two different kinds of moral fiber

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I seem to get at no further point of understanding human nature than this axiom; A human being believes that which is functional to it.

I have not arrived at a definition of functional. But I am certain that it can not be reduced to survival. I rather favour the suggestion that flowering, or prospering, or whatever metaphor one can think of refering to to a similar modus of natural function.

If I incorporate my idea of a general human purpose, leading away from the purity of the first axiom, I have to work with the idea that every human being believes that which will enable him to flower or prosper. This brings with it a difficult problem, i.e. the many self destructive natures humankind seems to bring forth. Still, I can imagine the flowering in selfdestruction - an attrituingt he degeneracy to decadence - an over-flowering, as it were. Some, perhaps those who know this state from experience, would hesitate, if not at decadent, then certainly at degenerate, and suggest another own word for it; romantic. The word indulgent will do for now.

On the other side of the spectrum, away from indulgence, which comes with an estensive knowledge of the self and it’s experience of the world, are the early phases of youth. In erupting from a contextless state of mind, functionality would, to the contrary of self destructive, likely be have to extremely unromantic to be self constructive. This evokes Nietzsche’s concept of the innoncence of becoming.

Rahter, however, than a moralless and conqering child, as Nietzsche tends to lean towards, I see a creature helpless in it’s means except the love, mercy, or simply good will, of it’s parents, or any reliant substitute.
The only active use of it’s means to fulfilling it’s needs the average infant is capable of is drawing attention to itself by producing loud, uncontrolled sounds. ‘To draw attention to it’s needs’ could be an explanation, but, more basically, when a baby cries, it causes a hindrance to the physical needs of others.

Embodying A tphysical hreat to the social contract is, in infancy, the direct means to getting needs fulfilled. But the mercy of the parents is the most basic condition. If there were indifferent, they could easily get rid of it. Apart from love or mercy, a practical reasons for keeping it alive can is, again the social contract; morals; one is not expected to toss a baby - and emotionally, she does not happily throw nine months ofs strenuous labour away. She expects something of it. What? Functionality? In poor societies, yes. But in the west, one expects to be, in the end, to gain satisfaction, wholeness, from a child.

Concluding with an interpretation of the first axiom alomg the guideline of these paragraphs;

a human being believes that which is functional to either it’s survival, or to it’s wholeness.

These are the two different kinds of moral fiber human beings, when they are evolving, will get to work with.

2

Depending upon who we’re looking at, function is defined as either human survival or human wholeness. Is that right?

Just throwing this out, but it seems like you could also say that ‘humans believe for the sake of what they do’.

3

This distinction seems unnecessary since we might very easily denote survival as a means to wholeness for some folks.

4

Makes sense. A lot of sense actually. I can even relate this to myself.

5

Hmm. This is the exact opposite of what I strive for.

I believe that the Earth travels around the Sun. Hows does that have anything to do with my survival or my wholeness?

Is there a better example?

6

-Imp

7

Then indeed is unnecessary to these folks, but not, for example, to Darwinists.

8

To go into Imp’s explanation, which I think suffices, I’d say any kind of scientific understanding humans cultivate of their biosphere is aimed at either finding new means of survival or prospering. However, these scientific beliefs do not, as you point out, directly serve necessarily anyone who parttakes in them.

This leads to a different point then; that in the information age, people have all sorts of unnecessary beliefs. Although, to prosper in our age of enlightentment, (not sure if the pun is intended) it is not convenient to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I could integrate your objection and reformulate my axiom this way; human beings only believe that which does not threaten their interests.

9

All moral fibers are imaginative…

10

Imagination is imaginative…

11

Pwned.

What interests me is this notion of life as tension between the opposites implied by the distinction you’ve outlined in your opening post. Survival itself can be an end towards which a human can aim, but it cannot be the ONLY end towards which humans aim. The reason for this is that all too many people do things, believe things, accept things that are either detrimental or at least potentially detrimental to their survival. If survival (of the individual or the species) were the founding motive of our behaviour, made inherent via thousands of millions of years of evolution, then how and why did we create adrenaline sports and drug addiction? They are just two examples, yet according to a simplified ‘evolution means trying to survive’ we cannot explain them. Both are pretty popular and widespread geographically and historically.

So there’s something else at play too (unless we dump the whole evolutionary paradigm, but there’s no reason to do that just yet). Something that encourages humans to take risks, to seek more than just perpetuation of existence. We are not all governed by the desires of the Last Man (in Nietzsche’s terms). Some of us strive, some of us even risk the perpetuation of our existence for other goals (to get really fucking high, in the case of drugs).

Now, as life exists in this state of tension, I see that all attempts to reduce the motives to axioms will fail, no matter how intelligent, imaginative and eloquent the speaker. This doesn’t mean it’s pointless to try, just that one has to expect to find the exact same tensions after one has formulated an axiom as one found before formulating.

12

To ‘survive’ the unknown has required belief.

You mention children. A mother or father at some level sees the child as an extension of themselves. But in talking in this subject you come to another concept -love. Love somehow keeps you in the game, so to speak.

With drug addicts you often see the ability to love, among others, heavily distorted. And it’s the lucid moments the drug addict hates- because they realize how the ability to love has been taken that seem to scar them the most. JMHO

13

What is that supposed to mean?