[AntiImperialis2]

>Emotions are how we humans do morality.

First of all, there is no such thing as "morality". It's just a way for elites to control commoners so that they behave in predictable ways.

Emotions are responses that help us learn and survive.

Anger is one such emotion. It helps us destroy enemies. But it can also make us short-sighted and do things that are not good in the long run, so when it happens, we need to take our time before we do something... but that's a different discussion.

There is no "morality" on stealing or anything. What if the thing you're stealing from me today was something I stole from you yesterday? Would it still be "immoral"? What if my great grandfather stole from your great grandfather many years ago and you steal it back today? What if the transactions aren't that simple? What if the stealing happened in a much more complicated structure thoughout many generations in a network of billions of people?

Nothing belongs to nobody. People take whatever they can get away with. There are rules you have to make up and enforce if you're in the business of benefiting from mass compliance. For everyone else, you follow those rules because otherwise the elites will come for you. There's no reason to complicate this (except of course you are among the elites, in which case you have to, to make sure the masses are predictable).

[kleer001]

> First of all, there is no such thing as "morality".

There is absolutely a solid sense of morality baked into (at the very least) primate brains.

Give this a read. The science is solid:

https://righteousmind.com/

Or this if you're impatient:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

> Nothing belongs to nobody. People take whatever they can get away with.

What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

[claudiawerner]

>What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

I'm only somewhat subscribe to one of those philosophies and none of them are treated very charitably by you. Besides that, as much as I disagree with the statement you're replying to, it's not a philosophy, it's an empirical statement. Whether people take whatever they can get away with is irrelevant to whether they should do so.

By the way, none of those philosophies assume GP's argument.

>There is absolutely a solid sense of morality baked into (at the very least) primate brains.

Moral anti-realists will tell you this isn't a very convincing argument. The fact that people believe in morality does not mean we have access to the world of moral facts. Moral facts are supposed to motivate us inherently, which is a perculiar quality for a fact to have.

[adjkant]

> What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

Not OP but I assumed this was a version of nihilistic error theory that led to the "no such thing as morality" and then from there erases all idea of ownership or rights or anything. From there it's all just a dog eat dog jungle view of all of the world and maybe you sprinkle in some Hobbesian views of the social contract.

I'll pass but there's at least potential consistency in this morbid view of the world!

[claudiawerner]

It's worth noting that the error theory only erases the objectivity of moral statements. It does not provide any way forward in itself. Most moral error theorists actually subscribe to the idea that we should pretend that morality is real in most instances. This is known as moral fictionalism. There are several other ways forward. Some, for instance, say that we now have more freedom to experiment with "morality" given that we are no longer governed by it.

Only Stirner and "moral abolitionists" believe we should stop talking in moral terms. Once the moral error theory is accepted, it's only a matter of practicality as to what one should do with moral statements and sentiments.

As such, there's plenty of room for other statements not based in morality - ones from practicality, and normative statements which are not facts, but personal opinions.

I can still think murder is wrong; I can still argue for there to be laws against murder, and I can still be horrified by it. What I can't say is that murder is wrong (in the moral sense) for everyone everywhere, and that by murdering you are contrevening a universal law. There is no commandment (says the moral error theorist), moral, religious, or otherwise, that we must obey.

[adjkant]

Oh, I'm an error theorist myself, no need to tell me! The key modifier there for me was "nihilistic" error theory, aka one that gives up on making sense of a world without an "objective" morality. No intention of calling error theory generally crazy or unhinged. In some ways I feel bad for OP - the view seems quite unhinged when read together, but really I would view it as one misstep/lack of step on the way to interesting truth.

FWIW, my personal way forward is something like determinism + moral psychology + Rawls theory of justice if that makes any sense.

Based on this thread plus your bio Spinoza quote I'm guessing we likely align on a good deal :)

[AntiImperialis2]

>the view seems quite unhinged when read together, but really I would view it as one misstep/lack of step on the way to interesting truth.

Why "unhinged"? I don't know philosophy and English is not my language but I'll try to generalize:

Living organisms take resources that they can, specially if there's a net positive gain from it. This happens because those that gain the most net positive tend to reproduce more and hence these traits (i.e. tendency to take resources which are a net benefit) gets passed on. Does evolutionary theory disagree with this?

Humans are just a special (as opposed to general, I don't believe there's anything "special" special about humans) case of it.

Let's say that there were just two human tribes. If the tribes are not equally powerful, the powerful one will kill most of them and take all the resources and the women.

Let's imagine a case where they are almost equally powerful. Then, conflict would cause mutual destruction and it makes it worth it to have an understanding between them... in which they don't kill each other and not take each others' stuff.

You could argue such cost benefits between families in tribes or individuals in families from the same framework.

None of this needs "morality". You could argue that the very set of rules which make for an optimal balance between individual, family, tribal and inter-tribal interests is in fact "morality"... but when the resources and the power balance changes, whatever "morals" people thought existed will disappear and will be replaced by new set of "morals".

[kleer001]

What we say is how we act.

The way you talk makes you sound like someone who would be an awful pain in the ass to be around. Pedantic and half baked.

While technically correct your analysis is only half formed.

You have much more reading to do.

Start with these books to get a clearer idea of why you're getting a negative response to your honestly held beliefs:

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman

And some extra credit:

Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[adjkant]

> If the tribes are not equally powerful, the powerful one will kill most of them and take all the resources and the women.

This simply doesn't describe humanity, nor many species of animals.

