Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Honestly, I always thought "The Ring of Gyges" served as a good anecdote for this situation.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Honestly, I always thought "The Ring of Gyges" served as a good anecdote for this situation.

No. We practice morality to enjoy this life.

My morals is what makes me feel good and be myself.

I don't believe there is an afterlife. I try to do good things because I feel they are right, not because I feel I will be rewarded after I die.

My morals are a more or less what I find to be a convenient simulation of the social-cognitive neuroscientific model with more of an emphasis on empathy.

I suppose it's what has kept me alive in the hood for so long, or at the very least that's what I like to think.

Originally posted by Astner
My morals are a more or less what I find to be a convenient simulation of the social-cognitive neuroscientific model with more of an emphasis on empathy.

I suppose it's what has kept me alive in the hood for so long, or at the very least that's what I like to think.
Fixed.

I think most people practice popular morality because it makes for a more ordered society. Regardless, those who can live by alternative moral standards due to position, influence, etc often do. America was founded as a bastion of freedom from the oppressive rule of monarchy, yet only decades into its settlement slavery became the norm and the wealthy taxed the poor rather than themselves with neither being seen as immoral and with the practitioners touting their love of God the whole time.

Anyway, going off on a tangent there. I am certainly thankful to science/philosophy and open discussion for the changes that they have made in the moral landscape as a whole despite whatever shortcomings still exist. As best as I can I practice a healthy morality that takes others into consideration because of my study of ethics and adoption of Virtue Ethics. At the end of my life I wish to be able to look back on it and say that it was a life well-lived, that I made sound decisions, and that where possible I left the world a little better than when I came into it.

Originally posted by Astner
social-cognitive neuroscientific model

I don't want to be imprisoned.

If there were no consequences for my actions I would do whatever I wanted whenever I wanted.

morality is almost certainly based on genetics. More superfluous things, like wardrobe laws or dietary concerns are probably a reflection of culture (and generally outside of what the OP is talking about anyways), but the more core "moral" issues (theft, rape, murder, etc) are nearly assuredly a product of natural selection.

There is an arms race between social regulation of behaviour and an individual's ability to deceive the group, but studies tend to show people have an innate sense of fairness that transcends being observed by others. A "ring-of-gyges" scenario may produce a person somewhat more inclined to violate others for personal gain, it certainly wouldn't change their individual moral code.

I don't believe there are people who are currently not committing murder, rape, serious interpersonal theft that would suddenly start doing it if they thought they wouldn't be caught. Criminals, almost tautologically, don't think they will be caught, or these crimes are of a nature that the consequences for the action are rarely considered (murder is often a crime of passion).

Originally posted by inimalist
morality is almost certainly based on genetics. More superfluous things, like wardrobe laws or dietary concerns are probably a reflection of culture (and generally outside of what the OP is talking about anyways), but the more core "moral" issues (theft, rape, murder, etc) are nearly assuredly a product of natural selection.

There is an arms race between social regulation of behaviour and an individual's ability to deceive the group, but studies tend to show people have an innate sense of fairness that transcends being observed by others. A "ring-of-gyges" scenario may produce a person somewhat more inclined to violate others for personal gain, it certainly wouldn't change their individual moral code.

I don't believe there are people who are currently not committing murder, rape, serious interpersonal theft that would suddenly start doing it if they thought they wouldn't be caught. Criminals, almost tautologically, don't think they will be caught, or these crimes are of a nature that the consequences for the action are rarely considered (murder is often a crime of passion). Have you read the book The Sociopath Nextdoor?

They basically argue that some non-violent sociopaths specifically don't do actions because they are afraid of being caught, however, without the limitations of laws they would act on their impulses.

It's a pretty good book.

Not exactly sure on it's accuracy, though. The study of sociopathy is pretty abstract anyway, since no one truly understands it.

Btw, I will murder and rape you in that order.

of course most people do

Most people want to murder and rape inimalist!?

I call dibs!

Originally posted by Mindset
Have you read the book The Sociopath Nextdoor?

They basically argue that some non-violent sociopaths specifically don't do actions because they are afraid of being caught, however, without the limitations of laws they would act on their impulses.

It's a pretty good book.

