While it is entirely possible that we are born innately good (many religions claim this, actually), where does thing bring us?
What you are talking about is what I would call principle (li). How do you propose cultivating principle? Do you believe in a form of dualism, where principle is pure and the material world is impure? If not, how do you distinguish them?
What about seemingly innate traits that linger in the human mind? While racism, per se, is not innate, the desire to seperate ‘us’ from ‘not-us’ in innate in the human mind . . . so do we cultivate those desires as well? Where in this naturalistic framework, is the cut off point between the material world and the world of principle?
Where does this bring us? That kids are being taught corrupt morals and therefore corrupt ethics. Like I said before, kids are taught to hate and kill.
a babies first NATURAL response is to love and to cling. And that is too humans. How do the propagators get around this? Simple, the people that are hated are “sub-human” or “animals”. That’s why most “pro-love” groups are also “vegan”. I can understand where they are coming from. I think it’s silly though. Some animals clearly have more feelings than other animals. (but that’s really getting to far away from the main topic)
Look at the speech from modern propagators and historic ones. They always make the human that is being killed into a sub-human. It’s what the muslims do today, it’s what hitler did yesterday. It’s even what the abortion crowd does today. At no point before the baby leaves the woman’s body do they want it to be considered human. That’s contrary to morals, ethics, science and common sense.
Here’s another example for british muslims, “We will not kill UK citizens” then in the same breath, “We do not consider british who agree with Tony Blair to be UK citizens.”
It’s the game that is played with semantics to justify murder and make it moral. It’s still immoral to kill humans, so we just make them sub-human.
I certainly think dualism is possible, but I think you’ve got it backwards. i think the material world is pure, and it’s our principles that our flawed.
The desire for seperation is not innate. We have a desire to be together that can overcome the flawed principles we are taught. That’s why slave owners would frequently become attracted to their slaves, and many treated them better than they were treated in the “free” north. (hardly a condoning of slavery…)
Within large groups, you get sub-groups, and sub-sub-groups down to the individual level (actually, this is built in reverse, but that is neither here-nor-there).
We only care about people insofar as they relate to us. A child loves its mother because the mother is a source of love, warmth, and food. Many children are naturally afraid of strangers (see: shyness), which can innately be seen before the child is taught anything about not taking candy from strangers.
Even at that point we divide ourselves into groups.
So instead of telling me what you think, you’re going to send me off to TWO TWENTY PAGE PLUS documents on what these haughty professors think. That’s THEIR opinion Xunzian, not fact. And not your opinion.
The worst offense of all though, was that it was in the bastard PDF format.
BLEH.
This is again a learned process. We learn from our parents to only relate to those we have things in common with.
A child loves it’s mother regardless of whether the mother gives love. It’s the true condition of agape.
Again this is merely socialogical programming of how our parents interact with the world.
Because we are taught to.
before we continue Xunzy, you need to answer this:
The natural/material world is pure, we flaw it with our principles and flaw ourselves and others with principles.
Alun,
Like I said, if you truly don’t believe your principles are the best out there, why follow them? It’s the height of hubris. You pretend to be all open and tolerant and relative, “anything goes”,“who am I to say what’s right or wrong.” etc… But when it comes right down to it, you still have a defined set of principles. You merely use relativism and it’s suicidal, nihilistic goals, to destroy and attack established principles.
Am I way off base?
Your principles and mine are relative, but they are the ethics based on natural absolute moral law.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that the behavior of Islam is dangerous to the rest of the world, and they justify murder by de-humanising the rest of us to infidels.
I believe they’re the best for me; I tend to believe most of them are right in application to the external world, and even other people. But I also believe I can’t know they are, because they a inherently dependent and limited to my perspective. See the distinction? That said, it is the height of hubris in a sense. That’s the point. There is nothing besides yourself telling you to do anything; you rely wholly on your own senses to interpret the world and other people, and your thoughts to judge and describe them.
