Socratic questioning session #1

Remove all ads!

So environment, not evolution, shapes moral?

 

The biggest influence in the environment are other humans.

 

I used the example of rock collecting to demonstrate the utter pointlesness of regarding human created concepts as important. They are irrelevant because they are created by man and therefore only important as far as man is willing to make them.

That's actually true, studies have shown that basic brain chemistry is virtually the same between ALL humans, personality is only a function of memory.

(In case you have'nt figured out I REALLY enjoy a good debate, even when it's likely to get the ^%$* beaten out of me, if you ask I can send you a link.)

 

Then why mention evolution being the main thing that dictates morals?

 

I already said that 3 times in this topic,

lemme make it simple

herdinstinct evolves into society,
society is main influence in environment,
environment shapes moral,
moral extends into virtue.

 

Do you have any scientific proof for this that we could refer to?

 

But what of sociopaths?

 

Erebus, it says MAIN influence


rastilin, read one of my first post in this topic, mmkay?

 

If you're referring to the part about the monkeys that I already answered.

I would like to point out your use of the word "created". If you aknowledge that humans "create" virtue then I would ask you what makes you think that the virtue we create is meaningful to anything else but our own perceptions. If we create new virtues based upon experiences (which you suggest we do) then the current virtue is meaningful only as it pertains to our own perticular life experiences so far.

It could be argued that virtue as it applies to ourseleves is a method of behaviour that is more advantageous overall for us than what we might otherwise be tempted to do.

 

We humans create a virtue for ourselves

 

So we're agreed on this.

Although virtue is "truly" meaningful only to thse who created it, it is a method for choosing the most "overall" beneficial course of action that is created from our past experiences.

Overall = although being selfish / cowardly brings immediate bonuses it will have future repercussions

 

If we all create our own morals, why must we have a moral idol?

 

Because some of us are not as good at it as others...

 

but does not all people have some form of beliefs?

 

Aye, and beliefs, as morals, as allready established, are tailored to a certain persons situation - they are created by the environment that person exists in, in order that they may develop and refine their beliefs and their morals as their experiences accumulate.

As the quote goes... Even though a thousand people may believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing.

This does not make the people stupid, only at an unfortunate disadvantage.

 

But would anyone say that theri beliefs are not as good as anothers?

 

Yes, that is the idea of a moral idol (if I am interpreting what you mean correctly), someone who you see as being more virtuous than yourself, someone who you think you should try to emulate.

It is granted that your beliefs will allready closely coincide with such an idol, or are allready in a process of flux, but that is exactly the process I previously described - something that suggests to you that your current actions, based upon your current thoughts and beliefs, are inferior, so that you desire to change them.

 

I doubt many people would consider their own beliefs inferior, they may admire another, but will never claim that their beliefs are never as good as anothers. Can you please explain why a person may adhere to anothers beliefs, so easily, claiming that they are some what inferior to those around them?

 

If we did not change our beliefs how would we ever learn anything? The change is not easy, nor permanent, and nor is the belief in a need for change permanent.

If we did not have a moral idol, real or imagined, we would never feel guilt, never hear the pangs of an indignated conscience, never learn from our mistakes - such a figure need not be set in stone, but is too, developed with time and experience, according to our own sense of values, or of those who we see as virtuous.

 

But what of sociopaths, the feel no pangs of concience, or guilt, per se, yet they learn from there mistakes, however they are never that sure of themselves, please explain.