back to the beginning: morality

From my frame of mind, these are questions that would come from someone who has read almost nothing of what I have posted here over the years. Or if they have read much of what I do post [in the philosophy forum], they are so far removed from understanding the answers I would give to these questions that it is almost certainly futile for me to attempt to answer them again now.

If you are in the former category let me know and I will make the attempt to answer them as best I can.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

Social instincts. Now there’s an oxymoron for some. If human instincts revolve far more around sustaining the least dysfunctional social interactions, then the reality of memes would seem to be of considerable more importance than the emphasis that some place on the “selfish genes”. Of course, they will insist, nature revolves around the survival of the fittest individual. Capitalists, for example. Memes are only along for the ride.

Come on, how smart do you have be to be to note that going back to the caves, human social, political and economic interactions are both profoundly and problematically intertwined in both genes and memes. To say where nature stops and nurture begins given any particular context is, from my frame of mind, a clear signal that someone is far more concerned with first embodying and then sustaining the “psychology of objectivism”. Rather than displaying a willingness to acknowledge how ineffably and inextricably “I” and “we” and “them” are compounded in a world in which a mixture of both is nothing short of seething at times given all the variables involved.

Okay, so how is this then squared with the way it basically works between all other animal special on the planet: survival of the fittest, make makes right, the law of the jungle. Well, first by noting that within any particular species itself that is often very strong social bonding. Thus while some animal groups include a fierce hierarchy and even cannibalism, others far more oriented toward the other end of the spectrum. But the bottom line is that no other species of animals comes even remotely close to that which we call memetic interactions. Even among the most intelligent creatures – ilovephilosophy.com/search. … 921c6f66e4 – you don’t find scientists and philosophers and psychologists and sociologists. You don’t find anthropologists examining the culture of the species or historians examining the species down through the ages.

And, sure, since no philosophers have come close to reconfiguring deontological intellectual contraptions into actual day to day human interactions in a community of any real size, why not accept that “for all practical purposes” a utilitarian approach to conflicting value judgments may well be the “best of all possible worlds”. Not counting those who, for whatever reason, philosophical or otherwise, prefer “might makes right”.

And, in my view, the most “significant mental power” in regard to morality is to recognize its limitations.

Nope again. Two weeks later and he is still posting numbingly abstract/abstruse “assessments” like this:

Still, if anyone here would care to take a stab at it, note how, in regard to a conflicting good most will be familiar with, this plays out regarding the behaviors that you choose.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

On the other hand, where in the “core principle of natural selection” is the information and knowledge able to provide us with a definitive account of where nature ends and nurture begin. Let alone the part where it can be shown when and where and how and why social, political and economic memes are actually able to trump genes.

Then the the part where childhood indoctrination begins to break down and adult autonomy begins to take over. The part where children become part of a peer group. Those able to provide them with new realities at odds with what they have been for all intents and purposes brainwashed to believe as “just kids.”

In other words, the part where “the repeated performance of moral actions would, Darwin wrote, make them indistinguishable from an instinct” would be clearly more applicable to “primitive” human communities than the postmodern world we live in now.

How to intertwine an understanding of biological imperatives, social instinct and, say, “pop cultural, mass consumption and the worship of celebrity” which is such a big part of the world that most of us live in “here and now”.

So, that would seem to eliminate the dog eat dog, law of the jungle, survival of the fittest mentality that many associate with Darwin’s theory of evolution. And, to the extent that “morality makes society possible…by minimizing criminal behavior and social conflict” this would seem to be more favorably inclined toward socialism. After all, capitalism basically revolves around dog eat dog competition rooted in the market. And thus, to a large extent, so does morality. Show me the money. The Gordon Gekko mentality writ large.

“Social virtues” vs. “self-regarding virtues”? Which frame of mind most clearly reflects, say, Trumpworld? Also, we don’t live in “tribes” anymore.

