# Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.



## pnome (Oct 26, 2010)

The title of this thread is actually a quote from a Robert Heinlein book.   But it's a thought I've had many times before reading it in Starship Troopers.


Simply put, everything we consider "good" is something that is beneficial to the survival of either ourselves or someone else (or some_thing_ else).  The someone else is someone we empathize with.

All social animals have the capacity to empathize, and thus have morals in the same way we do.  

Some examples:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LU8DDYz68kM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LU8DDYz68kM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

In this video, the herd of cape buffalo come to the rescue of a defenseless calf.   What drives them to do this?  I submit that it is the same thing that would drive us to attempt to save a human baby from a similar circumstance.  

Here is a good article on Dog morals:
http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_12382762

This is a very good study on the subject(Warning, lots of science):
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/Preston_dewaal2002.pdf



> In an experiment with rhesus monkeys, subjects were trained to pull two chains that
> delivered different amounts of food. The experimenters then altered the situation so that
> pulling the chain with the larger reward caused a monkey in sight of the subject to be
> shocked. After the subjects witnessed the shock of the conspecific, two-thirds preferred
> ...



There ya go ted.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 26, 2010)

Thanks Pnome. It is easy for us to assign human emotions to animals, I don't deny that they have animal emotions, but they are very different than ours.  Morality is a whole nother ball game.

Male lions and bears regularly kill (and eat) cubs they have not sired in order mate with the mothers of the dead cubs, in order to secure their own genetic continuance.  I guess this may be some form of Lion/Bear "morality", but it certainly doesn't support the theory that morality comes from cultures and society in the interest of a more peaceful social existence.  Neither does the fact that the lioness or sow of the dead cubs would immediately come back into heat and mate with the "killer" willingly.


----------



## Diogenes (Oct 27, 2010)

“I guess this may be some form of Lion/Bear "morality", but it certainly doesn't support the theory that morality comes from cultures and society in the interest of a more peaceful social existence.”

Let us not confuse morality with idealism.  I’m not sure which theory is referred to, concerning the linkage of morality with a peaceful social existence, but certainly any such theory is bunk.  We need to separate the thoughts for a moment, before they are co-joined.

Firstly, we need to agree that on a fundamental level Humans are mammals – animals well developed but animals not hugely unlike the rest.  On an animal level, instinctive if you will, we tend to react to outside threats on a purely protective level.  But as you observe, different animals react in different ways.  Some take a purely ‘herd’ approach and rally the mass for the protection of most, tolerating some losses but largely thwarting threats to themselves as a species by sheer strength of numbers.  Some are more individualistic, and rather than assemble in large numbers rely on stealth and speed to avoid predators.  Others are more individualistic still, and rely on themselves as predators rather than prey, finding even members of their own species to be a threat to the perpetuation of their own line.  

Next, we need to separate the idea of morality from the idea of instinctive behavior.  Disney-style anthropomorphism notwithstanding, the animals who turn as a group to protect the calf are not reacting out of any thought-out or codified ‘morality,’ – they are just mad.  Every living thing, from a germ to an oak tree to a whale, is interested primarily in reproduction.  We drop as many ‘acorns’ as we can, in hopes that some might survive.  Nothing mysterious about that.  So, holding aside pure predatory species for the moment, you will find a correlation between the protectiveness a species affords its offspring and the gestation periods of that species.  Those that reproduce rapidly or in large numbers tend to be less protective, while those that reproduce slowly and mature slowly tend to be violently protective.  Try to get between a mother cow, an elephant, or a bear and her recent offspring and woe unto you.  This is less ‘morality’ than it is survival of the species.  We don’t get to spring a thousand tadpoles at a time, five times or more a year, and let them fend for themselves, so each offspring is that much more valuable to us as a species, and our survival as a species depends on our nurturing and protection.