Yes, humanity is selfish and will do many things for self preservation. But we also have a large capacity for empathy and collaboration. Not everything traces back to those either even if you try to just say the modern world is a more complex version of this. Love is a classic example people point to of selflessness being instinctually in humans.

At its core, you are getting downvoted because you have a very negative view of humanity that is both inaccurate and harmful if applied. To extend that "no morality, nothing belongs to anybody" mindset just ends up with a worse world for no reason. This "you follow those rules because otherwise the elites will come for you" idea also just seems like conspiracy type handwaving, and I say this as someone who's plenty anti-imperialist and the like myself.

Would you also not be concerned to be around someone who implies they would do whatever they please even it it harmed you but the thing stopping them is society? To me, that seems like someone who is neither empathetic or social and I, as a social and empathetic person, would avoid that and hope they don't harm others. You may not have meant to imply that, but it kinda reads that way.

When you ask questions like:

> What if the thing you're stealing from me today was something I stole from you yesterday? Would it still be "immoral"? What if my great grandfather stole from your great grandfather many years ago and you steal it back today? What if the transactions aren't that simple? What if the stealing happened in a much more complicated structure throughout many generations in a network of billions of people?

You aren't showing that morality doesn't exist, you're pointing out its complexity. Moral questions are at the center of nearly all social and political debate. It's hard to get agreement!

But going back to your latest post:

> You could argue such cost benefits between families in tribes or individuals in families from the same framework.

Okay, why don't we? What about the tribe of all humanity, or of all living things? One big flaw in your logic is that life is not a zero sum game, and that's one thing that makes collaboration worthwhile.

Why do you think so many people would be guilty after killing someone? Because again, humans have empathy and other capacities that make them care about certain things. Yes, some humans like sociopaths/psychopaths can lack this, but that doesn't invalidate that its present in most, though it can create a wrinkle in the rules being so straightforward.

> You could argue that the very set of rules which make for an optimal balance between individual, family, tribal and inter-tribal interests is in fact "morality"

See, I actually more or less agree here. I think that set of rules is more or less an objective set you can derive from human psychology (see moral psychology above) and that if you change what humans are, you also change morality. Most renditions of human civilization and history support that - we didn't all, across the globe, just magically agree that senseless murder is bad - it was baked into humanity.

> but when the resources and the power balance changes, whatever "morals" people thought existed will disappear and will be replaced by new set of "morals"

You're mixing law and morality here. Laws can change or come and go, but morality (at least an objective view of one) is true or false regardless of the circumstances it exists in (again, beyond changes to human nature). That's one option. Some ascribe to subjectivism instead, which you might. But that's still morality!

This is a decent basic overview starting point of meta-ethics (what grounds ethics/morality) if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOoffXFpAlU

PS: Sorry about talking about you but not engaging. It was frankly hard to tell if it was an actual belief or a troll at first, and addressing all of this takes some energy. I don't mean to condescend either so know that's not my intention if it reads like that!

[tomcam]

> What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

I'm aligned with you in principle but perhaps you could phrase this in a kinder way.

[kleer001]

I had a good think about your comment.

Certainly any comment could be phrased in a kind way. That's the thought behind Non Violent Communication from Marshal Rosenberg (may he rest in peace). Which, is great when the stakes are high and good faith abounds. But, online with anonymous users with dubious motives, the method falls apart.

Additionally not everyone subscribes to the "Prevent any and all possible harm." moral philosophy. I certainly don't. Prevent unnecessary bodily suffering, sure. But protect the possible feelings of a bold misguided fellow. Not so much in this context.

[AntiImperialis2]

>There is absolutely a solid sense of morality baked into (at the very least) primate brains.

No, there isn't.

>Give this a read. The science is solid:

https://righteousmind.com/

"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion?". Hmm...

So, from your comment, I'm guessing that the answer in the book to the question in the subtitle is that there is some baked in "morality" in us, that evolution gave us? If so, that's extremely misguided.

If there was such a thing, it would be at least somewhat similar across all human tribes and cultures. That's not the case at all. It's vastly different throughout history and across cultures because these things have everything to do with power dynamics and resource distribution.

>https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg

And? Monkeys have hierarchies. If they repeated this experiment but swappped the monkeys, it would turn out differently. The experiment is designed and orchestrated to show some sort of "equal pay" nonsense. What is happening is that the monkey on the left is socially higher than the one on the right... and hence it is used to claiming better food for itself first. When it sees the other one gets it, it gets pissed off. When these higher ups get injured, get sick or get old, someone else claims the status. It's all power dynamics and fight over resources. It has nothing to do with "morality".

> What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

I don't know what your western intellectuals call it but if I were to translate it to English, it would roughly translate to "reality".

[kleer001]

One last comment because you seem young and confused:

Don't give up on acquiring knowledge. It seems like you think you have all the answers. That's just your low resolution view of the world. And it's sad to see such an obviously motivated and excited child with such an impoverished perspective of the world.

People have been struggling for thousands of years with the very topics you say to have already mastered. This is the ignorance you're getting down voted for.

> If there was such a thing, it would be at least somewhat similar across all human tribes and cultures.

It is. Read the book. Look into his data.

How can you even jump to conclusions without reading the source?

Do you see how it looks like you're trolling?

You might also want to read Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker.

[kleer001]

> would roughly translate to "reality".

Objective reality includes negotiated sapient constructs like morality, money, ownership, and hierarchies. They're tools. Tools are real.

You might be thinking of Nihilistic Materialism, or something like that which thinks that material objects are the only reality.

Babies also display moral intuitions.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/inde...