Here we are both on the same page. I basically share this assessment. In a No God world, “anything can be rationalized”. And, in fact, historically, what human behaviors haven’t already been?

But the objectivists of Satyr’s ilk don’t stop there. Given what I call the “psychology of objectivism” they need to think themselves into believing that there is in fact a way to judge human behavior. A way that allows them to make that crucial distinction between “one of us” [the masters] and “one of them” [the slaves].

For him it’s the nature/nurture divide. Genes trump memes. So it’s only a matter of grasping the biological imperatives that nature has provided the human species in the evolution of life on Earth. Some behaviors are natural and some are social.

Thus:

Therefore, as well, homosexual behavior is necessarily unnatural. That human beings engage in sexual relationships for reasons other than reproduction is moot. It’s either that or nothing.

Then he takes “nature” to other indisputable conclusions as well. In regard to gender and race and ethnicity. In regard to moral and political prejudices.

But, again, above all else, nature becomes the font into which he can anchor a sense of identity able to divide up the world between the shepherds and the sheep.

This from the only other member of Know Thyself who still posts in the Agora. The new Lyssa? He’s responding to something that Satyr just posted on the Morality thread.

You tell me what it has to do with the manner in which you yourself have come to understand morality given your day to day interactions with others in a world awash in conflicting goods.

I would like to personally invite him to post here if he has not been permanently banned. To explain what he means above “given a particular context”.

And, if he does, he can then attempt to translate Satyr’s own intellectual contraptions into descriptions of the world that we actually live in.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

This is true. Historically hundreds and hundreds of cultures [big and small] have come up with their own more or less one-size-fits-all moral transcripts. And it does work in providing the community with “rules of behavior” that act as a fundament for depositing “I”. First “the gods”. Then a God, the God. Later these were replaced in some parts of the world by secular facsimiles. Political ideologies and the like.

And, of course, there have been those down through the ages who “deduced” philosophical arguments into existence. The Intellectual scaffolding from which all rational men and women could “theoretically” note their actual obligations when confronting conflicting value judgments.

In truth, none of this really changed just because the economic base allowed for the existence of the surplus labor we call philosophers. The need for “rules of behaviors” in any community is just plain commonsense. And these rules revolved more around the arguments from folks like Margaret Mead, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Marvin Harris and Karl Marx than from Plato, Aristotle, Descartes and Kant.

Altruism, like egotism is hard wired into the human brain. What brings them out is embedded in any number specific contexts.

The results speak for themselves for most of us. We go about the business of interacting with others from day to day to day given any number of rules accepted by all parties. And, in fact, to the extent that the objectivists are able to persuade large swaths of the population to accept their own moral narratives and political agendas, those rules can be made to seem as natural as breathing in and out.

But what are those rules? And who decides they should be the rules? And who is able to enforce them? How about “normal functioning social life” in the midst of a world wide pandemic? Or in times of war or economic calamity? Or, for any number of reasons, your personal life goes through a tumultuous change? Situations in which you are forced to take a closer look at how morality comes to be what it is in the world around you.

Situations in which you see the way things are and you don’t like them. Situations that need to be changed. But changed to what?

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

Think about how this clearly seems to be an appropriate description of some people you know. And yet how profoundly inappropriate for others. Think about Donald Trump being brought up in Fred Trump’s household. An altruistic environment do you suppose?

No, the evolution of biological life on planet Earth has culminated to date in a species in which individuals are hard wired genetically to embody a selfless, altruistic regard for the welfare of the group. But also hard-wired genetically to embody just the opposite behaviors.

You tell me if very different historical, cultural and experiential contexts didn’t predispose one frame of mind over the other?

And it’s not for nothing that the capitalist political economy clearly rewards those willing to emulate the Donald Trumps of this world: me, myself and I. And then all the way to the bank. Or in his case perhaps bankruptcy

Now, sure, what apologists for this dog-eat-dog, survival the fittest political economy – so far removed from altruism – will insist is that it’s all perfectly “natural” behavior. Capitalism comes the closest to “human nature”.