Third, ‘peaceful’ existence has never been a useful or realistic construct.  No such thing has ever happened.  Nature is in all ways and at all times in conflict over territory and resources, and all living things are in a competition of conquest, from the lowest cancer cell that inadvertently kills its host by multiplying without regard, to invasive plants and fish that crowd out all others by consuming everything in sight, to nomadic herds that over-reproduce and overgraze only to be overtaken by a change in season.  And here we reintroduce the predators, whose survival depends on the weakness of the prey.  These themes are the themes of the natural world, as it exists.  We did not impose them upon the world.

Fourth, we need to spend a moment on the non-living aspects of the world, which all living things must encounter and somehow endure.  Though we are finding, increasingly, that life is stubborn and hugely adaptable, existing in places we previously thought to be completely inhospitable and devoid, the portions of the planet that tend to support the higher and more complex forms of life are still very narrow.  Two-thirds of the planet is covered by water.  We can’t live there.  One half of the rest is ice, swamp, desert, or mountain.  We can’t live there.  The ‘habitable’ regions are plagued with hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, landslides, floods, lightning strikes, wildfires, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and a host of other things that living on an evolving planet brings to the bargain.  

Lastly, we need to separate the idea of morality from the idea of culture.  Back in the sixth century, the Toltecs were horrified by the practices of the Mayans, who routinely killed and ate their enemies, often eating them alive.  Mayan temples ran with blood, and they actually built special racks to display the heads of those they had captured and eaten.  They ‘believed’ that eating the flesh of the vanquished, especially the hearts, granted them the power that had been contained in the slain.  The Toltecs opposed this practice, and were overrun and killed to a man out of the bargain.  Examples of what we would today call ‘evil’ masquerading as commonplace ‘cultural’ practices abound throughout history, and the early Christians are certainly not immune to such observations.  Each and every defended themselves, at the time, by citing the ‘morality’ of their own culture, as opposed to the ‘depravity’ of their enemies in not observing their own cultural ethos.

So, even though it is a conclusion that causes no small amount of consternation and hand-wringing, we are forced to conclude that ‘human morality’ is purely situational, and changes with the wind.  The few parts that some tend to cite as ‘universal’ are not anything of the sort, but rather spring from a common (species-based) and instinctive interest in survival.  We must conclude that ‘morality’ is also certainly individual, since every codified manifestation of it from ancient history to modern times has required the enforcement of authority, from high priests to kings to governments, all of whom have failed to create a ‘peaceful’ society of men to date.  We are forced to conclude that any benevolent, invisible  ‘creator’ is a fraudulent construct of a warped imagination, given that such a being would not construct a hostile and inhospitable environment that kills his believers and non-believers alike by the millions. And we are forced to conclude that, even in modern times, people still cite the ‘morality’ of their own ‘culture’ to justify the killing of those who do not share that culture.  

Truth seems to be that there is no such thing as ‘morality,’ except in the eyes of the victors --   “ . . . a more peaceful social existence . . . “ certainly doesn’t have a whit of credibility in view of the history of men, and the uses to which they have wielded their own versions of ‘morality’ over the millennia.  

Sorry I couldn’t be of more help, and ratify one view or another, but the truth is disturbing enough, don’t you think?

Which is more ‘immoral,’ – hiding behind an artificial, posturing construct committing atrocities in the name of their own collective ‘morality,’ or standing aside and refusing to believe that the basis of that particular ‘morality’ has any real footing at all?


----------



## pnome (Oct 27, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Thanks Pnome. It is easy for us to assign human emotions to animals, I don't deny that they have animal emotions, but they are very different than ours.  Morality is a whole nother ball game.
> 
> Male lions and bears regularly kill (and eat) cubs they have not sired in order mate with the mothers of the dead cubs, in order to secure their own genetic continuance.  I guess this may be some form of Lion/Bear "morality", but it certainly doesn't support the theory that morality comes from cultures and society in the interest of a more peaceful social existence.  Neither does the fact that the lioness or sow of the dead cubs would immediately come back into heat and mate with the "killer" willingly.



