12-11-2004 08:32									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It doesn't matter. If a ruler decides to promote rules which conflict with basic human norms, then that society doesn't last very long. No society which has violated the basic rules of humanity lasts more than a short period of time. Basic morality isn't arbitrary. It is ingrained in our nature. Those actions which enhance social bonds reinforce the group and strengthen it and make it more able to survive. The reverse does the opposite. We just happen to label those actions which enhance social bonding as "good" and the reverse as "bad." Alex's quote from Nitzsche is pretty much on the mark. So we call these rules morals, but they aren't really. They are survival traits. When you get to more advanced "morality" like whether abortion is good or bad, only the Emperor can wear yellow (in China) or purple (in Europe), etc., you're in a whole different discussion.

Subjects under rule have their own interests, and they know what moral codes will help them achieve those interests. However, most people don't have the capability to understand the power structures of society and how morality affects society. They simply accept what they have been socialized too accept.

Now if a movement comes along that challenges the accepted morality, and that movement has charasmatic, brave leaders. Those leaders can influence people. They have a kind of power. Usually, however, the rulers prevail in maintaining their moral code.

People will accept all kinds of moral codes that are not in their interest, and which most reasonable people would not accept in other cultures, as long as rulers have enough power and they use it wisely.

When kids get to a certain age, I think around 4 or 5, they seek out order. They readily obey their leaders (parents, teachers etc.). Kids who don't get in a lot of trouble, and pay the price.

	12-11-2004 08:37									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That's not true. People who have no conscience are quite rare and actually have a psychological condition refered to variously as: psychopathy, sociopathy, or disassociative behavior. Conscience is a fancy word for empathy, and empthay is another one of those important survival traits. Without it, we wouldn't care for other members of our social groups, and we'd have never survived.

To me conscience means having your own sense of right and wrong. To me people with a true conscience are able to choose what is right and wrong for themselves. When authority figures tell them what is right and wrong them are able to question it. Most people don't have this ability. They can be conditioned, or socialized, to accept any morality.

	12-11-2004 08:41									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Subjects under rule have their own interests, and they know what moral codes will help them achieve those interests. However, most people don't have the capability to understand the power structures of society and how morality affects society.

Irrelevent. The question is the origin of morals. Basic morality does not originate with rulers. If that were the source of morality, then morality would be as arbitrary as language, philosophy, and religion. The fact that nearly every human society has the same basic morality tells us that it comes from something more deeply ingrained than the arbitrary whims of a despot.

Basic morality is the profound and yet simple stuff: do no harm to others, do not kill, help thoe in need, honor your parents, do not steal, do not cheat with anothers mate, do not lie, etc. Why are these morals universal? Because any human society which allowed these rules would quickly break down and be overwhelmed by others forces, natural or human. Anything which helps the group survive is good. Anything which hinders group survival is bad.

	12-11-2004 08:45									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious To me conscience means having your own sense of right and wrong. To me people with a true conscience are able to choose what is right and wrong for themselves. When authority figures tell them what is right and wrong them are able to question it. Most people don't have this ability. They can be conditioned, or socialized, to accept any morality.

You have a very Randian view of humanity. The fact is, we are social creatures. Of course we get our morality from others. That's natural. We learn everything from each other, including morality. I get my morality from others. I may have a better understanding of its origins, but I share the same basic morals as those who are my poltical opponents. Justn cuz I don't think it was given to some guy by his invisible friend doesn't mean they aren't good ideas.

	12-11-2004 08:50									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I just took a big test, and I've been studying Accounting all day. Too tired right now, but I'll get back to this. It's interesting so far.

	12-11-2004 09:41									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Yes, rulers like to have things.

PEOPLE like to have things, whether they're the mightiest king or the lowliest serf.

quote: They like also like to maintain their power. It is in their interest to use their power to influence their subjects values.

So do you think that the earliest socieites were run by terrible and wonderful philosopher-kings? Wise enough that they created these ways to living out of nothing except for a self interest to keep power? How did they get their power in the first place? By your way of thinking, the first rulers had to come out of a society in which there was no morality and therefore no concept of moral behavior or any other guidelines for human interaction. (after all, how could people have morals if there were no leaders?) They were lucky that they had any subjects over which to rule, with there being nothing to prevent people from killing each other for any reason. These first rulers must have been visionaries to be able to determine two things : that there needed to be a code to allow them to rule over people AND to determine what types of things that code should consist of. That would be a tough task for the would be ruler, as no such code existed before. This scenario of a ruler developed morality does not seem plausible

I think a more reasonable explanation is that morality developed between people as society developed. Its hard to work together if your partner might kill you at any second. People had to work together to survive, and the first moral codes arose from their working relationships. Yes, later on in the process of social evolution rulers used morality to create laws designed keep subjects in line, but the basis of those legal systems developed before their was a master-subject system.