Or, as phoneutria puts it:

“nature is hierarchical
people are selfish”

Deal with it.

Over and again, both sets of behaviors are possible because our brain is hard-wired biologically by the evolution of life on earth such that some will embody one set more than the other…depending in large part on how as children they are indoctrinated to view themselves out in the world with others. But the bottom line is that unlike these creatures – thedodo.com/21-animals-bein … 68711.html – humans are social beings. But we are not so much “hard core” altruistic or selfish…shaped and molded genetically through instinct…as shaped and molded instead by a far, far more complex, profoundly problematic admixture or both genes and memes.

Deal with it.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

Here’s what I reconfigure this into: subsistence, survivial.

As with all other creatures on earth, the human species of necessity must acquire the means to sustain its very existence: food, water, shelter, defense, the capacity to reproduce.

But: Unlike all other creatures, the human species has acquired this extraordinary capacity to communicate all of this through language able to convey the sort of memetic complexities that are simply unknown to lions and tigers and bears.

Or even to our closest relatives the chimps. After all, how many philosophy forums do they have? So, we have the same basic needs as all other creatures, but we also have the capacity to “think up” particular “rules of behavior” to regulate our wants and needs. Let’s call this morality.

But: how social are we?

Again, unlike other creatures, the manner in which we make distinctions between “I” and “we” and “them” involves considerably more variables. Variables that become entangled in historical and cultural contexts. Variables that evolved into the modern industrial state…and now the postmodern industrial state.

What of, “well-marked social instincts” that “inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience” then?

Yes, you know what’s coming: We’ll need a context of course.

Something that dogs never get around to broaching.

Improved? Or, rather, became far more complicated given the gap in evolution between the human brain and the chimp brain and the monkey brain and the brains of all the “lower” creatures. And what is the word that most separates us from them? How about this one: memes. And then, memetically, the gap between human interactions on the level of the “village” and on the level of the “postmodern industrial state”.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

Okay, but my reaction to this revolves around those who think they do understand and share Darwin’s sense of morality…and are willing to explore that with me here in regard to conflicting value judgments that are well known around the globe.

How are “social instincts” applicable to the abortion wars, or to the red state/blue state conflagrations? Or to the extremely contentious capitalism vs. socialism political and economic agendas?

And then when I react here with “we’ll need a context of course”, some act as though I don’t really get philosophy at all.

As though philosophers/ethicists, in exploring the “innate moral sense”, are not [like all the rest of us] all over the board with respect to their own moral and political value judgments. Yes, it appears we come into the world with a biological propensity to make distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad behaviors. But how on earth would that be manifested if a child really was raised by wolves or kept completely isolated from others? History, culture and experiences are all profoundly embedded in the end results here.

Instead, the “deep code” here is not all that far removed from we describe as “instinct” in all other animals.

Thus:

In other words, “in general”. But: how exactly would we go about exploring this relationship existentially…in regard to that “particular context”? How are the points I make regarding “dasein”, “conflicting goods” and “political economy” not also pertinent in regard to the reactions of specific individuals out in a particular world viewing it in a particular way?

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

And all of this unfolds given ever evolving changes in human interactions as a result of, among other things, scientific advances, technological changes, the stuff Marx spoke of in regard to the “dialectical material” evolution in political economy. Verbal communication, body language, empathy, a grasp of social mores, customs and norms, negotiating good relationships with others, etc., ten thousand years ago is not likely to overlap with those things today. Not to mention the components that I propose in my own signature threads here.

Yes, but clearly how this all plays out over the years and decades, will depend in large part on the actual “situation” that any individuals find themselves in. Thus “private thinking” is likely to pop up over and again. In this thread for example. Who is to say which point of view is the most “competent”?

Again, are we to imagine that how these components played out historically in communities in which “we” took precedence over “me” are not going to change [even dramatically] in a modern world in which as a result of the ascendency of capitalism “me” is often likely to be the starting point instead for many.