Lions and Bears have vastly different survival imperatives than we do.  So, it stands to reason that their morals would be different as well.

What is the benefit of a "peaceful social existence"?  Less war, less killing, more _survival_.  Think of the most moral deed you can, and I guarantee you that it is a situation where one person is imparting survival benefit to another.


----------



## pnome (Oct 27, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> Try to get between a mother cow, an elephant, or a bear and her recent offspring and woe unto you.  This is less ‘morality’ than it is survival of the species.



But it's the entire herd that defends the calf.  Why should the other buffalo help the mother?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 28, 2010)

pnome said:


> But it's the entire herd that defends the calf.  Why should the other buffalo help the mother?



Instinct.

I suppose the underlying question to have a fair discussion would be to define morality.  That is a tall order that we could debate forever on a subjective level.

So, is there an objective morality? (One that is true for all of mankind) Most would argue, NO, we make our own morality.

I would disagree, I believe that there is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH that applies to all of us whether we believe it or not (regardless of its source) (not limited to a specific religion)

If this existed, would it apply to animals?  I would limit the word animals to the specific kingdom, proper mammels only, just for the sake of limiting the discussion.  We don't want any herpetologists getting confused.


----------



## pnome (Oct 28, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Instinct.



Exactly.



> So, is there an objective morality?




Yes!  

Like I've said above.  The "good" moral choice will always be something that will benefit either your survival, or the survival of those you empathize with, _given the information you have at the time_.

If we had perfect information, the correct moral choice,  the choice that gives the greatest possible survival benefit to the largest number of people, would be obvious.  This is the moral absolute.

It's like poker.  If you could see your opponent's cards, and the cards left in the deck, (i.e. if you had all the information) the correct play (bet, fold, raise) would be obvious.  There is a right answer.  We just never have complete information.  That's the relative part.  The level and accuracy of the information we have to base our choices on.  

Same is true for animals.  However, their access to information is no where near ours.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 29, 2010)

pnome said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think survival is what morality is about.  I think it is about right and wrong.  Sometimes self sacrifice is the moral thing to do.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 29, 2010)

Diogenes said:


> “I guess this may be some form of Lion/Bear "morality", but it certainly doesn't support the theory that morality comes from cultures and society in the interest of a more peaceful social existence.”
> 
> Let us not confuse morality with idealism.  I’m not sure which theory is referred to, concerning the linkage of morality with a peaceful social existence, but certainly any such theory is bunk.  We need to separate the thoughts for a moment, before they are co-joined.
> 
> ...



Diogenes- my point here is that there is an absolute truth, seperate from culture or a singular religion.  Humans are not inherently moral, as you have eloquently described.

I mention "peaceful exsitence", only because it is the most common arguement that I hear about why morality is based on cultural and societal influences, and not a higher power.  You have also eloquently put to rest that falsehood.

So, _we have no choice but to conclude _that since we are not capable of it, and it undoubtedly exists, that it comes from a higher power.


----------



## Achilles Return (Oct 29, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> So, _we have no choice but to conclude _that since we are not capable of it, and it undoubtedly exists, that it comes from a higher power.



Non-sequitur: Argument from incredulity.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 29, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Non-sequitur: Argument from incredulity.



It was sarcastic.


----------



## Thanatos (Oct 31, 2010)

pnome said:


> All social animals have the capacity to empathize, and thus have morals in the same way we do.



Pnome...are you serious?


----------



## Thanatos (Oct 31, 2010)

pnome said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Problem.

Morals are not about how many card's you can see in the deck to make a decision. Morals help you choose WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION. No matter if you have 1% or 100% of the knowledge to make the decision.


----------



## Achilles Return (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Problem.
> 
> Morals are not about how many card's you can see in the deck to make a decision. Morals help you choose WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION. No matter if you have 1% or 100% of the knowledge to make the decision.



