Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

The Wrap-Up: Morality (Again...)

June 29th 2009 21:35
Morality is a natural, adaptive phenomenom, that much we know So, why do some people behave in ways that, if they were animals, would cause them to be forcibly ejected from their pack? Does this not undermine the arguments stated above?

Well, no, actually. We, unlike the animals, have cultural norms and a language which allows us to state our thoughts in a very persuasive fashion. You see, rationality is also a tool. Used properly, we can use it to uncover great truths about ourselves and our universe. Used improperly, it can justify anything. Most people would think nothing of stealing, if they were hungry; The death penalty uses killing to right a wrong; The Nazis killed millions, mostly because they were afraid of being killed themselves (by the "loyal" Nazis.) Entire cultures have been founded based on rationalizations. Some, by codifying morality and truth, strengthened our sense of morality, even to the point where we would die merely for a principle (like freedom). Others detract from our sense of morality, placating us with the promise of a better future while simultaniously threatening use with punishment if we disobey (like fascism. . . or religion).


As you can see from history, culture can both create and destroy. Culture can make our sense of morality deeper or shallower, all while touting many of the same goals (just watch any political debate). Thus, we say that our sense of morality is inborn, yet dependent on the culture in which we live. G'day, everyone.

19
Vote
   


Me, the Human

June 26th 2009 19:25
In any discussion of morality, the gods are bound to pop up some place. So, like pulling your own teeth (a barbaric custom, but a neccessary one in some places,) let's get this over with quick, before I lose my nerve. It's bound to be less painfull in the long run.

I consider myself an Athiest. I was born into a Catholic family. When I was little, I laughed at religion. I complained about going to church, and always tried to slip some toys into my pockets before we went, to liven up hours of dullness. Now, my family is not excessively religous, but we attended church every Saturday. This was annoying to me, because all my friends went to church on Sunday, so I never saw them on weekends. For that reason alone, I developed a healthy contempt for religion.


It was not to last. By the time I was twelve, I was well indoctrinated. The area where I live is just bursting with religious zeal. It was unavoidable. Although my church, being Catholic, was very gentle, my friends went to different churches. . . Baptist churches. They told me all sorts of tales, tales to frighten, to sadden, to bend. When I mistook cloud-to-cloud lightning for alien spacecraft fighting a war in the upper atmosphere, my ten-year-old compatriots were happy to tell me that aliens were tools of the devil, sent by Him to sway Christians from the One True Path. I didn't want to believe it- seeing aliens made me unique- but they told me I had no choice. If I believed in aliens, I was going to hell.

This didn't matter to me at the time. Although possessed of a highly overactive imagination, I had no idea what hell was. They wouldn't tell me, either. But no matter what I did, it seemed, they would tell me that. When I learned that, through radiocarbon dating, you could tell me the age of a fossil, they told me that "God says that isn't true, and if you believe that you're going to hell." When my dog died, my Mum told me she was in heaven. I relayed this information to my friends, thinking they would be impressed by how I was starting to fit in. They were not. They told me that "animals have no souls. When they die, they're gone forever. There are no animals in heaven."

As the years passed, these things started to pile up. It began to seem inevitable that I should become an Athiest (though I didn't know what that meant). When I was twelve, though, some kindly adult finally told me what hell was like. I began to have nightmares about being burned alive, of having my guts ripped out by skeletal zombies. I dreamed of walking down the street, and the apocalypse would come. People would die of horrible diseases, and then I would sink through the ground while everyone else was flying up to heaven. So I got on board. I started praying every five minutes, silently begging God to spare me, to spare my family and everyone else who, I now saw, were sinning every minute of the day.

I developed OCD. Germs scared me. I hadn't completed my first catchechism yet, so if I died, I would die unforgiven. I was miserable, and I never felt safe. I had no social life. All these things, and more, I beared, forever dreaming of reaching paridise.

