Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I am not using "social Darwinian" theories. Under the basic theory of evolution, mutations either die out or are successful. The mutations that are successful are the ones that help the carrier of that mutation carry on their genetic line. The mutations that do not help the carrier survive (or carry on their genetic line - survive until they can reproduce) dies out because the carrier dies. Every step in the evolutionary process is a mutation that has helped us survive. So absense some divine influence, our moral instincts are a mutation that has carried on because that mutation has helped us survive. Just like the mutation that created our eyes, opposable thumbs, and brain.

The problem, like I pointed out with the father killing his step childre, is if people's morality is just based on self interest mutation then the argument of what is right and wrong breaks down to what helps us survive. If people have two conflicting instincts on what is moral how do you decide who is right? In different isolated societies people will develop different moral instincts (there will be different mutations) and some will help people survive better than others. They will also differ depending on different environmental factors. So people in warm climates will have different moral instincts than people in cold climates (just like they have different weather protectoin). If all we have is the theory of evolution, our moral instincts, are just mutations and we will never be able to agree on what is the right mutation.

We will have to agree to disagree. Without a universal instinct for good that is not universally based, I do not believe mankind could ever agree on morality. The "good" instincts developed by evolution are just mutations that help us survive. They will not only be relative from society to society, but future mutations may be better. So if certain humans are born with a mutation that tells them to kill the weak and these humans reproduce more successfully than us, and take over the world who are we to criticize their morality, because it has helped them carry on their genetic line.

Here I also think you are wrong. If I understand that my instincts are there just to help me survive, then cheating on my taxes, if I can get away with it is fine. If I know that no one will catch me, it increases the amount of resourcesw that I have, and it will not effect the society I live in (being one in two hundred million tax payers my step will be insignificant) then I should do it. If there is a universal moral code that says you should not cheat then no matter how it benefits me I should not do it. Period. Same thing goes for stealing or any other crime.

So you find some money on the floor in your Gym. One instinct tells you to keep it, and another one tells you to turn it into the front desk in case someone claims it. Which one do you listen to? both instincts are there to help you survive. I believe one of the instincts comes from some place besides a mutation that helps you survive.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

There was a lot of human history even before 0 A.D. If everyone knew slavery was so wrong, and this was some kind of universal principle, why the blanket statements in Leviticus?

I think you are just deeply, deeply anti-evolution or something, that we have all given you a bunch of different reasons other than "god gave humanity an immutable set of morals" for why/how people agree on general principles, and you reject all of them.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

The instinct to turn it in comes from a mutation that helps society as a whole survive.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

1) I must have missed that. Have Mills or Rawls come up with a theory on the source of the moral code that we all assume exits.

2) I think the Catholic church is having trouble because they have issued religious decrees that are in conflict with the moral code and therefor people are instinctively ignoring the church, eventhoug being Catholic, they believe they are risking burning in hell.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I just don't think it explains the existence of a universal morality code. Besides that it seems to explain everything else.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

actually much of what you guys have been talking about cuts out large parts of natural selection. Taking care of really sick kids that otherwise would have died, buying your kids glasses when they would have dies in caveman times, etc.

We've done loads to eliminate natural selection.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

How does that wall feel against your head?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Better than the spiky, muck-encrusted wall I could be banging my head against at work.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Yup, but like an appendix, this need to take care of things keeps staying on, producing irrational results like spending millions keeping some kid who really out to just die alive. Pretty sucky.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

This is true.

Not that I have any interest in engaging in this discussion, but some part of people's instinct or whatever you want to call it to help others less fortunate has to do with the increased self-esteem imparted on the helper (including, I believe studies have shown (though I'm too busy to google it), increased production of endorphins). This is true whether the person being helped is your next door neighbor or is a victim of a tsunami thousands of miles away. So in that respect it is an act of self-interest. I think this is true not just in people, but also in some animals. Rescue dogs, for example - Newfoundlands instinctually will jump into a freezing lake to rescue a person (this is not trained behavior, at least at this point in time - query whether it at some point in history was trained into that breed of dogs by humans (again, not gonna google)) and are very proud of themselves once the task is accomplished.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I totally understand everyones scepticism of faith. It is faith that guides the suicide bombers. If I say God wrote my book and you say God wrote your book, and we are both using faith to back up our positions, then we will not be able to reslove our differences. There is no convergence of agreement of morality in that situation. But somehow morality seems to be converging and I don't know why. As the dinasour puts it, I don't understand this "long evolution of moral reasoning". If morality is converging, why is it converging? If morality is just a mutation that helps us survive, I don't see morality for all mankind converging over time. Mutations by definition don't converge. Evolution is based on death. The successful mutation survive and reproduce and the unsuccessful mutations die out. The Eagles with the better eyesight survive, where the eagles with poor eyesight die out because the eagles with the better eyesight get all the food. However, all humans seem to be surviving (surviving meaning they live long enough to reproduce) so humans with a certain moral disposition don't seem to wiping out other humans with out it (don't confuse prosperity with death). So it does not seem that a certain moral mutation is becoming dominant by wiping out all other mutations, yet human morality seems to be converging.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

So when dtb timmys she is getting off?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

In the first place, Spnky, the mere fact that this discussion is taking place is confirmation of the fact that we still haven't defined it.