Really? I didn't realize the human race had given Thanatos of the GON forums the unique power to define what morals were. What makes your opinion any more valid than his?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Problem.
> 
> Morals are not about how many card's you can see in the deck to make a decision. *Morals help you choose WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT INFORMATION*. No matter if you have 1% or 100% of the knowledge to make the decision.



And what you do with that information is: Survive.  Every good and moral choice you make will benefit someone's survival.  Every evil or wrong choice will be a detriment.   

Empathy gives you the ability to move above the individual level.  It allows us to make moral choices that benefit someone else.  

And yes I'm serious.


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think survival is what morality is about.  I think it is about right and wrong.  Sometimes self sacrifice is the moral thing to do.



What I'm telling you is, that your concept of what is right and what is wrong is based on what you think will be either beneficial or detrimental to survival.  Either for yourself, or someone you empathize with.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Really? I didn't realize the human race had given Thanatos of the GON forums the unique power to define what morals were. What makes your opinion any more valid than his?



From Wiki

Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates *intentions*, *decisions*, and *actions* between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> And what you do with that information is: Survive.  Every good and moral choice you make will benefit someone's survival.  Every evil or wrong choice will be a detriment.
> 
> Empathy gives you the ability to move above the individual level.  It allows us to make moral choices that benefit someone else.
> 
> And yes I'm serious.



So if I _decide_ to look at pornography...how is that helping or disabling my survival? (I could see where if my wife found out it would hurt my chances to stay alive...lol)


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> So if I _decide_ to look at pornography...how is that helping or disabling my survival? (I could see where if my wife found out it would hurt my chances to stay alive...lol)



Well, that depends on the information you have concerning pornography.  

My information would suggest that looking at pornography is harmless (angry wives not withstanding).  So, this means I have no moral problems with looking at it.   Though, I do have a moral problem with paying for it.

Do you think looking at pornography is harmless?  Or do you think it has a negative effect on you?


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Well, that depends on the information you have concerning pornography.
> 
> My information would suggest that looking at pornography is harmless (angry wives not withstanding).  So, this means I have no moral problems with looking at it.   Though, I do have a moral problem with paying for it.
> 
> Do you think looking at pornography is harmless?  Or do you think it has a negative effect on you?



It does have a negative effect especially if you are married. It can desensitize you and change the way you view personal relationships and has the most effect on intimacy.

Pnome, let's say you have 100% knowledge of the decision to systematically kill off a whole race of people. Would it ever be okay to do so?


----------



## davidstaples (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> It does have a negative effect especially if you are married. It can desensitize you and change the way you view personal relationships and has the most effect on intimacy.
> 
> Pnome, let's say you have 100% knowledge of the decision to systematically kill off a whole race of people. Would it ever be okay to do so?



First you say it *does* have a negative effect and then you say that it *can*.  So either it definitely does or it only possibly does.  Which is it?  What about couples who watch pornography together?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> It can desensitize you and change the way you view personal relationships and has the most effect on intimacy.



All of those things look like they would be detrimental to your survival.    And thus, you think viewing pornography is morally "wrong".  Simple as that.



> Pnome, let's say you have 100% knowledge of the decision to systematically kill off a whole race of people. Would it ever be okay to do so?



Genocide?  Let me see if I can think of a situation where it might be morally acceptable...

Let's say that the world is infected with a terrible fatal new virus.  One that can only incubate in the mitochondria of Jews (or Semites).   The virus is going to wipe out the rest of humanity.  Would it then be morally acceptable to kill the Jews?  I don't know.  Maybe.  

Would it be morally acceptable to systematically kill off a whole race of people,  if God said so?  I.E. Joshua's genocide against the people who were currently living in his "Promised Land"


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

Good work on the bible quote for supporting genocide (old testament at that), but your other argument comes from a VERY hypothetical event for you to justify your moral theory. Kinda of a stretch right? 

Let's move onto another one to see what kind of crazy, wacky idea you need to come up with to justify this one. Is there ever a situation where a race of people needs to be enslaved?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Let's move onto another one to see what kind of crazy, wacky idea you need to come up with to justify this one. Is there ever a situation where a race of people needs to be enslaved?