There’s a difference between being tolerant and being accepting, and I don’t even believe I’m totally tolerant. I’m quite sure I can snap, lose control, and otherwise act entirely selfishly, but I think it’s best if I analyze something anew with rational methods, rather than bias myself from the start. Once this is done, I either accept something or I don’t; I hold a definite view of the issue. But I still believe that my opinion is such, not absolute, again, because it’s wholly relative to my view.
Relativism doesn’t have goals. It’s an idea. I don’t use it that way.
Natural moral law might be absolute, as in it might exist (whether or not it does we cannot know absolutely), but are you saying it’s metaphysical–universal–or the result of natural processes? Is something wrong because it’s absolutely wrong to us, or because an absolutely wrong quality pertains to it?
Ok. But firstly, you’re talking about some Muslims, not all of them. The idea of Islam is relatively neutral in this conflict. Secondly, there are important forces in play that lead to the “infidels must burn” attitude aside from religion. As a relativist, I’m saying that radical Muslims aren’t wrong because they’re defying laws within the fabric of the universe, they’re wrong to us because they’re hurting us, and further saying that the radical Muslims are committing these wrongs because of their limited perspectives, not because they have decided they should be evil, or because they are evil.
Your principles are flawed as are mine. BUT, it doesn’t take a sociologist to tell you that you’re principals are still better than those that demand “death to the infidel”, or “death to gays”.
Don’t you think? If we focus on the flaws of our principles, we forget what makes our principles better than other principles. And truly, there are things better about our principles than about their principles.
Relativism is a joke for this very reason. YES, our principles and how we view the world is relative, but that does not mean we are so blinded by our own subjectivity that we can fail to be objective about others. IN fact, I would say we cannot afford to not be objective about others.
I agree. What I don’t agree with is that knowing this somehow excludes you from the ability to determine what is right and wrong within others.
Bias is rational. This goes back to what I said in another post. There are people out there committing heinous acts against humanity. These same people are muslim… Connect the dots?
I think from there, you can take two stances. That you can know the enemy through their words.* And we can tell by their actions.**
The other stance is to learn your enemy through their history. Read the quran and the hadith. Find out what a tolerant guy, mohammed was. Find out that Jihad IS war.
*) it’s like the cleric in that link says:
Islam is perfect. The quran is the un-errable word of god. Mohammed (PBUH) is the most perfect man to have ever lived.
Are you telling me that because our view of the world is subjective we cannot tell that this religion is pure madness aimed at destroying freedom and the world?
it’s an idea that makes it impossible to judge bad and dangerous behaviour in others. It’s an idea that lowers all ideas no matter how great they are to the lowest common denominator. It’s just like duder thinks, “The more I know, the less I know”
Why is knowledge such a bad thing? Why is having an opinion and expressing it along with concern such a bad thing? It’s like the honor killings (like the one that just happened in Italy.) Is it really that hard to determine that it’s a bad thing, regardless of what society it happens in? How long before it happens here, and CAIR and the ACLU fight for the honor killer under the guise of religious freedom?
good one.
Like I was explaining to Xunzy, things are wrong because we make them wrong. Like murder. Murder is only justified by lowering the humanity of others to the level of animals.
I think hatred and dislike (that don’t come about from knowledge. But I don’t hate muslims, I am wary of Islam.) are the same way.
BUT, if we agree there is a natural law, and come to an agreement on proper behavior the people that abuse the system become more obvious. Should we shirk from judging them?
Let’s say it’s 20% (which is the lowest statistic I’ve seen and it’s in the most moderate country, Turkey.) that support terrorism and would commit it. If Islam really has a populace of 1.3 billion people that is over 240 million people that are willing to blow themselves up along with anyone around them for their god.
Is 300 million “some”? Look at lebanon, the entire country stands behind the actions of Hizbollah. Look at the Imams in europe. All of them (and conversely all of their “choir”) support the actions of the terrorists.
The point?
#1) there is an obvious connection, between Islam and this type of behavior.