Not exactly sure on it's accuracy, though. The study of sociopathy is pretty abstract anyway, since no one truly understands it.

sure, but in this case, we are talking about abnormal individuals (abnormal in the clinical psych way, as in, "something wrong" with their brain).

Like, intelligence is at least partially genetic, but there are people who are born with abnormal neurology that prevents them from becoming intelligent. Similar things could be said about language, movement, etc.

Additionally, though I'm not sure if sociopathy is more genetic or developmental, I'd be astounded if genes didn't play some role in the moral behaviour of sociopaths.

To be fair, I'm not actually suggesting that our genetics make us behave in morally "good" ways, just that our morality is based on our evolution. We are only as moral as we needed to be to pass on our genes, and in most cases, this produces pro-social behaviour, altruism, etc. It also produces selfishness and deception, and given sociopaths weren't weeded out by natural selection, there is clearly some (though not a great) advantage to that type of amoral behaviour.

I haven't read the book, but I'd suggest its not so much laws, but basic group expectations of behaviour. And in many ways, we all have these types of constraints. The reason I don't roll a fatty at my desk is because I'd be fired, not because I think there is anything inherently wrong with it.

Originally posted by Mindset
Btw, I will murder and rape you in that order.

if I'm dead I'm not worried too much about the rape... I'd actually be glad someone found a use for my now purposeless flesh.

besides, is it rape if the person is an inanimate object? thats like saying you could rape a statue.

Originally posted by Mindset
Most people want to murder and rape inimalist!?

I'm not surprised, frankly

jKtOXvA14X4

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, but in this case, we are talking about abnormal individuals (abnormal in the clinical psych way, as in, "something wrong" with their brain).

Like, intelligence is at least partially genetic, but there are people who are born with abnormal neurology that prevents them from becoming intelligent. Similar things could be said about language, movement, etc.

Additionally, though I'm not sure if sociopathy is more genetic or developmental, I'd be astounded if genes didn't play some role in the moral behaviour of sociopaths.

To be fair, I'm not actually suggesting that our genetics make us behave in morally "good" ways, just that our morality is based on our evolution. We are only as moral as we needed to be to pass on our genes, and in most cases, this produces pro-social behaviour, altruism, etc. It also produces selfishness and deception, and given sociopaths weren't weeded out by natural selection, there is clearly some (though not a great) advantage to that type of amoral behaviour.

I haven't read the book, but I'd suggest its not so much laws, but basic group expectations of behaviour. And in many ways, we all have these types of constraints. The reason I don't roll a fatty at my desk is because I'd be fired, not because I think there is anything inherently wrong with it.



if I'm dead I'm not worried too much about the rape... I'd actually be glad someone found a use for my now purposeless flesh.

besides, is it rape if the person is an inanimate object? thats like saying you could rape a statue.



I'm not surprised, frankly Well, sociopathy isn't really understood. There are some people who are born with no conscientious at all, with no ability to differentiate between the concepts of what we consider right and wrong, and there are those that understand them, but feel no need to restrict their actions because of them. They have tested people who they believe show an abnormality that exhibit the signs of sociopathy, but there really isn't a test to determine it, like you would a virus, for example.

Again, they don't know. There have been some cases where very young children with no cases of abuse or neglect show the symptoms of sociopathy, and there are those who have been mistrusted and end up being sociopaths. Like with most things, it's probably a combination of nature and nurture.

Yes, if the general populous did not have some kind of moral coherency we couldn't function, however, the case was made in the book that a sociopath would be able to manipulate those around them to attain their own goals. For the few I'd say that makes them the mental "apex predator". Which I think is what you're getting at.

It just gives a general idea of how a sociopath would approach situations. Both laws and socially held moral beliefs. For instance, a non-violent sociopath has no problem with intentionally bankrupting people living them homeless, or giving cancer patients water instead of chemo if they don't think they would be caught. These are both morally and legally wrong.

It sounds like you want me to rape you first. I'll oblige.

Personally, because I care about others. The happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to me such that I would seek, when possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering.

I practice morality when's it convenient to do so.

For threat title; not everybody thinks like this.

Afterlife is just one aspect to consider and is a motivational factor for the living to reform themselves.

Morality is actually beneficial to living.