Furthermore, you can't assert that because what is "good" didn't have a relative scale under Plato doesn't mean he understood it any less than we do today, at least not if what you're debating is the foundation of morality as an absolute.

Finally, Plato did not assume that "everyone would agree on what is good and what is not." Plato posited that there is an ideal "Good" (i.e., the Form) and that we, as mere mortals could not fully understand the Form, but only attempt to puzzle it out on the basis of human faculties, like empathy, mutual benefit, and rational discourse.

You are talking in circles and making less sense each time around. I suggest you stop, think through exactly what it is you believe, why you believe it, and why anyone else here should care. Then, and only then, should you take this discussion to the next level. Because it's becoming apparent that the more others respond to you, the more confused you are getting.

The questions comes down to this:

1) Everyone by posting to this board assumes everyone on the board has the same view of right and wrong. If we disagree on something people assume that is because the person has not thought out their position correctly, but once they see the fallacy of their thinking they will change their mind. So by posting on this board we are all assuming that we share a common morality. This common morality can come from two places.

a) The common morality we share is a mutation that has helped our species survive and we all share that mutation.

b) the common morality has been inserted into our brains by some supernatural force.

A rational person would first jump to position (a ) - as all the rational people on this board are doing. However, in my opinion, if you think about it, option (a) does not hold up to scrutiny. And as Sherlock homes said, if you have exhausted all possible explanations, the only explanation left, no matter how improbable, has to be the answer.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have read very little, if anything, that rejected faith. Neither have you. What has been offered, repreatedly, are a number of rational bases for moral and ethical decision-making.

People are rejecting your assertion that a faith in the Judeo-Christian model God is the only supportable basis for an ethical or moral code. The whole business about Darwin and natural selection is, it seems to me, a diversion at best, or sophistry at worst. Your resistance to accept the existence of pre-Jewish moral or ethical codes has been similarly diverting, but has failed to either support your point or refute the contrary view.

If it makes you feel better to adhere to a moral standard because you believe God has commanded it, so be it. But why, in the name of all that is holy, would you insist upon arguing to others who find other reasons for supporting a moral life that they should not, unless they do so to follow God? Do you really believe God cares why people act morally?

here's your problem.
If you truly believe that you're too new here. No one has ever changed anyone's mind here. I helped fringey figure out how to get donuts from her work cafateria, but other than that, there's hasn't even been co-operation across the politic divide.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

1) Yes - we haven't defined it and that is the problem. That was the point I was making and you seem to agree with me.

2) I never said we understand the moral code better than Plato, I just stated he never stated an origin of morality. How do you decide what is good and evil. Either that decision is random or it is based on a code. That code must have an origen Just like what is legal or illegal. The question of what is legal or illegal is absurd without legal treaties. Plato, by positing there is an ideal Good is saying there is a universal Code. Can't you see that. He never states where this ideal Good comes from, so as for my question, Plato does not help.

Why is it that the most ignorant people are always the most arrogant and condescending. I have put a lot of thought into this over many years. You are the one talking in circles and not following a logical train of thought. For future reference, I have no interest in how you think I should or should not conduct myself on the board. I don't tell you how to conduct yourself and I expect the same courtesey from you. Is that too much to ask?

What about c)?

c) Initially, the common morality we share was developed to help our species survive, this morality can be taught to those who lack a predisopistion to the common morality.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

First, I question the existence of a univeral moral code. If there is one, I've never seen it. Cite, please.

As to how evolution could explain the development of morality generally, I think it has been touched on here. Human beings on their own face limited prospects of survival. Those who learned to cooperate would multiply more quickly and wipe out those who could not. Much of basic morality is necessary for humans to live together. If you steal my spear, I'm going to come kill you with my club. If I fuck your mate, you're going to want to kill me. If we kill each other, the tribe will lack 2 warriors to defend it the next time the Ug Ug tribe comes over to attack our yam pile. Likewise, the tribe that learns to help its injured and sick will increase and prosper faster than the every man for himself tribe on club island. As society became more advanced and complex, so did the rules that govern its behavior.

We are not the only species that depends on the altruism of others for its survival, we are just the only ones to assign fancy words and divine meaning to it. I don't know why you feel compelled to apply and Intelligent Design theory to the development of morals when there are many more plausible explanations available.

eta: What spooky said.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

If you believed any of this, or more accurately practiced any of this, you would spend more time working for your employer to justify your job than posting here every five fucking minutes. Or are you one of the "only out for myself" guys that natrual selection didn't quite completely eliminate.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

If you are not going to read what I write don't comment on it. I have never asserted that a "Judeo-Christian model God is the the only supportable basis for an ethical moral code". You are making the classic straw man argument. You are assigining statements to me that I never made and then arguing against those statements.

When did I resist an acceptance of a pre-Jewish moral or ethical code. By stating there is a universal moral code, obviously, that predates the Jewish written law. I have never referred to Jew, Jewish, Christian or Christian when referring to the code. That is just an ignorant assumption you made on your part.