#2) instead of acknowledging the problem, the apologist tells you that “they are corrupting Islam”. Tell me why it’s so EASY to corrupt Islam!
#3) Where do you draw the line at “some”? I’d say 300 million is a whole lot more than some, and that’s a conservative estimate.
okay… like?
Let’s travel back in time:
Mohammed beheads 700 jews in medina courtyard. Calls jews infidels, repeatedly. (this is but one event in his illustrious career.)
The Islam empire expands rapidly through military conquest for “god”. They subjugate and kill many. The so called “golden age of Islam”, was merely a side effect of them taking over so many cultures. When there was no new knowledge to acquire, the empire collapsed upon itself.
The sunni and shia have ALWAYS been fighting with each other.
The ottoman empire (which existed in several different forms) was responsible for more intolerance and forcing jews and christians that weren’t killed to pay the “jizya”. The tax on non-muslims. (they still do this in several islam countries.)
The ottoman empire was responsible for starting the slave trade. They rounded up african tribesman and sold them off to the world… the rest of the world bears responsibility in purchasing the slaves, but the piracy acts from the same empire probably (and most likely did) instill fear in the rest of the world.
WW1 started with the “arab” empire attacking poland… becuase they wanted to subjugate the jews.
WW2 also involved the muslims. The Mufti of Egypt formed SS shock troops to help gather up Jews.
To say that this is not a religious problem, is to be completely blind to the history of the religion.
I hate the term evil…
I know they realize and think they are performing some great good. BUT, we both know that’s not the truth.
Let me put it this way. if your friend got wrapped up in Scientology, and Scientology ritualistically slaughtered spoiled virgins (honor killing) would you not try to help your friend see through the fog of religious lies?
Normally I would agree… live and let live.
problem is that only works if the other side agrees. They don’t.
**) Iran fired on a Romanian oil tanker this morning, and has taken it over probably killing all 30 people aboard.
Why would we have a discussion about opinions when we can back it up with experimental evidence that lends credence to our views? Without that, all we are doing is farting into the wind.
Now, had you read the papers, you would have seen that how an individual operates within a nested hierarchy is very different than how an individual works in a two-system hierarchy, is different than how an individual operates on an equal playing field.
Now, I think that hierarchies are the most natural things in the world. When we are born, there exists the hierarchy of parent/child. As we grow up that expands to the village hierarchy, which expands as far as the governmental system in play allows. This is wonderfully natural, as we can see similar hierarchies in other social animals.
Additionally, within those hierarchies, it is natural to exclude others for the sake of your own advancement (that would be the first paper). So, let’s get a synthesis here with the nested hierarchies and with the exclusionary activities of people in any sort of social situation . . . that says to me pretty clearly that the hierarchical system is 1) that which naturally arises and 2) is beyond memetics and into the realm of genetics.
As for your postulate that the natural world is pure and that principle is what is flawed. . . heh, you’d get along fine with the Daoists here. It is not a bad idea, I just think it is wrong. For it to be correct, then the genetic drive for hierarchy (as witnessed in all other social animals, save colony-animals but they are an exception I’d be happy to delve into) would have to be totally incorrect. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that it is. However, as with the whole nurture/nature debate, it gets very tricky to have a properly controlled experiment regarding it.
Though I must ask – are you proposing some sort of impartial caring here? What is the mechanism of your philosphy in action?
wrong, I read tons of books. I just finished “Why I am not A muslim” and “The dark night of the soul”.
I hate reading long documents on the computer screen. ESPECIALLY in the bastard PDF format.
Fine, next time pick something that’s not 22 pages long, refer to a book, or something not in PDF format.
I would still argue that such behavior is taught. What is advancement within the hierarchy anyways? WHAT makes it important?
Think about that. Why doesn’t everyone exclude others for the sake of advancement? Because we learn to exclude others, and we learn that advancement is important.
One thing I hate is that all behaviors are genetic. Do you think alcoholism is genetic?