To the individual or to society?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
To the individual or to society?
Both

I get the society one, but how so for the individual?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I get the society one, but how so for the individual?
Acceptance of morality at individual level is vital for its acceptance at societal level.

For a majority. But what about for the minority who don't, but who would still define their life as wonderful explicitly because they defy the morality of others?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
For a majority. But what about for the minority who don't, but who would still define their life as wonderful explicitly because they defy the morality of others?
Solution lay in education.

What if they are educated, but still they view your description of morality as false, or erroneous?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What if they are educated, but still they view your description of morality as false, or erroneous?
They need to be educated on morality. Having professional degrees is not the point here.

Yes, and what if they are educated on morality. They know all about, but still do not view morality as factual, as you do?

All I can say is that I don't believe in an afterlife, so all my good deeds can be tracked down to compassion and humility.

Nah, you're probably just a hippie. Stop hugging trees ya pinko.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Nah, you're probably just a hippie. Stop hugging trees ya pinko.
I piss at the ashes of trees.

Here's why I practice it;

What is "the choice of eternity" supposed to be?

Originally posted by Oliver North
morality is almost certainly based on genetics. More superfluous things, like wardrobe laws or dietary concerns are probably a reflection of culture (and generally outside of what the OP is talking about anyways), but the more core "moral" issues (theft, rape, murder, etc) are nearly assuredly a product of natural selection.

There is an arms race between social regulation of behaviour and an individual's ability to deceive the group, but studies tend to show people have an innate sense of fairness that transcends being observed by others. A "ring-of-gyges" scenario may produce a person somewhat more inclined to violate others for personal gain, it certainly wouldn't change their individual moral code.

this is accurate, of course, but culture largely modulates our perception of the world and the expressions of our pre-moral emotions and motivations too. it's not just superfluous judgements of value that reflect culture.

Contentiously to Oliver North's thesis, genetic influences in behavior can be, and most often are, overwritten before an action is taken.

A man is measured by his words, his deeds, and his heart, not his birth or circumstance. The ability to reason separates man from beast.

Originally posted by Dolos
Contentiously to Oliver North's thesis, genetic influences in behavior can be, and most often are, overwritten before an action is taken.

How do you know this?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do you know this?

What I meant was that morality is mainly the result of conquering primitive responses and instinctual reactions and behaviors from day to day.

Humans are infinitely more patient and compromising than our chimp ancestors. We have incredible control over our emotions. It has become a eugenic quality...to an extent.

By comparison to a human, a chimp wouldn't tolerate being laughed at by a person under any circumstance, he'd attack with extremely brutal violence. Not many people are capable of such things, and certainly most of the human population can control that kind of savagery effortlessly.

Originally posted by Dolos
What I meant was that morality is mainly the result of conquering primitive responses and instinctual reactions and behaviors from day to day.

That's a difficult claim to support.

Rhetorically, an opponent can always defend by saying "that moral response was evolutionary selected for." (Making a persuasive argument that morality is beneficial is extremely easy, I might add). Similarly they can always attack by pointing to similar behavior in animals. Discipline exists in many animal species, which can be interpreted as a sense of "that is bad".

Originally posted by Dolos
Humans are infinitely more patient and compromising than our chimp ancestors. We have incredible control over our emotions. It has become a eugenic quality...to an extent.

Right, I get what you're saying but why do you believe it? What is your evidence?

Again, I could point to experimental examples of people being influenced by their emotions but I think you'd have trouble finding a similarly rigorous example of people controlling their emotions.

Originally posted by Dolos
By comparison to a human, a chimp wouldn't tolerate being laughed at by a person under any circumstance, he'd attack with extremely brutal violence. Not many people are capable of such things, and certainly most of the human population can control that kind of savagery effortlessly.

Chimps can apply restraint and I think most people would deny feeling the need to kill a person who laughs at them.

Originally posted by Dolos
By comparison to a human, a chimp wouldn't tolerate being laughed at by a person under any circumstance, he'd attack with extremely brutal violence. Not many people are capable of such things, and certainly most of the human population can control that kind of savagery effortlessly. Is that practising morality, or practising restraint for the sake of not shaming yourself by breaking social taboos?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Is that practising morality, or practising restraint for the sake of not shaming yourself by breaking social taboos?
Yes, it is a simple matter of basic human restraint that most chimps wouldn't do, especially chimps with little exposure to people.

