[late]

Morality is rooted in your biology as a monkey (yes, I know technically we're Great Apes, but that word conveys my meaning).

It's horribly limited, and most of the additions (like religion) are also quite limited.

Which is why we have philosophy of ethics.

[SolarCross]

Morality is rooted in your biology as a monkey (yes, I know technically we're Great Apes, but that word conveys my meaning).

It's horribly limited, and most of the additions (like religion) are also quite limited.

Which is why we have philosophy of ethics.

^ pretentious

[B0ycey]

...but in the post-enlightenment, post-modern West, where exactly are people drawing that sense of morality from? Where do you personally draw your morals from...

Surely everyone gets their morality from intercultural upbringing right? That is society tells you what is right and wrong and anything the is more subjective or based on opinion is perhaps subliminally given to you by your parents or close friends.

[Potemkin]

^ pretentious

Agreed, but it's probably true. There is likely to be an evolutionary explanation for the human sense of morality, probably connected to the vastly expanded capacity and necessity for social co-operation. In fact, most of our intellectual capacity is devoted to social interaction, which is probably the purpose for which said intelligence evolved in the first place. After all, humans are smarter than we need to be to be able to survive as hunter-gatherers - the vast and unprecedented flowering of our industrial society since the end of the last glacial period is proof of that. The extra brain power was needed for social co-operation and competition. Such co-operation and competition, of course, had to be regulated, and that system of regulation (in its abstract form) is what we call 'morality'.

[B0ycey]

Agreed, but it's probably true. There is likely to be an evolutionary explanation for the human sense of morality,

Do you not think it is our intelligence rather than our biology that creates morality? I only ask as an ape is unlikely to think he was wrong to steal from another ape but civilised humans perhaps are more likely to believe this is wrong?

[Potemkin]

Do you not think it is our intelligence rather than our biology that creates morality? I only ask as an ape is unlikely to think he was wrong to steal from another ape but civilised humans perhaps are more likely to believe this is wrong?

You're basically just saying that a "civilised human" is different from an ape in having an abstract sense of morality. I don't disagree with this, but the very question which is being asked in this thread is why we have such an abstract sense of morality. The most likely explanation is probably an evolutionary one. After all, the sense of morality must be of some benefit for it to persist and to be almost universal in all human societies. That benefit is what allows evolution to produce such a sense, through a series of random mutations of our DNA over a long enough time.

[B0ycey]

You're basically just saying that a "civilised human" is different from an ape in having an abstract sense of morality. I don't disagree with this, but the very question which is being asked in this thread is why we have such an abstract sense of morality. The most likely explanation is probably an evolutionary one. After all, the sense of morality must be of some benefit for it to persist and to be almost universal in all human societies. That benefit is what allows evolution to produce such a sense, through a series of random mutations of our DNA over a long enough time.

OK, let me put is this way. Do not not think humans that are civilised and educated will have a different morality to those who are uneducated and living within the law of nature? If so then morality is unlikely to be biological or have anything to do with evolution. It is likely to be cultural and based on intelligence.

[SolarCross]

OK, let me put is this way. Do not not think humans that are civilised and educated will have a different morality to those who are uneducated and living within the law of nature? If so then morality is unlikely to be biological or have anything to do with evolution. It is likely to be cultural and based on intelligence.

That's a false dichotomy. Your biology made your brain, your brain made your intelligence and your intelligence made your culture. None of these things are separate at all.

[B0ycey]

That's a false dichotomy. Your biology made your brain, your brain made your intelligence and your intelligence made your culture. None of these things are separate at all.

Education and experience creates intelligence. Or did you know everything when you are born? Biology perhaps determines behaviour and ability.

[Tainari88]

Fair enough.

But not you....how can you not love that handsome face of yours and the big brown eyes and radiant smile and know you are the genius and the rest are morons whom you deign to pay attention to....?

Sabes que te quiero mucho....since you love rock.....here is a rock piece for you......a classic....

sing that song....I am dancing right now before I hit the Mexican streets to do some errands....

The Rolling Stones.....

[SolarCross]

Education and experience creates intelligence. Or did you know everything when you are born? Biology perhaps determines behaviour and ability.

First off, I think you should clarify what you mean by "education". Are you talking about rote learning, like in school? "Teacher says I should write xyz or I will be punished, so I will write xyz because I do not want to be punished."? That sort of thing?

[Tainari88]

That's a false dichotomy. Your biology made your brain, your brain made your intelligence and your intelligence made your culture. None of these things are separate at all.

Our cells SolarCross are an integral part of being human. Just as the reason our hands curl when relaxed are because we were made to live in trees and only recently our heavy and hungry brains have dictated our path in life.

We are never separate from nature. But our cultures are also part of nature. And we all vary greatly within and without our cultural groups......and when you start thinking your culture is superior you just became a victim of hubris.

A dangerous thing to become in a species that loves to delude itself and think it lives separate from all the other living things that scratch out a living in this planet.

That last philosophical post of yours is part of the reason I think you are a very fun person to argue with.

Eres un descarao de una manera buena SolarCross.

[B0ycey]

First off, I think you should clarify what you mean by "education". Are you talking about rote learning, like in school? "Teacher says I should write xyz or I will be punished, so I will write xyz because I do not want to be punished."? That sort of thing?

Education is learning. That is something that is taught.

[Tainari88]

You're basically just saying that a "civilised human" is different from an ape in having an abstract sense of morality. I don't disagree with this, but the very question which is being asked in this thread is why we have such an abstract sense of morality. The most likely explanation is probably an evolutionary one. After all, the sense of morality must be of some benefit for it to persist and to be almost universal in all human societies. That benefit is what allows evolution to produce such a sense, through a series of random mutations of our DNA over a long enough time.

I just think we all seek something hard to find. Which is what Mark Twain stated long ago. I paraphrase....what he said, something along the lines of "The most important day in someone's life is the day he is born. The second most important day in someone's life is the day he finds out the reason why he was born."

That is what drives us as individuals.

And to love. A great endeavor and surprisingly hard to do because our connections to each other in cities, and in modern societies are so incredibly weak.

[SolarCross]

Education is learning. That is something that is taught.

You mean rote learning.

[B0ycey]

You mean rote learning.

No education. You can learn something by being taught once. Although why are we even doing this? You need to explain why intelligence is determined by biology if you didn't know everything you know now when you were born. Let's start there shall we.

[SolarCross]

No education. You can learn something by being taught once. Although why are we even doing this? You need to explain why intelligence is determined by biology if you didn't know everything you know now when you were born. Let's start there shall we.

Do you believe a pocket calculator has all the answers for all the possible maths questions it might get asked and all it has to do is match the one to the other?

[B0ycey]

Do you believe a pocket calculator has all the answers for all the possible maths questions it might get asked and all it has to do is match the one to the other?

What does this even mean? But sure ignore the question. It only proves you were wrong by implying biology, intelligence and culture are the same thing.

[late]

^ pretentious

Not only does the law need to parse complex ethical dilemmas, technology keeps throwing new problems at us.

But, I will grant you, it's not something you will hear about over cheap beer.

[SolarCross]

What does this even mean? But sure ignore the question. It only proves you were wrong by implying biology, imtelligence and culture are the same thing.

It means if all your intelligence comes from repeating what teacher says then you are less intelligent than a pocket calculator and they are not even alive. In comparison the most brutish cave man is a billion times as clever because he can think for himself.

I did not imply biology, intelligence and culture are the same thing. I said they are related. I think my exact words were "biology created your brain, your brain creates your intelligence and your intelligence creates your culture." This is absolutely factual.