When two worldviews collide.

[o_mlly]

Yes I am the one who decides. But so do you. Anyone with any connection with the matter at hand decides.

Let me give you another shot at using your moral insights in a concrete example.

A married couple have intercourse. The problem is they are not married to each other. One day the spouse of one asks, "Have you ever been unfaithful to me?" The spouse lies thinking that the truth will only cause harm to their marriage. Any moral problems here?

 

[Bradskii]

The salient point is that your "selfish gene" notion of morality does not require any charitable acts, and most certainly, not any heroic charitable acts.

As someone said earlier:

'...our genetic makeup doesn't dictate what we do. There are considerations other than our personal tendencies to survive. I'm sure I don't have to list them.'

Or maybe I do. Because you are always seemingly confusing the tendencies that we individually have with the individual person that we'd like to be. Or at least perceived to be.

Evolution works within populations, not individuals. Your actions are not dictated by your genes. They may influence you to a certain extent. But other considerations are at play and are often those which guide our actions. Which is why people throw themselves on grenades and sacrifice themselves in many different ways for the benefit of others. Including slipping overboard when your brother is asleep. Many people would prefer to die a hero than live as a coward.

 

[Bradskii]

Let me give you another shot at using your moral insights in a concrete example.

A married couple have intercourse. The problem is they are not married to each other. One day the spouse of one asks, "Have you ever been unfaithful to me?" The spouse lies thinking that the truth will only cause harm to their marriage. Any moral problems here?

Yes. The guy (if we assume it's the man being asked) shouldn't have cheated on his wife. The harm has already been done because the relationship of trust between them no longer exists, even if she thinks it does. If he lies then he's just hiding that fact.

 

[stevevw]

You suggested it could be difficult knowing that harm has been done. Not acknowledging it. I agreed. Please don't redefine the subject of the discussion.

I agree with you that people know they are doing harm. I am just asking the question, wondering why some people do harm and don't believe they are being harmful. I think its part of finding the truth as to how people think about morality.

Then it is plainly and obviously necessary to determine if it has or has not been done.

Yes and I think part of that is investigating the facts around the moral issue. What is classed as harm, was harm actually done and is the harm justified. The question is how do we determine that.

Yes, often it is subjective. So I said quite a few posts ago that if there is disagreement on whether it has been done then we ask the person who says they've been harmed.

But surely just asking the person is not enough. People can be misleading, take advantage, be controlling, be overly sensitive. We see this happening today where people are walking on egg shells to scared to say boo for offending people when it comes to rights.

You'd definitely be aware that some Australian terms don't translate well when used with someone who isn't Australian. If an American said he was upset about something I said, even if you wouldn't be, then I'd naturally accept that he's been harmed. So we then have a problem with morality. And I have to decide if I'm justified using that language.

I think thats more to do with etiquette (manners, being curteous ect) than morality. A cultural word or a practice may have different meaning in the culture and as you say may be offensive to a different culture. So when engaging we put aside those cultural norms to be polite. But the cultural norms are not immoral in themselves.

I would suspend my use of the word or practice to be polite but I would not give them, what it prepresents to me. If the American came to live in Australia he would have to get use to that word being used rather than people having to give up that word to accommodate the new arrival.

In fact as the American and I got to know each other then we should be able to be ourselves more. Each person should allow the other to be themselves. That means accepting stuff about the other person even if it may be uncomfortable. If the American knew what the word or idea or belief means to me and respects me he too should be accommodating. I don;t think people should have to give up their language, beliefs, culture in the end. It certainly depends on the situation.

What if the Australian is giving a lecture or speech and uses that word because its part of their presentation in the US. What if most people in the audience don't mind the word or idea but theres a few that do. Should we then delete the word or idea to not offend the few. I think that is when it starts to matter morally what exactly harm is on a group or societal level. Whether that can be applied society wide.

 

[o_mlly]

As someone said earlier:

'...our genetic makeup doesn't dictate what we do. There are considerations other than our personal tendencies to survive. ...'
...
Evolution works within populations, not individuals. Your actions are not dictated by your genes. ...

Really? So our selfish genes that only consider the survival of me, and those I consider mine (aka "the population"), "does not explain it all. Does not sound like evolution theory anymore. Something else is at work on us. Could that be Love itself, aka God? So kindly explain to us the source of your newly discovered "charitable gene".

 

[o_mlly]

Yes. The guy (if we assume it's the man being asked) shouldn't have cheated on his wife. The harm has already been done because the relationship of trust between them no longer exists, even if she thinks it does. If he lies then he's just hiding that fact.

?

If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss.

Kindly square up these two posts. She does not know that harm has been done. So, "the relationship of trust between them no longer exists".

 

[rjs330]

There are dna mutations in everybody. That's a given. Even in identical twins. Even in something that's been cloned. It drives evolution. But to all intents and purposes identical twins have identical genetic makeup. It's why they are called identical twins.

Yes so their genes while starting identical don't stay that way. So all I yenta and purposes aside they do not have identical genes as they develope. Like I said maybe there is a misunderstanding between the two on what you are talking about.

 

[rjs330]

Yes I am the one who decides. But so do you. Anyone with any connection with the matter at hand decides. In the case that you mentioned, we both decide that killing someone isn't warranted simply to appease family honour. Their sense of honour doesn't equate to the taking of a life. I guess they might argue. Tough. We've made our decision. I've made mine. And you've made yours. And if you think that you have the right to do so then please don't question mine.