Why is it so easily cured through behavioral modification then?
Let’s look at another example. Let’s take an indegenious people that is involved in cannibalism and take 2 children at birth. One we’d take from our society and transplant to theirs. The other we’d do the opposite to.
Do you honestly think they would retain any sort of “genetic” behavior?
They would become completely adapted to their new environment. NOW, I’m not saying that our brains aren’t built to deal with adapting to social programming, I’m saying that social programming doesn’t come from genetics. When we are born, we are socially a Tabula Rasa.
I usually do in some regards.
before you do that, answer my hypothesis above. Where we swapped babies.
If you want do it to a COMPLETELY different society. The inuit, from Alaska.
IMO, genetic behavior science is just the latest fad.
If you think hierarchies are taught, I guess then I have to ask how far down you think memes penetrate.
Are the hierarchies of eusocial insects taught? How about eusocial moles? What about the communal moles that preceeded them? And the slightly-less close-knit community of moles that preceeded them, down to the more individual moles who lacked any community beyond the occasional mating?
Where does teaching behaviour begin?
As for learning to exclude others for the sake of advancement . . . that has been going on since before there was anything approaching sentience on this planet. Lactobacilli can withstand a much more acidic environment than other organisms, so they pump out a bunch of acid. That is exclusionary behaviour. When a lion eats another lion’s cubs, that is exclusionary behaviour.
Now, if we look at other animals at a similar level of socialization to humans (canines and monkeys are good starting points) we see that those who are at the top of the hierarchy maximize their reproductive potential.
So, let’s think about this. The higher you are in the hierarchy, the more access to material goods you have. The more access to material goods you have, the better the chance that your offspring will survive and reach reproducing age. (side note: this becomes more extreme when things like polygyny are entered into the equation) Now, even though you might be very high in the system, there is always a danger that, because of your position, your offspring will be targeted. So, how do you maximize the chances that your genes get passed on? The nested hierarchy of the extended family pops out of this pretty quickly. This also works for the members lower in the hierarchy – the omega wolf might not be able to reproduce, but because the omega wolf is related to the rest of the pack, it will still serve the interests of the pack.
Now, I’m not the sort of genetic Calvinist who says that all of our actions are determined by our genes; however, our genes do give us predispositions. So, in answer to your alcoholism question, I do believe that certain people are born with a much greater predisposition towards alcoholism, whether or not it will manifest itself is an environmental concern.
As for your study regarding the children taken from the cannibalist tribe – yes, I do think they would manifest certain genetic behaviours. Might I refer you to twin studies? Now, these behaviours will be very much modified as to how they manifest in American culture vs. tribal culture, but the essence will remain.
Now, before you cry racism, it is worth noting that the genetic variation across the major ‘races’ (as an American defines them, since the study was headed by an American) have less variation between each other than they do within their own ‘race’. What this means is that it is highly unlikely for one’s genetic predispositions are linked to anything as simple as melanin production or epicanthal folds.
But I’d say that we disagree with people being born tabula rasa. Given the importance of society to humans, having social behaviours come built in provides a huge selective advantage because they create the nested hierarchies described above, as opposed to a series of individuals (see table 1 from Wit and Kerr paper for the advantages of this system). I would argue that the Milgram experiment also supports the idea that we have an innate respect for authority.
Hamsters are still like that (they are related to moles are they not)?
There is certainly some cultural interaction in built to our genes. But it’s just basic stuff, like on mating, peeing, pooping etc. And even they can be overwritten with social memes. Much like you can teach dogs and cats to poop in boxes, you can do the same with man. Does that mean our ability to know to poop in boxes (or toilets) is built in through genetics?
The question is, where does teaching behavior stop.
Not within every group… even among humans. The Inuit people don’t care about advancement. They don’t care about possessions.