Hmmm.....  That's a tough one.   

Ok, let's say that instead of a virus that killed everyone the virus only infected Semitic mitochondria.  And only then in nerve cells.  It causes the afflicted to suffer brain damage that renders them incapable of caring for themselves.  Thus, they all have to be kept in special housing and restricted there for their own safety.  They are then put to work doing whatever they can to help pay for the special needs housing.   While that isn't exactly "slavery" it's as close as I can get.  I guess that's a stretch.  Maybe I just lack the imagination to come up with such a scenario.  

I think what you are trying to get at is a situation that would never be morally acceptable.  I'll help you out:  Rape.  Different societies have differing views on which women men are allowed to have sex with, but no society allows men to have sex with whatever women they want.

Now, why do you suppose that is?


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Hmmm.....  That's a tough one.
> 
> Ok, let's say that instead of a virus that killed everyone the virus only infected Semitic mitochondria.  And only then in nerve cells.  It causes the afflicted to suffer brain damage that renders them incapable of caring for themselves.  Thus, they all have to be kept in special housing and restricted there for their own safety.  They are then put to work doing whatever they can to help pay for the special needs housing.   While that isn't exactly "slavery" it's as close as I can get.  I guess that's a stretch.  Maybe I just lack the imagination to come up with such a scenario.
> 
> ...



My point is that you have to conjure up some crazy situations to justify your theory of how we get our morals.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

Pnome where does our perception of beauty come from? You and I may have different taste in women, but if we see an attractive woman we will both take notice correct?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> My point is that you have to conjure up some crazy situations to justify your theory of how we get our morals.



I don't see how that follows.

You've been asking me if certain actions would ever be morally acceptable.  I've been coming up with crazy situations where they might be.  But in general, I agree with you.  Genocide and slavery, neither are morally acceptable in the vast, vast, majority of scenarios.  Even when they appear in the Bible.

The question is "Why?"   Why is slavery morally unacceptable?  Why is it "wrong?"

My answer: Our information holds that slavery is a condition that is detrimental to the survival of the slave.  If we can empathize with the slave, i.e. we can see ourselves in their situation, then slavery will seem "wrong" to us.


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Pnome where does our perception of beauty come from? You and I may have different taste in women, but if we see an attractive woman we will both take notice correct?



Beauty being in the eye of the beholder notwithstanding...

We can both appreciate healthiness in a potential mate.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> I don't see how that follows.
> 
> You've been asking me if certain actions would ever be morally acceptable.  I've been coming up with crazy situations where they might be.  But in general, I agree with you.  Genocide and slavery, neither are morally acceptable in the vast, vast, majority of scenarios.  Even when they appear in the Bible.
> 
> ...



But that is the complete opposite of the animal kingdom and flies in the face of all evolutionary teaching. Survival of the fittest wins out. Only the the traits that would help us survive would be passed down through the years. If you could enslave a race to do your grunt work that could help out the survival of your race exponentially.  You could focus on more valuable task while the slaves harvest your food and build your tools to keep advancing. I think you need to tweak your theory a bit more to make it fit with the rest of your beliefs. Or, I could be ignorant about what you truly believe.


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> But that is the complete opposite of the animal kingdom and flies in the face of all evolutionary teaching. Survival of the fittest wins out.



No in the slightest.  I think you are stuck at the individual level.  

From my original post:
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pd...dewaal2002.pdf



> Short abstract:
> Our proximate and ultimate model of empathy integrates diverse theories, reconciles
> conflicting definitions, and generates specific predictions. Focusing on the evolution of
> perception-action processes connects empathy with more basic phenomena such as
> ...






> Only the the traits that would help us survive would be passed down through the years. *If you could enslave a race to do your grunt work that could help out the survival of your race exponentially.*  You could focus on more valuable task while the slaves harvest your food and build your tools to keep advancing. I think you need to tweak your theory a bit more to make it fit with the rest of your beliefs. Or, I could be ignorant about what you truly believe.