That's enough for today. I'm not done with this subject, but this post is getting too long. Believe me, I will repudiate the gods in a rational manner. It's emotional right now, but that's how I felt at the time. This story is far from over. . .
11
Vote
   


To continue where we left off. . . ahh, but I must say something first. I have noticed that my blog, while attractin a fairly large number of votes, has attracted no comments. If anyone would like to comment on something I may have been missing, feel free. I will read them and answer them to the best of my ability in the next column. If the question at hand has been addressed in a previous post or an outside source, I will make reference to that source.

With that uninspiring (but common and neccesary) bit of prose out of the way, let us continue our discussion of the sources of morality (hmm, I'm starting to sound like a college professor.) Right away, I'm going to discard the notion that human beings, without culture, would forever be at each other's throats like snarling animals. Anyway, the phrase "like snarling animals" holds little meaning when you are talking about a single species. Animals have a primitive sense of morality within their own species. They do not kill, or steal mates or food, except when it is absolutely neccessary to their personal survival. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. Species who engaged in pointless, wholesale slaughter of their own species have a better chance of destroying themselves then those that do not. Some, seeking to undermine this argument, might claim that such behavior acts as a "selection pressure" for strength and cunning. However, nature already "thins the herd" on its own. This particular behavior would reduce the gene pool to "below acceptable" levels. It would also mean that their would be many more creatures of one sex than of the other (since one sex is usually bigger and stronger in any species, if the animal in question is fighting with it's own species all of the time, selection favors the stronger sex. Or gender. Whatever. Do I have to be politically collect when I'm talking about an undefined "animal"?!?) To put it in human terms, imagine that we kept just the top fifty NFL quarterbacks and eight Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders alive. Since an adult female can only bear one child per year. . . well, this isn't going to work out very well, is it? And if, during the period of pregnancy, the males attack and kill the females (remember, our creature has no morality), our numbers get even worse. Of the survivors, what are the chances that one will be a carrier for a deadly genetic disorder? As you can see, strength and beauty aren't everything when it comes to creating a "survivor" race. It also helps to have a wide gene pool. Thus, creatures are evolutionarily receptive to the display of intra-species (but not intra-species) morality. Since homo sapiens are a type of animal, this is true of them as well. If it was not true, we wouldn't be here.
29
Vote
   


Hello once again. It has been a very long while since my last post, if anyone noticed (excuse me while I weep). This time, something other than dinner interrupted me: my grandmother came to visit. For many people, this might be a cause for celebration. For me, however, it is not. My grandmother is quite possibly the most dull person in the world (with the possible exception of an old man I met in a waiting room, who used the words "mashed potatoes" three times in a single sentence).

By the way, have you noticed I use "asides" excessively? This, for instance, is an aside. Apparently they are an outdated method of humorous writing commonly found in Elizabethan plays. They produce a conspiratorial atmosphere. This doesn't happen when I proofread, but I don't proofread my blog


[ Click here to read more ]
28
Vote
   


Back to our discussion (see Philosophizin' part I, on the political channel, for details).
Politics, although not inherantly good or evil, seem to have a tendancy to be petty, with little actual discussion between opposing factions. Psychological experiments have shown that when a homogenous group of people displaying a moderate level of prejudice meet to discuss their beliefs, they tend to become more prejudiced (for a complete listing of these experiments, see Exploring Psychology by David Myers, a very engaging school text). This leads to a growing rift in patterns of thought, one which is increasingly difficult to heal. This phenomenon is what some conservatives like to call "America's Culture War". Such splits are dangerous, if history has taught us anything. I'm not saying society needs to be homogenous; far from it! There is room in the world for all sorts of people. We need to be willing to listen to "the other side", at least until we are sure we have heard and can refute their arguments in the manner neccessary to convince them of their error. If we can't convince "them", then we may be missing something.

[ Click here to read more ]
20
Vote
   


Philosophizin'

June 15th 2009 23:16
Well, now you've seen my frustrated side. Yes, I'm quick to anger, but I'm working on it ("control, control, you must learn control!"). For the sake of my credibility, I think it would be best if I confined myself to subjects on which I have no strong feelings. As recompense for my earlier outburst, I give you. . . philosophy!