That’s not a social response though…That’s like saying “men pee acidic to hold their territory” (we still do btw.) Yes it was a useful trait when we relied more upon purely genetic behavior. Social behavior (and it’s learned cultural traits) have over-rided genetic behavior…
Like going to the bathroom or having sex. Both are genetic behaviors. Both are ENGRAINED desires. BUT, we are taught that both behaviors are not appropriate for every situation. (and that’s why alcoholism is not genetic. You can only displace genetic behavior, not stop it.)
Would you say that Bill Gates has maximized his reproductive potential? With the amount of money he has, he could have any woman in the world.
Yet… he didn’t.
Then how did a society like the inuit evolve? IF, it is genetic, it would be there from the very beginning and it’d be impossible for such a society to come into existence.
(however if I did believe in such a thing, it’d be a great argument against socialism/communism.)
Family behavior may very well be genetic… That’s related to love, which if your an unfeeling/unspiritual person is purely for propagation purposes.
Completely disagree. “alcoholism” as a disease is a modern scapegoat for all sorts of genetic maladys. Including homosexuality. Statistics show that a maximum of 30 - 60% of homosexuals are that way by genetics. The rest is environmental.
But let’s take that a step further.
Do my genes predispose me to hate blacks?
Do my genes predispose me to be unsuccessful?
Do my genes predispose me to hate my parents?
I believe many of the things you are calling genetic are merely a byproduct of being passed down for generations. (through behavior.)
Completely disagree. If they were the same skin color, they would fit in perfectly, and act exactly how their parents taught them too.
I’ve seen twin studies, and their is certainly something interesting about twins… I personally think it is their “soul”. (yeah I know stupid agnostic god gap.) I think you could prove that by doing the above study with twins and without, and would find some very interesting results.
The twins would “act wierd” and the one in the city would act out in agressive violent and tribal ways, while the one in the tribe would not be tribal enough.
The non-twins would meld perfectly.
perhaps the social map is a blank slate, but it’s still blank…
(our innate respect for authority is a blank respect for authority. We learn to extend that respect to god.)
You think that merely because they have common possessions they lack a hierarchy. Yet, they are incredibly gender-segregated, every household has a patriarch, and marraige/divorce requires the agreement of the Elders! I would argue that they care very much about advancement, though the primary method of advancement is by climbing up the geriocracy.
Insofar as how did a society like that evolve, once again, I’ll refer you to table 1. There are definate selective advantages to a communal system, where people strive for the best of the group rather than the self
As for your distinction between that which is pre-programmed and that which is encultured, I think we agree more than you think.
Though, I must ask: how does your view of the soul fit into the rest of your schema? It seems to conflict with the nature is good part you already described.
Also, wrt Bill Gates, you are confusing maximum number of offspring with maximum genetic impact. While having a large brood is a mechanism of ensuring your genetic impact, producing quality offspring is another. You’d best believe that Bill Gate’s children are recieving the best education that money can buy and have market share in Microsoft. While he may be giving away a lot of money to charity, his children will still be very well taken care of. That is security for one’s genetic future.
I appreciate the link, but I still pretty much see the Middle Eastern world as generally medieval. If you compare Western society during the time of the Holy Roman Empire, you don’t see notable differences in religious zealism. I think the Middle East hasn’t advanced because they haven’t had enough drive to do so; they’ve lived off of their wealth and then their oil. This doesn’t mean it isn’t their fault, or that we should be extra-merciful in fighting them, or that we should treat them like savages. It does mean that we should approach them differently than we approach a modern civilization, because they think and clearly act differently.
Ok. I don’t really disagree except for your use of “good” without anything further. What is it that is good about it? Your usage implies that there is something metaphysically good that a sociologist can identify, when a sociologist is only talking about what is best for a society to advance harmoniously. Even the terms “advancement” and “harmony” contain inherent bias; there are no absolutes. Do you understand the extent to which (my) relativism applies? I’m mostly talking about the absence of absolutes in terms of our metaphysical knowledge, which is mostly relevent to describing morality. There is morality, but it’s about the best way to reach certain goals that we humans naturally define ourselves, not the ultimate, best way for something to be, period.
