Originally posted by inimalist
and maybe some day you will come up with an internally consistent set of ethics that don't simply dismiss human suffering as if it were some abstract construct.or, use meme properly in a sentence
meme is used correctly, you are the mind viruses of your socialisation inimalist. I agree it's hard to have an original thought; but, try. Why is human suffering of any import to anyone? We are less than dust in the eyes of the Universe.
Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.amazon.ca/Meme-Machine-Susan-Blackmore/dp/019286212X
Yes, it agrees with me. Try and be original and think outside your memes.
Originally posted by inimalist
inimalist - 1
the anus - 0
Actually, i will continue to laugh at your lack of understanding. Memes are the sum total of our ideas through socialisation etc; however, how they interact within us is the difference. You allow yourself to repeat memes unfiltered rather than taking a step back from the idea itself and asking the question, does this meme (idea) need modification in light of the other memes (information) I have. For you, the reading is the learning, not the thinking and questiong of that reading. ;-) You are a concrete thinker that's cool, that's where your memes have led you.
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITassyou dont get it do you? people dont find behaviors right or wrong strictly because of surrounding social norms. they create their moral systems on their own in an interexchange with these norms, some embrace them wholly and or blindly while others reject them altoghether in favour of something else they create. the subjective nature of morality does not make it any less real or valid.
Back to topic, do you see the fluidity of morality? The subjective nature of innocence? I suspect not.. Although perhaps you will free your mind of the shackles imposed upon you by the memes of your parents.
the essence of a moral judgement is an emotional response to a certain behavior, rejecting or accepting it. if you are not capable of feeling these emotional responses that deem something repulsive or laudable and find all actions equivalent, that just means you're deffective. probably neurologically so.
Memes are a convenient little concept by dawkins, but one that doesn't really apply to reality.
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITassbecause empathy evolved among social animals. again, if you don't feel it at all, you're deffective, as in lacking an inherent capacity present in the overhelming majority of the species, not enlightened. Although you sound like you're just spilling pseudo-nihilism for shock value like a 14 year old would.
Why is human suffering of any import to anyone? We are less than dust in the eyes of the Universe.
Originally posted by inimalist
would I do what? things that I am morally against?no, morality has nothing to do with fear of punishment, but rather how to treat people eachother.
The things that I would do would be like smoking a j in my lab, or drinking in public, stuff that, to me, has little moral impact at all.
I wouldn't kill anyone or steal, that is wrong regardless
QFT
Originally posted by 753
because empathy evolved among social animals. again, if you don't feel it at all, you're deffective, as in lacking an inherent capacity present in the overhelming majority of the species, not enlightened. Although you sound like you're just spilling pseudo-nihilism for shock value like a 14 year old would.
The theory about the evolution of empathy is interesting and I think you're dead on about the shock value thing. If I wasn't going to get caught I'd expose every politician that didn't care about their people as the thieves that they are. I'd encourage people to protest violence and hatred. (something that will definitely get you killed if you get caught doing it in the wrong places)
i think empathy plays a vital role in morality, i.e. the golden rule, but in my mind self preservation is every bit as important as empathy
we find certain things 'wrong' not only because we feel bad for the victim, but because we project the idea of their suffering onto ourselves in the act of empathy. hence do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself.
we don't want murder because we don't want to be murdered. we don't want theft because we don't want to be stolen from. the empathy arises from the common interests of most people.
but we might not find some murders repulsive. we might not find some acts of theft repulsive. maybe instead we'll empathize with the murderers or the thieves in certain instances. most of us will still suggest that what they did was technically wrong, and that they should accept punishment.
i think this is because overall, self preservation trumps empathy in the moral equation. breeches of proper conduct cannot be condoned even if the reasons behind the crime might draw more empathy than the victim's suffering.