has made heterosexuality a vice and homosexuality a virtue - theoretically "transcending nature - can ever survive.

just as human meddling produces material pollutants, so does it produce genetic pollutants, i.e., unfit mutations, compounding over time, manifesting all sorts of psychosomatic ailments.

[Belinda]

By that definition of 'nature' what you say is true. But it's not true of the human trait ofadaptability that social groups matter more than the individuals who comprise the group.

What matters more is up for debate.
Both matter.
The degree is where you disagree.

Morality is a naturally selected sacrifice of individual freedom, to gain the benefits of cooperation - synergy.
This individualism vs collectivism is the root of all political conflicts.
From Nietzsche to the Frankfurt School.

Your objection is typical of objections to the Christian ethic to aid the poor, the down trodden, and the despised. But on the other hand Christians are advised that it came with a sword to defend the good.

And your christian ethics reflect the slave morality that has been exposed as collectivist - Marxism is a secular adaptation of Christianity.

You cannot dismiss the negative effects of sexual dysfunctions, so you resort to the all-inclusivity of your preferred ethics.
Morals, as they've evolved, are discriminating.

In other terms, God = humanity is being transformed into humanity = God.

Where the collective gets larger so it must happen that individual liberties are restricted. What is bad is that when the collective gets larger it dehumanises foreigners so as to take their natural resources and lands.
Individualism v. collectivism debate needs the criterion of what is as matter of scientific fact possible. As we know from Nazism and the history of the Holocaust collectivism is all too often managed and popularised by greedy liars.

BTW what is your criterion for "sexual dysfunction"? From where I sit reading you your criterion seems somewhat dogmatic. I hope I am mistaken!

[Pistolero]

Where the collective gets larger so it must happen that individual liberties are restricted. What is bad is that when the collective gets larger it dehumanises foreigners so as to take their natural resources and lands.

Dunbar’s Number.
Nature has a limit on how many we can consider our own.
Modern systems exceed it by a huge amount.
So, disillusionment is part of the modern/postmodern condition.

Assimilating multiracial, multicultural populations into a cohesive whole, must reduce both to a concept, that can be blamed on society - social constructs.
Individuals must be diminished to accept this all-inclusivity.
When love is deserved by all, then it becomes a prostitute's love.
Shallow and sold to the highest bidder.

Individualism v. collectivism debate needs the criterion of what is as matter of scientific fact possible. As we know from Nazism and the history of the Holocaust collectivism is all too often managed and popularised by greedy liars.

No, they weren't good enough.... they mehtods were too harsh.
Three ways to control:
Coercion
Bribery
Seduction

Dogmatism can use all three.

You, prefer, seduction, and abhor coercion, and bribery.
You want to be 'swept off your feet," so that his dominance is not as insulting to your ego.

Americanism has made lying into an art form.
Hollywood = art o lying
Marketing = science of lying
Politics = power through lying

BTW what is your criterion for "sexual dysfunction"? From where I sit reading you your criterion seems somewhat dogmatic. I hope I am mistaken!

Any practice that nullifies, or inhibits, sex's primary function: reproduction.
True, sex does acquire additional functions, but its primary function remains the same, in all species, including man.

Is nature dogmatic?
Nature does not succumb to human preferences. She's indifferent to suffering.
Is nature unjust? Is nature brutal?
Yes.... and this is why you are so dogmatically opposed.
Christian.

What happens when men attempt to "transcend nature" in practice, not in theory, using words?
Code for....challenge nature and "correct her ways"

--------------------
So, what happens if a group begins to shelter and cultivate unfit mutations, manifesting all sorts of sexual dysfunctions, or alternative lifestyles?
Is it all harmless, or does it affect the group's competitiveness?
Is the answer "dogmatic"?
If so, then who is imposing it....not I.

[Pistolero]

You have to ask yourself.... if it's all harmless life choices, or mutations that deserve to be sheltered and promoted.... then would there not be examples of homosexual or transsexual societies, where heterosexuality is a minority?
Why don't to such societies exist?