How do we define politics? To me, it is the manipulation of people by a leader in order to maintain power or reach a goal. Any action a leader might make fits inside this definition. An argument might be made that people who are not leaders engage in politics; for example, the controlling, manipulative parent. But, then, is just anyone who engages in manipulation also engaging in politics? Perhaps, in an even broader sense. But to most, the word "politics" is intrinsically linked with government, as inseperable from one another as a pair of siamese twins. Maybe my defininition is a matter of personal taste; If it is, there is nothing I can do to convince you that it is the correct one, just as I cannot make you see why a particular work of art is (to me) beautiful


[ Click here to read more ]
21
Vote
   


Head Rush

June 12th 2009 22:23
As a rationalist, you might expect me to have a tight reign on my emotions. Let's face it, most rationalists just don't know how to have fun. But I do. And one of the things that gives me the greatest pleasure is cars. Talking about them, reading about them, driving, whatever. When I was three, I wanted a Corvette. I had my Mom write a letter to Santa when I was four. The first thing I asked for? A "race car". As you can see, my infatuation with cars goes way back. And during these last few years, I have been literally drooling over some of the hot new sheetmetal coming out of Detroit. The best of these cars- Dodge Viper ACR, Ford Mustang GT, Cadillac CTS-V- have the whole package: brute power, sweet handling, and of course, for you Milton Freidman types, fuel economy that hovers safely outside the single digits.
So, what happened? With all these excellent cars, you would think the Motor City would be riding high. Instead, they've been driven into the waiting arms of our government, who fired the best CEO GM has ever had, and brought back the beancounters who helped kill the company in the first place. Short-sighted? Certainly. Not that the public notices. They're worried about where their money is going; The politicians notice what the people are thinking. That starts their brains working through the following thought process: cutting costs by moving production out of the country, the only way to really bring prices down to competitive levels, would be political suicide. Refusing the unions anything they ask for would be political suicide. "Green" is good. Yes, it pumps up prices. Solution? Tax credits. Giving people money to buy "green" cars is proactive. Hopefully, the relentless advance of technological progress (in China) will someday make these vehicles more affordable, so we can tout this measure as temporary. Federal budget defecit? what are you talking about? Can't you see how urgently this program is needed? The ice caps are melting, and if we don't do something soon, New York will be underwater.

[ Click here to read more ]
9
Vote
   


Intro(spective)

June 11th 2009 21:07
Well, that was fun. Let's pick up where we left off: the subject of my blog.
Coming up with a mission statement is harder than you think, despite the fact that many so-called leaders do it all the time. The key to making a successful mission statement is simply this: build in lots of wiggle room. Hey, it worked for the president, right? So, following in his glorious foootsteps, here is my mission statement

[ Click here to read more ]
18
Vote
   


Well, cue the trumpets and the twenty-one gun salute: I've finally started a blog. As people might actually read this, I think it is a good idea to tell you what this blog will be about. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait for that, as tornado sirens are going off where I live. That means that I have to cram myself into a tiny room with a very low ceiling and cower in fear. Sorry.
24
Vote
   


Ad Hominem

March 9th 2009 03:03
For reasons unknowable to me, I am persistently accused of engaging in a type of fallacy referred to as the argumentum ad hominem or simply ad hominem. So, I feel it incumbent upon me to cast aside my previous forays into politics and current events, turn away from philosophy of mind, and delve (if only for one post) into the world of critical thinking.
Argumentum ad hominem can be loosely translated from the Latin as follows: argument to the man or argument against the man. It is what is generally referred to as an informal fallacy and is a commonly used rhetorical technique. There are several forms of ad hominem arguments, but the most common employment of the fallacy works along these lines.

[ Click here to read more ]
48
Vote
   


More Posts
9 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
29 Posts dating from October 2007
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Ronin356's Blogs

81 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
9 Post(s)
Moderated by Ronin356
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]