And that those who champion socialism are just intent on bringing it all back around more to “we” instead.

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

Still, if this isn’t argument that revolves around not knowing when, morally, genes give way to memes and then back again, what else is it?

It’s like arguing about when sheer futility gives way to sheer stupidity among those who insist that they actually do grasp when and where and how and why genes and memes are intertwined. If only in every possible human interaction. Yes, regarding all of this philosophers can put in their two cents. But take their own intellectual contraptions down out of the clouds and focus in on an actual discussion and debate relating to race and gender and sexuality and every other set of circumstances where value judgments come into conflict. Won’t they pop up all along the political spectrum…just like all the rest of us?

There “natural” ethics can become anything but elegant as those on all sides scream at and curse each other.

The “moral sense” in the best of all possible world? The “moral sense” in which those who choose to use and abuse and slaughter animals for profit come to “see the light” and stop doing so because objectively it’s the “right thing to do”?

And that this is somehow to be understood as also the “natural” thing to do given a true understanding of the evolution of biological life on planet earth? Of course that also includes the part where nature has left all the other animals on earth engaging in the daily spectacle of “kill or be killed”. Literally survival of the fittest. All genes, no memes. Which is what the Satyrean ubermen among us want to insist is also the case for the human species. Memes or not.

Now all we need is a context, right?

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

It’s not for nothing, in my view, that any discussion of morality/ethics must begin with God.

Why? Because, from my own frame of mind, if there did in fact exist an omniscient and omnipotent entity then how could the components of my own moral philosophy not be subsumed in Him? Anymore than the moral philosophies of everyone else.

Indeed, given an omniscient God, how could any of our moral narratives actually be derived from free will? Everything and anything existing could only be an inherent, necessary manifestation of God.

Wisdom? Truth? Improvement of the soul? How I would love to have spent a few hours – days? – with him [and Plato] discussing those things. Out in a particular context for example. Moral and political idealism only make sense to me given the existence of one or another rendition of an omniscient and omnipotent God. And, in their own way, didn’t they mange to define and to deduce one into existence.

After Another Woman, this is my favorite film of his.* And precisely because it explores the moral parameters of human interactions given a God or a No God world. And aside from whether living an ethical life is a good thing in and of itself, in the absence of God which of us as mere mortals get to say what that actually consists of when push comes to shove and particular behaviors in particular sets of circumstances are either rewarded or punished.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

And I go on and on about this. Why? Because the only thing that is possibly more disturbing than the human suffering caused by dueling objectivist – Hitler/Stalin – is the suffering caused by the “show me the money” moral nihilists that own and operate the global economy. And the sociopaths who will use and abuse others based solely on the assumption that the center of the universe morally revolves around their own self-interests.

That’s not the point from my perspective. For the egotists, the narcissists, the sociopaths etc., the world is not divided up between those who are virtuous and those who are not. It is divided up between what they want and desire [for whatever reason] and anyone who stands in the way of them getting it. For them virtue revolves only around having or not having options. And not getting caught when those who do deem their behaviors immoral come after them.

And then of course there are those like John Galt. The supreme egoist. But cut more in the mold of Nietzsche’s Uberman. Ego determines the course of his action. But it is an ego attached to “right makes might”. It is an ego attached to philosophical principles that sets him apart from mere might makes right thuggery.

Selfishness is not problem, only the source from which it is derived.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

Here though “good” is just a word that we invented because, for all practical purposes, in any given community, certain behaviors are going to be either rewarded or punished. And clearly to the extent that you are rewarded [in whatever manner] for doing this instead of that that is a good thing and not a bad thing.

It’s just that going back to the pre-Socratics, the Greeks are thought to have come up with a new way of thinking about and then exploring this. Let’s call it philosophy. Here in the “West” for example.

Yet here we are, thousands of years later, and, just like the Greeks, still squabbling ferociously over which behaviors really are the good ones and not the bad ones.

