Encounter with aliens

[IrishEyes]

This has been an example why there is no authority that can teach morality, it just comes along by itself.

 

Do you really think that morality just comes along by itself? I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that what we, as a society, consider moral changes? I agree with that. However, I don't think that means it comes along by itself.

 

time changed morality to what I think is better.

But *I* think it's worse. I think that the moral standard has gone downhill, not uphill. I think that people are too permissive, and too afraid to say "That's wrong" for fear of offending someone else. I also think that there *should* be a right and wrong, definitive standards. That's not to say that I think everyone should live their life to my standards, please don't read it that way.

 

Ok, i'm gonna stop for a bit. My thoughts are getting a bit jumbled, due to pain meds. I'll try to write more later, when I can think a bit more clearly. :hihi:

[pgrmdave]

To say that we need an outside force to teach us morality means that there is a universal morality, that morality is not subjective to the society. If there was an objective morality, maybe we wouldn't have a problem with tolerance: Should we tolerate intolerance?

[infamous]

No I don't agree that mankind needs some outside instruction. I believe mankind can do that just by the normal evolution of time and therefore of the human race.

I also think that no authority has the task to learn morality, simply because it would nevr work. See for exmple what Bush is doing now, he tries to teach some morality (this morality that I judge pseudo-religious, i.e no abortion, no acceptance of homosexuals,...),does it work? No, it works only for the people that either already thought like him or that percentage of people who is a sheep (ie folows without thinking), but there stays about a 40% who doesn't agree. This is a good example why you can't teach morality, as it has to have about 99% of the individuals composing a society that think the same way to make ân other way imoral.

This has been an example why there is no authority that can teach morality, it just comes along by itself. Take for example the position of the woman in western societies. In the 19th century it was considered immorall, that woman would wear trousers, now it has change: time changed morality to what I think is better.

Yes, just like Nazi Germany came along by itself and is responsible for the extermination of six million jews. Gotzya sanctus.

[pgrmdave]

Morality changes, it cannot truly be said for better or for worse, because there is no sliding scale of morality. It can be said that a morality is closer or further from what we think a "good" morality would be, but it is subjective.

[infamous]

Morality changes, it cannot truly be said for better or for worse, because there is no sliding scale of morality. It can be said that a morality is closer or further from what we think a "good" morality would be, but it is subjective.

Absolutely pgrmdave, I agree with you 100%, but if you could create the next moral code, how would you design it. By gerneral concensus, what would you like to define as good or bad. I think that Nazi's killing six million jews would have to be questionable, wouldn't you?

[Aquagem]

I just finished posting a reply on the Morality thread that would be just as appropriate here. Why do we have two threads that are so similar? Genetic drift?

[lindagarrette]

Absolutely pgrmdave, I agree with you 100%, but if you could create the next moral code, how would you design it. By gerneral concensus, what would you like to define as good or bad. I think that Nazi's killing six million jews would have to be questionable, wouldn't you?

 

Morality is a social construct in all cases. For example, I would consider the genocide, polygamy, torture (especially the concept of hell) and other ottrocities sanctioned by or committed by God in the OT to be immoral but apparently others don't.

[Aquagem]

Morality changes, it cannot truly be said for better or for worse, because there is no sliding scale of morality. It can be said that a morality is closer or further from what we think a "good" morality would be, but it is subjective.

I would add one dimension to the discussion, and that is that morality is grounded in our essential drives for survial and reproduction. It isn't as arbitrary as your post makes is seem. For something to become part of a "moral code", like other mutations, it undergoes selection and may or may not make it in the longer run. If your culture can only survive by taking over the lands of your neighbors to get more resources, you'll probably find a way to justify it morally (it's us or it's them, and it ain't gonna be them). If future times, your culture, now enjoying the wealth of your new digs, may find that a warlike way of life is wasteful and reprehensible, and morality shifts toward domestic production (butter, not guns). Then, typically, you'll be stomped by the guys next door, who are recapitulating your ontogeny, and the cycle repeats.

 

In sum -- What's moral today will be out tomorrow, except for the parts that foster your culture's survival. "Tis a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying..." something?

[pgrmdave]

If a man steals to feed his starving family, is it wrong? My point is that morality cannot be measured. While I agree that morality typically is whatever is best for the group, there are too many instances where we cannot judge what is good or bad, and different people may interpret actions differently. Take the current situation in Iraq - to most people, we are invaders who are holding a country hostage, to some we are saviors who freed a people living under a dictatorship where they were ruled by fear. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong, it is entirely subjective.

[Aquagem]

Both sides are right, both sides are wrong, it is entirely subjective.

Interesting point. In the surface details (invaders vs saviors) two groups come to opposite conclusions. In the "middle of things", at the level of the boxing ring, "both are right, both are wrong" -- but I would contend their central intentions are the same. Everybody wants GOOD, and that good comes down to a complex of emotions that ultimately arise from survival (which includes altruism at the social scale). I remember debating in high school, and one of the requirements of the team was to be able to argue as forcefully from one side as the other on questions that were contentious and about which people disagreed vehemently.

 

It seems that the two sides in any contentious argument, if pressed to analyze their stance, would enumerate diversity of associations as the cause of their different conclusions. Given the persistence of that diversity, the only way to break the impasse would be to proclaim from a seat of power that THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE MORALITY. Peace through brute force.