Not if we empathized with that race.  Because we would include that race in what we consider "us."  It's pretty easy to see ourselves in another human, of any race.  But let's change things around and instead of race, let's say "species."

Can you think of an animal species that we humans have used to do our grunt work?  Do you think it's "wrong" for us to use horses in this way?  Normally, I would guess, you don't.  But if you attempt to empathize with the horses, I'll bet you could find something "wrong" about it.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> No in the slightest.  I think you are stuck at the individual level.
> 
> From my original post:
> http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pd...dewaal2002.pdf
> ...



Where does our, or their empathy come from?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Where does our, or their empathy come from?



Our survival instinct.  

The ability to empathize imparts a survival advantage to any species wishing to survive in a group.

Which group of people has a better chance at survival?

Group 1)  A bunch of people who are loners who go off and just take care of themselves.

Group 2)  A bunch of people who work together as a team.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Our survival instinct.
> 
> The ability to empathize imparts a survival advantage to any species wishing to survive in a group.
> 
> ...



I think a fair analogy would be

Group 1) A bunch of people who work together as a team and only expend resources on their team

Group 2) A bunch of people who work together as a team and expend their resources on other groups who are struggling to bring them up. 

Is that fair?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> I think a fair analogy would be
> 
> Group 1) A bunch of people who work together as a team and only expend resources on their team
> 
> ...



Group 2 is just a bigger team.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Group 2 is just a bigger team.



So now you have a bigger team with less resources???

Do you believe in bio evolution?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> So now you have a bigger team with less resources???




No one specified fixed resources.  It would seem to me that with more team members you could produce more resources.  



> Do you believe in bio evolution?



Give me your definition of bio evolution.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> No one specified fixed resources.  It would seem to me that with more team members you could produce more resources.



O boy, you and I can go on forever with this game. 



pnome said:


> Give me your definition of bio evolution.



I asked this before, but I will ask it again. Where does your opinion of beauty come from?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> O boy, you and I can go on forever with this game.



It's a fun game.  But I'll tell ya what.  Just try to come up with something that you think is morally good that doesn't benefit the survival of someone.



> I asked this before, but I will ask it again. Where does your opinion of beauty come from?



See post #28


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> See post #28



My apologies. What about when you and I look at a strutting turkey that is fixing to let out on of those gobbles that shakes the ground. Where does that feeling of beauty come from?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> My apologies. What about when you and I look at a strutting turkey that is fixing to let out on of those gobbles that shakes the ground. Where does that feeling of beauty come from?



Beauty can apply to many things.  Not all of them living.  But, in general, it is an appraisal of fitness or health compared to a conceptual ideal.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Beauty can apply to many things.  Not all of them living.  But, in general, it is an appraisal of fitness or health compared to a conceptual ideal.



Let me take the woman's beauty a step further. We do not have to see whither they are thick or skinny. We can look into ones eyes and their face to see beauty. How can i tell how healthy someone is if I only see their face? Ask people on match.com how often they get burned with the face shot...lol 

I agree beauty is all around us. If we were to go to Germany or Austria I bet both would agree that the country side is breathtaking. Why do we both think that is beautiful?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> Ask people on match.com how often they get burned with the face shot...lol



So, they saw a healthy and symmetrical face and were attracted.  But when they saw the unhealthy body, they were repulsed.  I think that proves my point nicely.



> I agree beauty is all around us. If we were to go to Germany or Austria I bet both would agree that the country side is breathtaking. Why do we both think that is beautiful?



Because we are both human.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2010)

Pnome- you agreed that morality is objective. There is an "absolute truth".

So, if the lion adopted the cubs he has not sired and allowed them to mature, and waited for the lioness to fulfill her motherhood to them, and then sired his own cubs, would this not serve the absolute morality completely?

Killing them to propogate his own genes contradicts your definition of morality=survival.