	12-11-2004 09:47									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Whether I believe in their morals has nothing to do with it.

Can you just answer the question please? If you don't think it was moral for a king to slaughter people, then morals were not the basis of that rule.

quote: My point is that their morals are accepted by society to the extent that they had the power to make that so.

Were their morals, moral? If not, what's the point of arguing that society's rules were based on morals imposed by rulers who were immoral?

And if you say no, that system was immoral because it was an oligarchy, then would you argue that morality is defined by a democratic system? What's the difference? More people, the majority gets to decide how to define morality? Well, I go a step further. I think that virtually everyone agreeing on a definition of morality is better than a simple majority.

	12-11-2004 09:54									#38
	Support Apolyton

quote: Where did morals come from?

Mine have 'Made in Taiwan' stamped on the side.

	12-11-2004 11:58									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The basic stuff is innate, to help humans live in modest social groupings. But to live in the complex societies we have now, we've had to invent lots of new social arrangements. It's just as well humans invent things like crazy, then.

	12-11-2004 14:33									#40
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Japher Law --> Moral Moral --> Law

I think it is a wrong question. Law and moral are intertwined, and are two forms (among others) of the regulation of human behaviour.

A society must have rules to function correctly, and these rules must be obeyed. Obediance to the rules can come from fear of punishment, from fear of supranatural punishment, or from agreement with the rules (= rules that appear as legitimate).

Moral is a way to make rules appear as legitimate. It's a great way to have unenforceable rules obeyed. In older times, the moral-derived legitimacy and the fear of supranatural punishment were the best ways to have the rules obeyed, because those societies insitutional power (king, State...) had far fewer means to enforce those rules than today.

	12-11-2004 21:41									#41
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Wycoff PEOPLE like to have things, whether they're the mightiest king or the lowliest serf.

That's not true. People only started to like to have things after the artificial concept of "posession" had been developed. Before that, people happily live in communes where everything was shared.

IIRC, the African Bushmen still live like that, even today.

	12-11-2004 23:24									#42
	Inflate your Upload Space

Nature's sieve. You don't get a society without rules even though rules aren't society and society isn't a set of rules. Rules and society evolve in tandem, influencing each other's development.

Secular humanism uber alles!

	12-11-2004 23:35									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I would say that morals come from the desire of people to avoid disharmony within society and to be seen as regular people.

The need for recognition as a human being seems inbuilt from child hood.

Perhaps fear of shame is the origin of morals?

All quite distinct from rules and regulations laid down...

	13-11-2004 00:29									#44
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger That's not true. People only started to like to have things after the artificial concept of "posession" had been developed. Before that, people happily live in communes where everything was shared.

I don't buy that. It sounds like a Communist version of the Garden of Eden, a Communist version of the perfect world that existed prior to some fall from grace. Whereas Christians and Jews would have us believe humanity fell from grace when man disobeyed God, Communists would have us believe that man fell from grace when someone came up with the idea of personal property. Both stories give man a basis for a perfect society that we should work to regain. They're myths designed to give the rest of the doctrine a purpose.

Toddlers and animals take possession of thing. One of my dogs has a toy that he doesn't let the other dogs touch. Has he been "corrupted" by some artificial construct? No.

quote: IIRC, the African Bushmen still live like that, even today.

I've never seen evidence that any society has ever had no personal property. They may share things, they may pool resources, but they still take some objects for themselves, objects that don't lend themselves to be shared. For example, a bushman finds a colorful feather that would be useful for personal decoration. This feather isn't something that can be divided. Its a single unit. He goes back to the tribal home. Does he then go back and set up some sharing schedule to ensure that each tribesman who wants to could equally adorn themselves with that feather, or does the bushman go back wearing that feather, proud of his new find?