Again, my objection is only in definitions: We can be reasonable, we can be honest, and we can be perceptive, but we cannot see without our eyes. We have a point of view; we aren’t ever objective because we have an identity.
I don’t believe it does, I believe it excludes you from the capacity to do so in an absolutely flawless manner.
I enjoyed the rest of your post. I think our disagreement is over the definition of “relativism” and a few related terms. This is how relativism can become useful, as it happens, because I don’t try to associate your words with a definite meaning, but rather with your own personal, intended meaning. I believe a major part of our language barrier is due to a confusion of relativism wholly criticizing decisions and judgement. It does not do this, but rather criticizes argumentation that claims to hold an absolute–an ultimate, an unquestionable, a perfect–reference point. We are humans, and we only have our own reference points.
Alun, you and others have said multiple times that relativism is about acknowledging that our perceptions cannot be without flaw. For example, in the above, we can make pronouncements about good and evil, but we cannot know for certain our pronouncements are correct, or error-free. Is this right?
If I’m understanding you correctly, I’d like very much if you could shed some light on what exactly a ‘flaw’ would be to your mind. To me, a flawed moral system would be one that is divorced from the supposed actual moral truth, just as a flawed answer to a math question would one that deviates from the objectively true, correct answer. Does the idea of flaws in our ability to determine right from wrong imply that all actions are objectively either right or wrong, and that from time to time, we mistake one for the other?
No. They cannot be absolute and they cannot be flawless. I’m not saying the only flaw is in not recognizing an absolute.
They are not aiming to discern an absolute: A nebula can’t believe somethign is good or bad; only a person can. We’re talking about our feelings and motivations, not absolute truths. For clarification, I’m basically equating “absolute” with “ultimate,” "metaphysical, "and “universal,” at least in part.
They are not flawless: Because we are only seeing things from a limited perspective, if we decide that things that absorb green light are bad, we cannot decide beyond all doubt which things are bad and which are not; perhaps we are seeing something through a tinted glass, or something is coated with paint to hide its true nature.
I’m not seeing your example connect to me very well… How does a society with no monetary structure and no leadership, shun others to get ahead?
But, that doesn’t preclude my statement of tabula rasa. (and it doesn’t really explain so many social loners, but that’s neither here nor there.) we can be hard-wired to more easily accept group programming.
Probably, that’s the way things usually are.
Certainly I’ve wondered that myself. Where does the soul fit into the natural world? My only answer is… I’m not really sure it does, and not really sure it IS. The closest answer I can come up with is schrodingers cat. Our soul is the black box. It could be within the black box. Or the inside of the black box could be empty.
All I know is that ALOT of supernatural stuff has happened to me personally in order for me to be a total skeptic would be in part lying to myself.
yeah, but again, I never claimed that protecting our offspring wasn’t part of the “natural” genetic programming. What I’m saying is we learn how to do so.
here’s another brain teaser.
Lets say we take a baby that would become muslim and raise them as christian and don’t tell them anything of their past. Is there really any doubt that this child would grow up Less violent, and believing that mohammed is a false prophet?
And there in lies the problem. The issue is a difference in why it’s that way. You think it’s that way because of western culture enslaving them with oil money. I say they were like that before the oil money, and all the oil money did was empower the crazy Imam’s to buy weapons.
Kind of ironic that the richest oil fields in the world are underneath the people that hate western society and want to destroy it?
I think I would disagree. Religious Zealism, NEVER lead christians to martyr themselves for god. The holy crusades were a defense response to Islam. Vlad the Impaler was so crazy because he was tortured for years in Turkey by the muslims.
BUT, what should we do?
Ask yourself why. I’ll tell you. When the industrial revolution hit, the Imams were arguing about whether or not they should keep candles in the mosques are switch over to modern gas lights. They are SO stuck on the fundamental word of the quran and hadith, that until they cherry pick, they are going to be stuck with religious Zealism.
