Philosophy Now Forum

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:18 am 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.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:11 am 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:31 pm
Would you not consider that compassion ,and fairness, also 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.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:05 am 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?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:38 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:31 pm
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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:41 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:05 am 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!

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:50 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:41 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 11:05 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:58 pm 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.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:05 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:58 pm 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pm 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pmIndividualism 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pmBTW what is your criterion for "sexual dysfunction"? From where I sit reading you your criterion seems somewhat dogmatic. I hope I am mistaken!

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:37 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pm 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pmIndividualism 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

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pmBTW 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 7:07 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:37 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pm 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.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pmIndividualism 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

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 2:18 pmBTW 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.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:38 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 1:31 pm
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.