Morality is not meant to convientantly serve our own ends.  *Without implying anyone's beliefs*, abortion comes to mind as an antithesis of survival=morality in the human realm.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2010)

Achilles Return said:


> Really? I didn't realize the human race had given Thanatos of the GON forums the unique power to define what morals were. What makes your opinion any more valid than his?



That is just silly.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> What I'm telling you is, that your concept of what is right and what is wrong is based on what you think will be either beneficial or detrimental to survival.  Either for yourself, or someone you empathize with.



It is presumptious for you to tell me what my concept of right and wrong is based upon.

Morality tells me that I will be mocked and persecuted for my beliefs, yet I persist. This is hardly in the interest of survival.


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> It is presumptious for you to tell me what my concept of right and wrong is based upon.
> 
> Morality tells me that I will be mocked and persecuted for my beliefs, yet I persist. This is hardly in the interest of survival.



Sorry to have caused any offense.  I'm not mocking you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Sorry to have caused any offense.  I'm not mocking you.



None taken, I would not expect you to do that, I have always known you to be civil.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> It is presumptious for you to tell me what my concept of right and wrong is based upon.
> 
> Morality tells me that I will be mocked and persecuted for my beliefs, yet I persist. This is hardly in the interest of survival.[/QUOTE]
> 
> So what of this Pnome? My morality is not in the interest of survival!!!


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> So, if the lion adopted the cubs he has not sired and allowed them to mature, and waited for the lioness to fulfill her motherhood to them, and then sired his own cubs, would this not serve the absolute morality completely?



Yes.  At least it sounds like it to me.  We never really know, because we always lack complete information.

But how often do you think we humans do the absolutely morally right thing?  I would think the bears are at least doing as well as we are at that.  If not better.



> Killing them to propogate his own genes contradicts your definition of morality=survival.



They have been surviving that way for some time.  



> Morality is not meant to convientantly serve our own ends.



Correct.  Which is why I titled this thread "Moral behavior is survival behavior _above the individual level_. 



> *Without implying anyone's beliefs*, abortion comes to mind as an antithesis of survival=morality in the human realm.



Preaching to the choir my friend.  I'm one of those very rare pro-life atheists.


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> > =ted_BSR;5465269]It is presumptious for you to tell me what my concept of right and wrong is based upon.
> >
> > Morality tells me that I will be mocked and persecuted for my beliefs, yet I persist. This is hardly in the interest of survival.
> 
> ...



Your information tells you that you will survive forever in heaven as reward.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Your information tells you that you will survive forever in heaven as reward.



That is through no deed of my own, or reward.  I don't deserve any reward.  I deserve to survive forever in He!!It is by the Grace of God and Christ's sacrifice.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Because we are both human.



O really!!!

But, Pnome...where has this feeling of scenic beauty that we BOTH share come from? It in no way helps our survival instinct...right?


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> That is through no deed of my own, or reward.  I don't deserve any reward.  I deserve to survive forever in He!!It is by the Grace of God and Christ's sacrifice.



I have it on good authority that you don't get into heaven unless you believe in that sacrifice.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> I have it on good authority that you don't get into heaven unless you believe in that sacrifice.



Sounds like Faith in a gift.


----------



## pnome (Nov 1, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> O really!!!
> 
> But, Pnome...where has this feeling of scenic beauty that we BOTH share come from? It in no way helps our survival instinct...right?



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  So, what you find beautiful and what I find beautiful may be different.

But let's try an extreme example:

Which picture is more beautiful?

A) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





B)


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 2, 2010)

So you believe that all of our desires about the women we seek, and the desire to eat that fat juicy steak was breed down the evolutionary line until the things we see that are beautiful are just neuro responses to stimuli that helped our ancestors survive?


----------



## pnome (Nov 2, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> So you believe that all of our desires about the women we seek, and the desire to eat that fat juicy steak was breed down the evolutionary line until the things we see that are beautiful are just neuro responses to stimuli that helped our ancestors survive?