I don't think its clear that he would automatically share this thing. He may share it, but, since the value of the object lies in personal adornment rather than some other survival value, he'd likely keep it. The value of adornment is that it differentiates you from others. This value would disappear if the man would give the feather for communal use. Just like my dog guards his toy or a toddler would guard something it found, the primitive man would guard his find. This discovery hypothetical is something that would happen frequently in a wilderness based society. People would naturally pick things up that they find in the woods. Would they then always and uniformly give up any of their findings to some commercial pot? I doubt it. I think that there's always been private property of some sort.

	13-11-2004 00:34									#45
	Put an end to popups!

Morals are prescriptions for determining whether social interactions are beneficial or not, and come directly from our minds (particularly, our sense of empathy and the reasoning that follows from it), but are certainly shaped by the society we live in and its common wisdom to some extent.

	13-11-2004 00:38									#46
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I don't buy that. It sounds like a Communist version of the Garden of Eden, a Communist version of the perfect world that existed prior to some fall from grace. Whereas Christians and Jews would have us believe humanity fell from grace when man disobeyed God, Communists would have us believe that man fell from grace when someone came up with the idea of personal property. Both stories give man a basis for a perfect society that we should work to regain. They're myths designed to give the rest of the doctrine a purpose.

Actually, I believe Daniel Quinn's theory on the fall from grace. Humans lived within the ecological system just like any other organism. Then, they ate the apple that made them like God. They became aware of the nakedness, etc. This represents them discovering that if they become sedentary agrarians, they can step out of the system and instead control it. In essence, they were becoming God by doing this. This is what eating that apple was.

" LAND, n.
A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of _terra firma_ is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist." - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

"Property is theft." - Pierre Joseph Proudhon

I will say that yes, some form of private property has always been allowed, but not much, and once property got to be a major concept and everything became property, that is when utopia turned to hell. Read my sig.

	13-11-2004 00:46									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Irrelevent. The question is the origin of morals. Basic morality does not originate with rulers. If that were the source of morality, then morality would be as arbitrary as language, philosophy, and religion.

It is just as arbitrary.

quote: The fact that nearly every human society has the same basic morality tells us that it comes from something more deeply ingrained than the arbitrary whims of a despot.

First of all, every human society does not have the same 'basic' morality. Second, where ever societies have similar morality, that does not prove your point.

quote: Basic morality is the profound and yet simple stuff: do no harm to others, do not kill, help thoe in need, honor your parents, do not steal, do not cheat with anothers mate, do not lie, etc. Why are these morals universal?

Those morals aren't universal at all. Those morals are only common with those who find them either beneficial or blindly accept the ethics of the group that they are a part of.

quote: Because any human society which allowed these rules would quickly break down and be overwhelmed by others forces, natural or human. Anything which helps the group survive is good. Anything which hinders group survival is bad.

No it wouldn't. Even if that were true all that it would show is that the ruler is dependent on his subjects, and any moral code enforced on the subjects would therefore be beneficial to the rulers. The morals that you have listed are not always beneficial to the rulers of a society though. Rulers can make up variations to those morals, justify them, institutionalise them, and make the variation part of that societies ethical code. There are many examples of that in the real world and throughout history.

	13-11-2004 00:54									#48
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You have a very Randian view of humanity.

Marx believed in rational self-interest comrad. He believed that the self-interest of the working class would lead to communism. I believe in that assumption. Yes.

quote: The fact is, we are social creatures. Of course we get our morality from others. That's natural. We learn everything from each other, including morality. I get my morality from others. I may have a better understanding of its origins, but I share the same basic morals as those who are my poltical opponents. Justn cuz I don't think it was given to some guy by his invisible friend doesn't mean they aren't good ideas.

The thing is that people with power over you have much more influence over you than just someone who doesn't have any power over you because you are dependent on him. And if you are an everyday Joe, and he has charisma you are going to follow him even more.

	13-11-2004 00:59									#49
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by johncmcleod Actually, I believe Daniel Quinn's theory on the fall from grace. Humans lived within the ecological system just like any other organism. Then, they ate the apple that made them like God. They became aware of the nakedness, etc. This represents them discovering that if they become sedentary agrarians, they can step out of the system and instead control it. In essence, they were becoming God by doing this. This is what eating that apple was.

We still live within the ecological system. Human intelligence developed naturally. Progess is a function of our intellect. Progress didn't take us "out" of the ecological system. People weren't stepping out of the system when they became farmers, they were using their natural talents and adapting them to fit the world around them, just like any other organism. Our society is just as natural as any other animal society.