Why? Well, cue the arguments I make in my signature threads here. Or provide us with arguments of your own.

Now, imagine a “human condition” where the overwhelming preponderance of men and women around the globe thought like Glaucon. So, of course one or another rendition of God or political ideology or deontology or true “natural” behaviors had to be invented. Social interactions had evolved from the brute facticity embodied in might makes right, had gone through any number of right makes right historical creations, and, with the advent of capitalism, had “settled” on one or another variant of democracy and the rule of law.

But: the right makes might objectivist are always around to wrench that back. We’ve got any number of them right here. Most being reactionaries. Some fancying themselves as one of Nietzsche’s Ubermen. A few practically Nazis.

And then the moral nihilists who figure that “show me the money” is as good as it gets in their own best of possible worlds.

Now, in Crimes and Misdemeanors, we know the trajectory that Judah Rosenthal chose. Or, rather, given a new experience revolving around a new relationship… stumbled into?

Existentially as it were.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

This is another example of the hypothetical “what would you do?” Given one or another “situation”. Everyone has their own frame of mind, many of them in conflict. Then the philosophers among us shift the discussion to that which all virtuous men and women ought to do. To that which all rational men and women are obligated to do.

Then I note my own arguments which suggest that such discussions are ultimately futile in a No God world. That what actual flesh and blood human beings end up choosing to do has less to do with philosophy and more to do with the complex intertwining of personal experiences, relationships and a particular sequence of knowledge, information and ideas that no two people are likely to ever share in common.

And then the sociopaths among us who scoff at such intellectual/hypothetical arguments altogether and insist that right and wrong revolve solely around whatever gets them that which satisfies and fulfills their wants and needs. For example, these folks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavel … psychology

Exception noted. But what never changes is that the objectivists among us take exception to every argument that refuses to accept their own frame of mind as the starting point. And then the sociopaths who are always ready, willing and able to take advantage of those who live their principled lives like an open book.

As for pinning down Goodness itself, Socrates left that part to Plato. Plato in and out of the cave, Plato inventing a “world of words” Republic owned and operated by the philosopher-kings.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

For me of course any attempt to demonstrate that there is in fact “the reality of goodness rather than its mere appearance”, comes down to a demonstration that an omniscient and omnipotent God does in fact exist. Otherwise, mere mortals contend with “good and evil” given the manner in which I encompass that in my signature threads.

So, Google “socrates and god’s existence” and you get this: google.com/search?source=hp … ent=psy-ab

Google “plato and god’s existence” and you get this: google.com/search?source=hp … HIQ4dUDCA0

You tell me.

If either or both of them believed in the modern equivalent of a God/the God/my God, then in the absence of definitive evidence that He does exist, I would bring their arguments here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=186929

As for the Sophists, how would they be differentiated from what today we would call sociopaths? Any argument that allows you to sustain that which is perceived to be in your own best interest is the right argument. And the sociopaths [and moral nihilists] have, in my view, always posed the biggest obstacle to the objectivists and the deontologists among us.

Here of course we encounter a frame of mind that is in the general vicinity of Satyr and his ilk. Memes may seem persuasive but, in the end, it all comes down to genes. Your behaviors are either more in sync with Nature or with whatever “social constructs” happen to be in vogue when you’re around.

Ah, but how do we pin down with any degree of certainty what Mother Nature intends for us? Here, the distinction is between “might makes right” and “right makes might”. Between those who read and understand Nietzsche and those who don’t. In other words, for the Übermensch among us, their own assessment of nature revolves around their vastly superior intellect. In regard to, among other things, race and gender and sexual preference, they, as “serious philosophers”, concoct these dense thickets of intellectual contraptions to explain all of that to us.

Here, for example: knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

Still, Judah’s predicament only plays out given this particular set of circumstances. And construed only from the different points of view that Allen examines. And most of us will still be more intent on deciding whether or not he did the right thing or the wrong thing.