Yeah.  That sounds about right.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 2, 2010)

pnome said:


> Yeah.  That sounds about right.



So the feeling of love you have for your family and wife/girlfriend...that does not exist? It is a false reality that is conjured up by our minds to sustain us? 

What of the steak? If we truly are bred for survival then we would not gorge our selves on food would we? If our desire to eat food is just a neuro response then why do we want the unhealthy food the most? Why do we want to intake so much of it?


----------



## TTom (Nov 3, 2010)

Thanatos , that last question is the easiest yet.

We crave and eat to excess because we have not adapted and evolved yet to handle a steady food supply. Remember that this level of food has only been around anywhere in the entire world for a couple decades at best.

Hunger is still the default physical feeling in many parts of the world.

Fat and such are desired because the human body has no faith that the next meal will really be there.

Feast and famine are historically the alternating states of man.
Stored fat is the body trying to prepare for the famine to come.


----------



## Thanatos (Nov 3, 2010)

TTom said:


> Thanatos , that last question is the easiest yet.
> 
> We crave and eat to excess because we have not adapted and evolved yet to handle a steady food supply. Remember that this level of food has only been around anywhere in the entire world for a couple decades at best.
> 
> ...



Wait...your telling me in 2000 years every one might be skinny because our minds and bodies will have evolved to a state that we don't indulge? What about our other indulgences that have nothing to do with survival?  

I would like to hear your answer to the question poised above the steak example.


----------



## pnome (Nov 3, 2010)

Thanatos said:


> So the feeling of love you have for your family and wife/girlfriend...that does not exist? It is a false reality that is conjured up by our minds to sustain us?



Accepting that love is natural in no way cheapens it.  I do not have to believe that it is some deity in order to feel it fully.



> What of the steak? If we truly are bred for survival then we would not gorge our selves on food would we? If our desire to eat food is just a neuro response then why do we want the unhealthy food the most? Why do we want to intake so much of it?



Forgive me for answering your question with a question but...  Do you think that gorging yourself on food is a morally "good" thing?


----------



## TTom (Nov 3, 2010)

2,000 years? likely not, but 100,000 years we might not have quite the same craving for the fatty foods assuming that we somehow wipe out hunger and famine world wide and keep it wiped out.

Now we might or might not engage in the behavior based on something else, but the survival imperative, would be removed from the question at that point.

Nutritionists will tell you that the yo-yo effect of dieting is largely caused by the feast vs famine metabolism that man developed to cope with the insecurity of food supply.

As to the love question. I contend that the feeling of love exists and is real, but that the way it is interpreted and acted on varies wildly. There are some survival instincts that come into play in the selection process. It's going to sound sexist here but it's not ment to. The thing is in Humans contrary to what us men would like to think Women control the mating selection process by and large.

I would contend then that they have a larger survival instinct component to attraction. I would not though say that men have none. Women select the men based in some part on ability to provide security. (they will not openly admit to it often)

We, in the west, often call love those feelings that are really infatuation, and sexual attraction, and today it seems far less likely that we will wait and or work at and develop the feelings of real lasting love. Long long ago and in places far far away when marriage was seen as a political and social contract, and the reasons for getting married were much more honestly looked at, people married and then developed love based on sharing a life.

This still is not uncommon in places where marriages are arranged. 

Real Spiritual love though grows and develops over time, and far too few people take those tough and hard road experiences and allow them to forge the relationship stronger.

Love is plenty real, but it is not those hearts and flowers feelings we have when we "fall in love", real love hasn't even begun to grow most of the time until years after the wedding. Before that yes I'm of the opinion that it is in large part determined by more than a few biological and social influences that are impacted by the desire for survival. 

Rarely do we search for a mate in groups of people below our social standing. Even if we find one in those other strata of society how often do we allow ourselves that love?  We search for our partners in groups of people where we expect to find partners who increase our survival or social standing.


----------