What about expanding your range of love, to include all life forms, and make bestiality a virtue?
Inter-species love...
Would such a society survive?
Appearances are superficial, no?
All life deserves compassion, no?
Or does humanity have a privileged status, in your worldview?
Were we "chosen."

[Belinda]

Where the collective gets larger so it must happen that individual liberties are restricted. What is bad is that when the collective gets larger it dehumanises foreigners so as to take their natural resources and lands.

Dunbar’s Number.
Nature has a limit on how many we can consider our own.
Modern systems exceed it by a huge amount.
So, disillusionment is part of the modern/postmodern condition.

Assimilating multiracial, multicultural populations into a cohesive whole, must reduce both to a concept, that can be blamed on society - social constructs.
Individuals must be diminished to accept this all-inclusivity.
When love is deserved by all, then it becomes a prostitute's love.
Shallow and sold to the highest bidder.

Individualism v. collectivism debate needs the criterion of what is as matter of scientific fact possible. As we know from Nazism and the history of the Holocaust collectivism is all too often managed and popularised by greedy liars.

No, they weren't good enough.... they mehtods were too harsh.
Three ways to control:
Coercion
Bribery
Seduction

Dogmatism can use all three.

You, prefer, seduction, and abhor coercion, and bribery.
You want to be 'swept off your feet," so that his dominance is not as insulting to your ego.

Americanism has made lying into an art form.
Hollywood = art o lying
Marketing = science of lying
Politics = power through lying

BTW what is your criterion for "sexual dysfunction"? From where I sit reading you your criterion seems somewhat dogmatic. I hope I am mistaken!

Any practice that nullifies, or inhibits, sex's primary function: reproduction.
True, sex does acquire additional functions, but its primary function remains the same, in all species, including man.

Is nature dogmatic?
Nature does not succumb to human preferences. She's indifferent to suffering.
Is nature unjust? Is nature brutal?
Yes.... and this is why you are so dogmatically opposed.
Christian.

What happens when men attempt to "transcend nature" in practice, not in theory, using words?
Code for....challenge nature and "correct her ways"

--------------------
So, what happens if a group begins to shelter and cultivate unfit mutations, manifesting all sorts of sexual dysfunctions, or alternative lifestyles?
Is it all harmless, or does it affect the group's competitiveness?
Is the answer "dogmatic"?
If so, then who is imposing it....not I.

Love does not expect or demand any quid pro quo. Few absolutely deserve love but many receive it just the same.
i confess I am sometimes too gullible but at least I aware of this fault and try to correct it.
"My "ego" is proper pride and I value it for its own sake and because I can't live without it. Same as for everyone else.

Humans and human cultures are part of nature. Humans are that part of nature that can reflect on the past and guess the future and choose that the future will be better than the past. Not every species has such an advantage, the advantage is huge stores of experience, preserved as language and other arts , from one generation to the next.

The sheltering of unfit mutations is justified not only by tender hearted feeling but also by mutations' positive input in ways we can now only guess at. We are not wild animals adapted to a singular environment , so it's important for our species' survival that we conserve unusual types.

The most effective way to transcend bad old cultures is by the use of stories . These stories may be fiction or based in historical fact. Tragedies or comedies each allow us to feel the sadness and absurdities of the human condition and if we are lucky also offer ways to circumvent loss and grief at least to some extent. The only way to know that some event is bad or good is to empathise. Facts are not enough; good stories are facts told in such as way that we feel vicariously what the people in the stories felt.
Stories are told pictorially too---- good reportage , museums, and long meditations on works of art.

[Belinda]

Where the collective gets larger so it must happen that individual liberties are restricted. What is bad is that when the collective gets larger it dehumanises foreigners so as to take their natural resources and lands.