 

In that sense, the enforcement of a single morality could itself be an extremely powerful mechanism of cultural survival. The whole group has at least to acquiesce before annihilating their neighbors, or they might wrangle with one another into oblivion. It's the side effects that I abhor. Any claim of absolute right means there's gonna be an absolute wrong that comes along with it. In the larger view, the tension between these two could keep a culture in some sort of dynamic equilibrium, swinging back and forth chaotically, but not becoming too extreme. (Idealistic? Yup.)

[john_jrambo2000]

Ya, I see your point. If I were to stumble across some guy raping a women, I would intervene. To the woman I would be a saviour, but to the rapist I would just be a dictator enforcing my strict moral code solely because I am stronger. Who's to say which point of view is right?

As an aside, is sarcasm wrong?

[Aquagem]

Ya, I see your point. If I were to stumble across some guy raping a women, I would intervene. To the woman I would be a saviour, but to the rapist I would just be a dictator enforcing my strict moral code solely because I am stronger. Who's to say which point of view is right?

As an aside, is sarcasm wrong?

Which is (regarded as) right and which is (regarded as) wrong seems to be determined at the interface between individual and social rights, pitting my needs against yours. I think of it like an arm-wrestling match, where we both want to win, both strive to the uttermost, but (if we are civilized) we stop short of murder. The "prize" may be status, money, a mate, etc. A crude picture, but gets at the basic conflict (?) (This is a very male, "testosterone-y" picture of morality. A female sense of it could be very different, and I'd love to see a woman suggest one from her viewpoint in a post, rather than stumble into a pit by describing my own idea of what it might be!)

 

Some values change rather quickly (limits on speech, selfishness/Golden Rule ratio, conservative/liberal political climate), others slowly (slavery, power of church authority, basic construct of society, e.g., democracy), and still others imperceptibly (murder, rape, revolution). Our foundational moral values (which I don't claim to have a list of, but which would encompass the last group) are as much a part of our cultural makeup as our genetic code is embodied in each of us. In this sense, we ALL have a stake in determining and supporting what is right and wrong. That's a huge part of the social contract and without which civilization as we think of it would be virtually impossible.

 

I don't claim to be an authority on this - I'm not as convinced as I may sound. This is just where I've come to so far in my own thinking about this - and it's one of the oldest discussions in the human world, and has far still to go!

[Aquagem]

As an aside, is sarcasm wrong?

I think sarcasm is a logical/emotional response to perceived hypocrisy, usually by one who has no other road of appeal against it. "Oh, yeah, like we'd never go to war over oil!" Don't like it, can't do anything about it.

 

(The part of sarcasm that interests me is that it is a positive statement of something with a completely contemptuous, negative meaning. Taken out of context, without eye-rolling and tone of voice, most sarcastic statements seem perfectly true. It's the emotional expression of the statement that makes it sarcasm, not the words. The words come from the left temporal lobe, and the tone of voice comes from the right temporal lobe. Just an aside...)

[infamous]

I just finished posting a reply on the Morality thread that would be just as appropriate here. Why do we have two threads that are so similar? Genetic drift?

I agree Aquagem; the topic was encounter with aliens, I'll take some of the responsibility for the drift off topic. It's very easy to get off track, maybe we should ask another question. How do you think society would react to this visit. Would we resist, cooperate, start a war, have our views changed about religion? It would certainly cause an abrupt change in just about every thing we believe in.

[Aquagem]

Maybe we should ask another question. How do you think society would react to this visit. Would we resist, cooperate, start a war, have our views changed about religion? It would certainly cause an abrupt change in just about every thing we believe in.

(Don't take this too seriously -- :hihi:

I think that a crisis like this would be like a comet hitting Earth, resulting in a widespread extinction of ideas, thought forms, and cultural behaviors. The aliens wouldn't be the direct cause of war, probably, but would catalyze the old arguments our species has been slugging it out over for a million years. The aliens would probably watch in amazement the destruction we'd wreak on ourselves. Armageddon a ringside seat!

 

By the way, cognitive dissonance theory would predict that, collectively, we would resist any reality that didn't agree with our current preconceptions, and would make a difference only as the old guys died out and new, fresh minds were born. That's progress...

[infamous]

(Don't take this too seriously -- :hihi:

I think that a crisis like this would be like a comet hitting Earth, resulting in a widespread extinction of ideas, thought forms, and cultural behaviors. The aliens wouldn't be the direct cause of war, probably, but would catalyze the old arguments our species has been slugging it out over for a million years. The aliens would probably watch in amazement the destruction we'd wreak on ourselves. Armageddon a ringside seat!

 

By the way, cognitive dissonance theory would predict that, collectively, we would resist any reality that didn't agree with our current preconceptions, and would make a difference only as the old guys died out and new, fresh minds were born. That's progress...

I think I would take that quite seriously, because I agree with you comlpetely. No way to prove this view at present, only a visit will confirm our greatest fears, or mold us into something we can't even imagine. Let's just hope that if ET drops in, we will survive the shock.

[Aquagem]

I think I would take that quite seriously, because I agree with you comlpetely. No way to prove this view at present, only a visit will confirm our greatest fears, or mold us into something we can't even imagine. Let's just hope that if ET drops in, we will survive the shock.

Hear, hear! Here, here! Har, har!