	13-11-2004 01:04									#50
	Got spare money?

quote: Communists would have us believe that man fell from grace when someone came up with the idea of personal property.

They're pretty clear that each stage is superior to the one preceding it.

Anyway, personal trinkets are quite different from ownership of land, factories, patents etc.

	13-11-2004 01:04									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Can you just answer the question please? If you don't think it was moral for a king to slaughter people, then morals were not the basis of that rule.

I'm not arguing that there is a true morality, but a universal morality there is not. People have morals that benefit them. That's human nature. Their morals may not be right, but they are morals.

quote: Were their morals, moral? If not, what's the point of arguing that society's rules were based on morals imposed by rulers who were immoral?

They are moral according to the rulers, but not necessarily moral for me. Yes, people CAN have different morals.

quote: And if you say no, that system was immoral because it was an oligarchy, then would you argue that morality is defined by a democratic system? [QUOTE] I'm not saying either of those things. [QUOTE] What's the difference? More people, the majority gets to decide how to define morality? Well, I go a step further. I think that virtually everyone agreeing on a definition of morality is better than a simple majority.

I'll go for that, but when is everyone going to agree. I think the answer to that is when there are not rulers.

	13-11-2004 01:10									#52
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Anyway, personal trinkets are quite different from ownership of land, factories, patents etc.

Yes they are, but ownership of personal trinkets is first step to other types of ownership. Its hard to imagine a society in which there are no personal trinkets of any kind.

	13-11-2004 01:10									#53
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sandman They're pretty clear that each stage is superior to the one preceding it.

No. Only communism is better than the rest. Actually, some consider capitalism to be the worst, followed by feudalism, but you can't really say that that is most of us.

	13-11-2004 01:11									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Wycoff Our society is just as natural as any other animal society.

	13-11-2004 01:19									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious

What's not natural about it? Its all a product of humanity's natural traits. We used our natural traits to create a society. Other animals have socieites (take Chimps for example), ours is simply more advanced and complex. That complexity has developed from our intellect, a natural trait. Its not supernatural, unless you believe that humanity developed this way because of some supernatural influence.

	13-11-2004 01:35									#56
	Suffering from ads?

Here's the relevent part of the definition of nature that you are missing

quote: A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality:

	13-11-2004 01:53									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Here's the relevent part of the definition of nature that you are missing

I'm not "missing" it. There's more than one definition to natural. The synonym to the definition that you listed would be "primitive" or "wild" i the sense of untouched/ unchanged by man. I agree, our society is not primitive, and we have certainly changed the landscape.

However, nothing we have done has surpassed the bounds of nature. We've taken the traits that our species has developed over the millenia and applied them to the world around us. We've changed things; the world is not wild. However, we're still animals. We're still working with the tools that we've naturally developed. If some other species develops a level of intelligence capable of agriculture, then I'm sure they'll change the world as well. Just because we've modified other aspects of nature doesn't mean that we ourselves are unnatural.

We're still using the tools nature gave them to adapt the world around them in an effort to produce food and ensure the survival and continuation of the species. No matter what else humanity does, those things are still and forever will be our basic goals as a species. We've modified the wild landscape to help us more easily meet those goals. That doesn't make what we've done unnatural. Rather, that's the natural outcome of the use of the human intellect, our natural tool.

	13-11-2004 02:03									#58
	Got spare money?

If you don't include that part of the definition of 'nature' you really don't have a word at all. There's no use for it. Of course civilization is dictated by natural laws, and we have to follow them, however, we use the natural laws to change nature. So using the natural laws to change nature is not natural.

	13-11-2004 02:09									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It is inconceivable that a mammal wouldn't follow any sort of interiorized rules.

As social structures evolved, so did morals.

	13-11-2004 02:11									#60
	Tired of ads?

quote: Yes they are, but ownership of personal trinkets is first step to other types of ownership. Its hard to imagine a society in which there are no personal trinkets of any kind.

Those other types of ownership haven't 'always existed' and can not be justified by pointing to Bushmen, dogs and toddlers.

quote: No. Only communism is better than the rest. Actually, some consider capitalism to be the worst, followed by feudalism, but you can't really say that that is most of us.

What about socialism (in the Marxist use of the word)?