Few will come to the conclusion that I do: that these predicaments are themselves rooted in the existential parameters of profoundly problematic “subjects” going about the business of creating a reality from all of the countless variables that come to make up their own unique lives. The part I embed in dasein.

And Plato’s dialogues are merely part and parcel of the “methodology” those who embrace “serious philosophy” espouse so as to convince themselves that it actually can be determined “whether or not Socrates is correct”.

To me, this is only even possible in a God world. Sans God, mere mortals interact given the assumptions I make in my signature threads.

So, in the film, we have this particular set of circumstances:

So, what would you do? And, in fact, this sort of thing happens often enough that many of the episodes featured on programs like Dateline, 48 Hours and 20/20 [here in America] revolve precisely around murders that have taken place in order sustain one or another clandestine relationship. Or to keep the “the other woman” from spilling the beans. Even “the other man” from time to time. Only on these episodes you don’t have characters like Ben and Jack delving into and deconstructing the unfolding drama from philosophical or religious or sociopathic perspectives on the age-old battle between good and evil.

Instead, there are only saintly victims and the evil perpetrators. And determining whether or not the evil get caught. Keith Morrison is always there to put the right words into the mouths of all the characters and [usually] the “denouement” is exactly as scripted.

And certainly with no assessments like mine here.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

So, basically, he is confronted with the frame of mind that revolves around a belief that there is in fact an objective morality available to human beings. Ben happens to be a Rabbi, but it could be anyone convinced that there is a way to differentiate good from evil. God or No God. Theistic or Humanistic.

Whereas Jack embodies the frame of mind that is embedded in the sociopath. If you want something done [for whatever selfish reason], you do it. Or you pay someone else to do it. Either way, “morality” comes to revolve solely around not getting caught. If you can get away with that which Ben would call “evil”, then that’s a good thing. For you. If not for Dolores.

Thus…

And, as I have noted before, this always strikes me as the grimmest reflection of moral nihilism. At least with the conflicting moral objectivists there is always the possibility of reasoning them over to your own point of view about right and wrong behavior. With the sociopaths there is almost no possibility of that. Everything comes down to the brute facticity of power itself. You want something? Okay, figure out a way to get it. And if it results in using and abusing others, just don’t get apprehended and punished for it.

Bad faith? You can almost hear Jack snorting his reaction. In fact, his true feelings come out when it appears as though Judah’s conscience is nudging him in the direction of turning himself [and Jack?] in. Then Jack basically reminds him of what the consequences of that might be.

Crimes and Misdemeanors
Terri Murray gets to the core of ethics with Socrates and Woody Allen

And that’s where these things often end up: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

And that means a frame of mind relating to God and religion. If you are able to think yourself into rejecting them, then any possible guilt you might feel comes to revolve more around the consequences of getting caught. Your eternal soul isn’t part of the unfolding drama, but if you are caught how to explain what you did to those who know and love you. Not to mention those who knew and loved the person you hired someone to gun down.

And even the most committed atheist is likely to acknowledge that when push comes to shove there is no way in which to be absolutely certain that a God, the God does not exist. But here this can all only unfold from the perspective of dasein. Some things you may be able to communicate to others, but any number of things can easily remain beyond a divide rooted in lives lived in very, very different ways.

Here morality clearly revolves around one’s capacity to ground it in one or another objectivist font. It can be either God and religion or atheism and a Marxist-Leninist political ideology.

On the other hand, murdering Delores would not be condoned by either frame of mind. Instead, Judah must be reconfigured into Woody Allen’s own rendition of a sociopath. Though a cultured, intelligent and sophisticated sociopath. Like, say, Hannibal Lector. From this amoral perspective, there is no ethical foundation upon which mere mortals can anchor their behaviors. There is only what “here and now” you have come to believe furthers your own best interests. And then finding an option to bring it to fruition.

And then not getting caught.

Can there then possibly be a grimmer, more cynical way in which to construe the “human condition”?