The argument, I find, is an important question, because how we feel about right and wrong usually forms the basis of our political philosophy. People are pointing out to me their theories on a non-divine basis for morality and I am simply explaining why have rejected those ideas. I am interested in their responses because I have been searching for a rational basis for morality but I have never found one that is convincing to me. The whole scientific rational process is proposing theories and then exposing those theories to tests (or criticisms) to see if they hold up. That is what I am doing here. Why do you have a problem with that? I would find it very interesting if someone came up with a nondivine basis for morality that I thought stood up to all the problems I have found with other theories. Clearly this whole discussion is way beyond you, so why don't you just ignore it. When people get bored with it they will simply stop responding to me. In the name of all that is holy, if you don't like this exchange why not leave it alone?

Not true. At severe risk to my reputation, I told people that I thought you were funny. And you got your wife to make custom made avatars for me to give to paigow's socks. We are a microcosm of evolutionary cooperative behavior here.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

My tribe could kick your tribe's ass.

I can confirm that his reputation suffered for the assertion.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Because your fallback position cannot be proven or even tested. Your fallback position essentially amounts to the equivalent of "it happens by magic".

Dyslexia is a bitch. when i first saw this, my mind processed it as:

• insertion ass suffered

Sorry to give a serious response to your post, and maybe I am just an ignorant fool, but I have changed my position on a few things because of postings to this board. There are many people on this board (conservative and liberal) whose ideas I am very interested in and whose thoughts and arguments effect my own. If that was not the case I would not read and post to this board.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I think the fall back position can be somewhat tested, but essentially that sums up my position pretty well. I am still considering your proposal for option C.

I think it was more likely wishful thinking than dyslexia.

And now for something completely different...
 

From Congress Daily PM, via ThinkProgress:

"Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks. "

I would think this is more of a test of the resolve the 7 Republicans in the Group of 14, but that's just me.

Are you ready to rrrrrrrruuuuuummmmmmmbbbbbbbblllleee?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Because we persuade each other and the better reasoned position slowly wins out. You see a microcosm of this on the board, in the fact that no one is still insisting that the WMD are in Syria, or that Hank increasingly accepts that the President lied to get political support for his war.

On the subject of Hank's Avatars - you need some new ones. You have recycled the ones you have a few times since I have been here. I used to look forward to seeing what your next one would be, but now it seems I have seen them all.

That goes for his posts, too.

No. I assume that we all start with different views of right and wrong, but that we can agree on many things, and that our views are open to reason and persuasion. Bilmore disagrees on the latter count, and I try to persuade him that he's wrong.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Why does it need a source other than their own reason? If everything needs a prior source, again you've set up the argumetn so there's only one answer.

Or maybe I should just ask you what the source of any religion's moral code is? Is "God told Moses" a satisfactory answer to you?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

OK - but how does one reason out morality? It seems to me rather that we share universal ideas of right and wrong and then explain how different policies conform to those universal ideas. Like I said before, we all seem to agree that the well being of the Iraqi people is important. Some people argue that the war, on balance, has made the Iraqi people worse off. Some people argue that on balance the Iraqi people are better off because of the war. But why should we care about the Iraqi people in the first place? Or the debate on affirmative action. One side argues that affirmative action helps African americans improve their situation, where other people argue that affirmative action actually makes African Americans worse off (by increasing prejudice and making people assume they are less qualified in their jobs etc.) but everyone seems to agree that African Americans need to be better off. Why?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

It's in our best interests not to have a large number of people disgruntled. Fewer riots, terrorist acts, etc.

And now for something completely different...
 

Mark Schmitt posted an explanation (attributed to someone else) a few days ago of how Senate moderates can keep Frist's chain reaction from reaching critical mass:

• [A] handful of Republican moderates can stop the option in its tracks to buy time and essentially take control of what happens next. Let me try to explain it as simply as possible: the cloture vote on Justice Priscilla Owen fails. Frist asks the chair to rule that filibusters are out of order on some judicial nominations. The chair so rules. Reid appeals the ruling of the chair. That appeal is debatable -- that is, it can itself be filibustered. So Frist has to move to table the appeal, which is not debatable.
  
  At that point, the Senate votes, presumably along the lines of support for the Nuclear Option itself. But not necessarily. Some number of Republicans could decide to vote against the motion to table. Combined with the votes of all the Democrats and the Republicans who oppose they option, they would defeat the motion to table. At that point, the underlying question returns: Reid's appeal, which Democrats can now filibuster. But everyone is now on record, and the compromisers who made it happen are now in total control. At any point, they can announce that they are switching their votes on a tabling motion, or that they are switching their votes in favor of Reid's appeal. Or, they can hold out for a compromise.

The underlying point here is that Frist simply doesn't have the power that, say, DeLay and Hastert have in the House to force the outcome he wants.

During playoffs Fear the Fro is it every game day. sorry.

And now for something completely different...
 

Why does Frist even think he can win this? Isn't Myers precisely the same issue already presented, with just a different candidate, and perhaps a less sympatethic one (at least Brown and Owen had the gender/race card)? If Frist persists in forcing the same issue, how can he expect to flip people?