Well… the leaders have lived off their wealth. They divide the wealth up “evenly” among the citizens. The leaders keep the societies in the mediviel ages, and censor ALL western media from these countries. In Saudi Arabia the leadership doesn’t allow bibles to be carried around in public… the penalty for doing so is stoning.
Secondly, the oil wealth is VERY VERY recent.
I agree. The question remains, what is the best way to deal with it?
It’s like Uccisore said… does it need anything further? If they are training young children to strap bombs to their chests and undo themselves in a crowd of jews, should we even contemplate why, or wether it was good from their perspective?
Well, I guess it really depends on the political/philosophical stance of that sociologist, eh?
So there’s a time when, rape, murder, pillage are okay?
(yes I realize we committed some of those founding this country, that’s once again, neither here nor there though…)
But there are such absolutes… Murder is never justified, suicide is bad for the victim as well as the family, sex is better when your in a coupled relationship. (it has less harmful side effects.)
It has nothing to do with relgious stance, or principles… these actions have obvious side effects that are not desireable. Therefore commiting them is a-moral.
How does are identity affect absolute morals though? (there are others… it’s simply a matter of removing societal principals and determine it’s side effects.)
So there’s a time when honor killing shouldn’t be shunned?
I agree with your wisdom. But not with the knowledge. Our reference point is not perfect nor absolute (nor does it need to be.) but from our reference point, if we are truly objective (which we still should be) we can tell whether our reference point is lower, or higher than other points. We can fully examine other points of view and determine whether or not they are useful to integrate into our own philosophy.
(according to Toltec wisdom, we should view all knowledge as lies, and the truth will make itself self-evident.)
You do this already. You examine christian philosophy and find it doesn’t answer your beliefs, or your views about the way the world works. To your eyes you see the christian belief as flawed. That’s an opinion, absolutely relative. But it’s correct.
Now here’s where it gets tricky. When you compare your reference point to a much lower reference point. Like the situation in Darfur, Rwanda, Islam, etc. At some point, we have to realize that the best course of action, is to “impose” our belief of being right on others.
If we hadn’t made such an imposition upon the nazi’s they wold’ve taken over Europe (if not the world with Japan.)
If Jefferson and co. hadn’t given a “how’s your father” to England, democracy and religious freedom, may have well not existed like it does today.
So I guess the final question of this lengthy post is…
Are we prepared to draw the line of action for our relative reference point?
And what is the best course of action? it should be clear to anyone it’s not Bush’s way…But the democrat course of action is the standard “let’s stick our heads in the sand and hope they ignore us.” isn’t going to work either…
That’s it, there is leadership in the society. The council of Elders already holds a primary position and I am sure that one of them serves as primus inter pares. Additionally, since marraige and divorce require popular (as well as elder) support, there is certainly a social currency at work.
It is common for religions to create an alternate currency, that those on the outside do not value. How is this situation any different?
Incidentally, if you look at the different models for the social groups described in the study, loners are accounted for. On a side note, loners make sense because if your group is going down a bad path, a social loner represents a viable ‘out’ for the group’s genes.
As for learning how to protect our offspring – I guess it all boils down to where you think that ‘learning’ begins. Given human brood size (and the brood sizes of other animals whose young require investment), I would argue that the two qualities are certainly intertwined.
So then, we create the standards ourselves, so they are not absolute in that sense, but also, we have an imperfect ability to see even if things match up to the standards we've invented? I can see where you're coming from there, and I very nearly agree with you- being a theist, though, changes things somewhat.
I disagree with you that because moral sense is a uniquely human thing, that this goes to it's being subjective. Let me stress that I do think morals are subjective, I just don't think the example you cite indicates it at all. After all, a nebula cannot discern that 2+2=4, or that there are no married bachelors, either. We feel all truths at root- the sensation of recognition we get when exposed to "Murder is wrong" is not so different from the sensation of recognition we get when exposed to "a+b = b+a" is it?
They cannot be absolute