Then you have a whole other level of restraint and discipline that has allowed men and women to survive gruesome situations throughout history. Reason has allowed for compromise, for progress.

Originally posted by Dolos
What I meant was that morality is mainly the result of conquering primitive responses and instinctual reactions and behaviors from day to day.

Humans are infinitely more patient and compromising than our chimp ancestors. We have incredible control over our emotions. It has become a eugenic quality...to an extent. morality is the product of exercising primitive responses and instinctual reactions. though you'd be right to say that empathy, compassion and various forms of love evolved much later than baser self-preservation drives, it's easy to argue new forms of selfish behavior have likewise evolved after the emergence of pre-moral emotions in the primates lineage.

primate? well that explains why you sound like a monkey. lol

Originally posted by 753
morality is the product of exercising primitive responses and instinctual reactions. though you'd be right to say that empathy, compassion and various forms of love evolved much later than baser self-preservation drives, it's easy to argue new forms of selfish behavior have likewise evolved after the emergence of pre-moral emotions in the primates lineage.

primate..., Well that explains why you sound like a monkey. lol

Maybe a better name for this thread would be 'What's the source of our instinct/choice to practice morality?' Which kind of brings up the question 'is morality an instinct, or a choice (are people inherently kind, or cruel)?' Anyway, I think there are a lot of reasons we bother following rules or having any affection for someone without an obvious advantage to ourselves:

1. Divine punishment/reward; like karma, or an afterlife. A higher power, a god of some sort affecting you, positively or negatively. Probably more of a choice than instinct in most cases.

2. Legal punishment. Nobody wants to risk being caught and experiencing that immediate, tangible discipline. Plus, a lot of crimes are dangerous in themselves, so a threat to both life and comfort. People who do commit crimes often think they can evade the law, or just don't consider it as a factor.

3. Punishment or reward from other people involved. Like if you suddenly punched someone in the jaw, they wouldn't be very friendly toward you afterwards. They might become dangerous. If you pay someone back the money you owe them, you will gain trust and have a better chance of being lent money again. When you are polite and build friendships, you have more of a social cushion.

4. Conservation of genes; i.e. oxytocin released in mother's brains when they have a newborn child, giving them a compulsive need to protect them and nurture them. That's just natural insurance that every species has as a system of survival. So the desire to love, help, and shelter relatives is pretty easy to explain.

5. ???
There are some things that don't seem to have any advantage to us, short term or long term. Say, for example, you saw an old lady you had never met before trying to move heavy crates, so you help her move a few (specifically if you were an atheist and didn't expect a reward from anyone, earthly or otherwise; and, yes, there are atheists who are very selfless people). There's no real benefit, you just get a warm, satisfied feeling (cheesy as that is). Or when you watch a gory movie and cringe when your favorite character gets mauled. When you pet an animal (that will never give you anything back but fairly simple affection) just to hear it purr. I don't know, maybe it's resonances from instincts to preserve our genetic makeup and comfort left over from an old compulsion to survive. Maybe people are good.

I can personally say that has not had any factor on my decision to do good or say what I believe right, contemplating the impact my actions has on others simply provides it's own reasoning for me, it seems to me that for the most part, we see doing right by others as a means to ensure our continued survival through a better co-operation, there is strength and support in numbers.
The way I see it this is logically the best choice when it is an option, if everybody comes out on top then it is surely better than one where the survivors are on top.
Humans think in logical and instinctually, with emotions and gut reactions.

An interesting thing is that insects have made instincts out of complex logical and mathematical problems, which require humans years to learn.

But in a way every animal has instincts like this only the equations for aerodynamics are replaced with the slightly different equations for swimming underwater. brains reason and think with numbers and patterns which we are just the concious that it uses to interpret reality. In a sort the mind we think we have is really the vassal of our subconscious which is just energy being shot around molecules.

And you know what? It's flip freaking fantastically wonderful. Life is surely it's own reward, if you pay attention dullness will never be on your mind.

There are consequences to being an immoral prick in real life.

That's why you have to be sneaky with your immorality.