How do we ensure that what we consider to be immoral acts are stopped? Good question. Glad you asked. Let me know what you think.

Still dodging the question I see. Well, until you answer it, I guess the discussion is over and I reject your claim that you can decide what is right wrong, harmful, moral and immoral. You have shown no authority or ability to do that.

 

[Aaron112]

Does not sound like evolution theory anymore.

hahaha Great ! Thank you! (oh, for "charitable gene" that I laughed when I read it ) ....

Two views collide - God's View vs any other. God's View (truth) vs evolution... hmmm
everyone chooses one or another, don't they ?
Most choose wrong and suffer and die.
A few chosen ones believe truth and life..... cool !

 

[Bradskii]

Really? So our selfish genes that only consider the survival of me, and those I consider mine (aka "the population"), "does not explain it all. Does not sound like evolution theory anymore. Something else is at work on us. Could that be Love itself, aka God? So kindly explain to us the source of your newly discovered "charitable gene".

Evolution theory has nothing that speaks directly to morality. Or virtue. But what do you think about how society views courage. And cowardice. Or dishonesty and trustworthiness? Miserly or charitable? Would being thought of as courageous and honest be a plus or a negative do you think? Would you want to be thought of as untrustworthy and dishonest?

 

[Bradskii]

Kindly square up these two posts. She does not know that harm has been done. So, "the relationship of trust between them no longer exists".

She doesn't know. But we do. We know that harm has been done to the relationship. So we can discuss whether we think his actions were justified. If you want the wife's view on the matter then you'd have to tell her. I'm sure she'd have an opinion she'd like to share.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes so their genes while starting identical don't stay that way. So all I yenta and purposes aside they do not have identical genes as they develope. Like I said maybe there is a misunderstanding between the two on what you are talking about.

You might as well say that one of them has a callous on his finger, so they are not identical. It was a minor point brought up to differentiate the genetic difference between identical and fraternal twins. Thanks for your input on the matter.

 

[Bradskii]

Still dodging the question I see. Well, until you answer it, I guess the discussion is over and I reject your claim that you can decide what is right wrong, harmful, moral and immoral. You have shown no authority or ability to do that.

As you made the decision that the actions of the girl's family was abhorrent I assume that you must have that authority and ability. So if there's a decision to be made on morality then I guess I'll have to ask you.

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution theory has nothing that speaks directly to morality. Or virtue. But what do you think about how society views courage. And cowardice. Or dishonesty and trustworthiness? Miserly or charitable? Would being thought of as courageous and honest be a plus or a negative do you think? Would you want to be thought of as untrustworthy and dishonest?

We agree that evolution theory cannot explain virtuous behaviors. So, as a materialist, why do you think, or if you like "society" thinks, that we ought to admire virtuousness and abhor viciousness? If not from our genes then from just where does this impetus to be charitable (loving) come?

 

[Larniavc]

You have shown no authority or ability to do that.

Why does one need moral authority? Surely the only moral authority we need is our own subjective ethical framework?

 

[o_mlly]

She doesn't know. But we do. We know that harm has been done to the relationship. So we can discuss whether we think his actions were justified. If you want the wife's view on the matter then you'd have to tell her. I'm sure she'd have an opinion she'd like to share.

No, we do not know; he lied (or chose not to disclose his infidelity) to us as well. So, applying your notion of morality, he says to himself, "no harm, no foul." His wife is not physically harmed. His lie protects her form mental harm. Two wrongs make a right? End of this morality story?

 

[o_mlly]

Why does one need moral authority? Surely the only moral authority we need is our own subjective ethical framework?

I see three possible "likes" for this post: Kaczynski, Dahmer, and Manson.

 

[Bradskii]

We agree that evolution theory cannot explain virtuous behaviors. So, as a materialist, why do you think, or if you like "society" thinks, that we ought to admire virtuousness and abhor viciousness? If not from our genes then from just where does this impetus to be charitable (loving) come?

You really aren't following the discussion.

I didn't say that evolution cannot explain virtues. I specifically have said that evolution doesn't speak directly to morality or virtue. That we are not determined by our genetic make up. We decide what is morally correct. But there is an aspect to what we inherit that can help to explain individual behaviour. Virtuous behaviour. And there is a significant societal expectation that we are all under as well. We have a need to be accepted within society. So that, in part, also explains our behaviour. And that is because we are a social species.

And you'll never guess why that is...

 

[Bradskii]

No, we do not know; he lied (or chose not to disclose his infidelity) to us as well. So, applying your notion of morality, he says to himself, "no harm, no foul." His wife is not physically harmed. His lie protects her form mental harm. Two wrongs make a right? End of this morality story?

Do I have to explain that we cannot discuss a moral problem if we don't know it exists? If we don't know that someone has committed what we might decide is an immoral act then how can it be discussed?

This must be a new concept in hypotheticals...

 

[Bradskii]

I see three possible "likes" for this post: Kaczynski, Dahmer, and Manson.

This is a constant problem that people have with these discussions. If I, for example, say that we individually have the right to make these decisions doesn't mean that therefore I agree that all decisions are therefore correct. That is completely fallacious. Obviously. Or at least it's obvious to me.