Dunbar’s Number.
Nature has a limit on how many we can consider our own.
Modern systems exceed it by a huge amount.
So, disillusionment is part of the modern/postmodern condition.

Assimilating multiracial, multicultural populations into a cohesive whole, must reduce both to a concept, that can be blamed on society - social constructs.
Individuals must be diminished to accept this all-inclusivity.
When love is deserved by all, then it becomes a prostitute's love.
Shallow and sold to the highest bidder.

Individualism v. collectivism debate needs the criterion of what is as matter of scientific fact possible. As we know from Nazism and the history of the Holocaust collectivism is all too often managed and popularised by greedy liars.

No, they weren't good enough.... they mehtods were too harsh.
Three ways to control:
Coercion
Bribery
Seduction

Dogmatism can use all three.

You, prefer, seduction, and abhor coercion, and bribery.
You want to be 'swept off your feet," so that his dominance is not as insulting to your ego.

Americanism has made lying into an art form.
Hollywood = art o lying
Marketing = science of lying
Politics = power through lying

BTW what is your criterion for "sexual dysfunction"? From where I sit reading you your criterion seems somewhat dogmatic. I hope I am mistaken!

Any practice that nullifies, or inhibits, sex's primary function: reproduction.
True, sex does acquire additional functions, but its primary function remains the same, in all species, including man.

Is nature dogmatic?
Nature does not succumb to human preferences. She's indifferent to suffering.
Is nature unjust? Is nature brutal?
Yes.... and this is why you are so dogmatically opposed.
Christian.

What happens when men attempt to "transcend nature" in practice, not in theory, using words?
Code for....challenge nature and "correct her ways"

--------------------
So, what happens if a group begins to shelter and cultivate unfit mutations, manifesting all sorts of sexual dysfunctions, or alternative lifestyles?
Is it all harmless, or does it affect the group's competitiveness?
Is the answer "dogmatic"?
If so, then who is imposing it....not I.

Love does not expect or demand any quid pro quo. Few absolutely deserve love but many receive it just the same.
i confess I am sometimes too gullible but at least I aware of this fault and try to correct it.
"My "ego" is proper pride and I value it for its own sake and because I can't live without it. Same as for everyone else.

Humans and human cultures are part of nature. Humans are that part of nature that can reflect on the past and guess the future and choose that the future will be better than the past. Not every species has such an advantage, the advantage is huge stores of experience, preserved as language and other arts , from one generation to the next.

The sheltering of unfit mutations is justified not only by tender hearted feeling but also by mutations' positive input in ways we can now only guess at. We are not wild animals adapted to a singular environment , so it's important for our species' survival that we conserve unusual types.

The most effective way to transcend bad old cultures is by the use of stories . These stories may be fiction or based in historical fact. Tragedies or comedies each allow us to feel the sadness and absurdities of the human condition and if we are lucky also offer ways to circumvent loss and grief at least to some extent. The only way to know that some event is bad or good is to empathise. Facts are not enough; good stories are facts told in such as way that we feel vicariously what the people in the stories felt.
Stories are told pictorially too---- good reportage , museums, and long meditations on works of art.

Your "ways to control" , bribery, coercion , seduction are in fact crimes in civilised societies.

[Belinda]

Would you not consider that compassion ,and fairness, also inhere in several mammalian species ?

Yes... because without them cooperative strategies are impossible.

Young pre-moral children, older feral children raised by a different mammalian species, and adults from several mammalian species exhibit compassion and fairness.

And we also see it in other social species, like dolphins, apes, canines, elephants etc.

So, no god nor a dogma is necessary for this behavior to be naturally selected, because ti offers an advantage.
What men do is they encode such behaviors, converting them to language.....which can be weaponized.
Men also add amendments to modify these innate behaviors, so as to make more complex systems possible.

Morals are not arbitrary, nor subjective.
They require no divine origins and no conspiracy to impose them.

True, but divine origin myths help people to envisage good behaviours as approved of by society.