Radical New Approach to Morals

[Condraz23]

Humans are group animals so here's a group centered approach to morals...

All human individuals have a natural desire to survive, like all animals do. Evolution dictates that an organism which does not exhibit a desire to survive usually ends up being killed at an early stage in it's development, thus preventing its genes from being passed on.

People belong to different groups based on different variables such as behaviour, characteristics, race, upbringing, and religion. Since everyone is different, one single person usually belongs to thousands of different groups.

The minds of babies and children are extremely malleable. Children are conditioned to belong to the same groups as the parents. For example, Christian parents tend to have Christian children and atheist parents tend to have atheist children. Racist parents tend to have racist children and non racist parents tend to have non racist children. This is achieved through extensive use of conditioning or "brainwashing", expecially when the child is unable to make his own decisions.

Sometimes, a child may grow up and change his or her beliefs or lifestyle. When this happens, the person is said to be "switching groups". This behaviour is rare because the conditioning that occurs in childhood is so extensive and determines ninety to one hundred percent of who we are. In other words, most children will grow up, mature, and begin defending their "brainwashing". They will pass these ideas onto their offspring. This creates an endless and perpetual loop that helps insure the survival of the group.

Society is a collection of many different groups. Special groups exist that exist solely to hurt or kill other groups. For example, the Nazis believe that the Aryan race is superior and that Jews should be killed. Although these tend to be minorities, thousands of these groups exist, usually with a few members. In today's society, these are regarded as "fringe groups" simply due to the small size of their membership. If the size of the membership becomes sufficiently large, it becomes the "dominant group" and the other groups inhabiting the same niche become the "fringe groups". This is the situation that occured in Nazi Germany. When one group decides to kill the members of another group, the group that is being killed off will think of the act as a negative thing simply because the individual members have a natural desire to survive. However, society itself is not affected. It's just getting smaller since only a single group out of a million others has been removed.

Most groups have a natural desire to "recruit" members from other groups. An environmentalist, for example, would try to convince others that he or she is correct. The same applies for other groups such as homosexual advocates, Nazis, communists, and Christian fundamentalists. Some groups have no desire to "recruit" members from other groups. One example of this is Judaism. These "proselytic" groups usually promote the idea that the current condition of society is an undesirable one that can be improved.

Some of these groups advocate the adoption of certain "rules". When these groups become the dominant group in its niche, it decides what is "wrong" and what is "right" for the rest of society. There will always be opposition groups who will oppose the ideas of the dominant group. Society is in a constant state of flux between the dominant group and the opposition group. The people who belong to the dominant group believe that the opposition group is "incorrect" and that they are "correct" while the people who belong to the opposition group believe that the dominant group is "incorrect" and that they are "correct". Usually, the dominant group has control over political and social institutions such as the legal and education systems, which it may use as instruments to further it's cause.

Morals, as we define them, arose from two reasons. The natural desire for all organisms to survive and the sheer variation of opinions and lifestyles made possible by the evolution of a large frontal lobe capable of complex thought.

And that's the story of morality.

[clovis]

You conclude: "Morals, as we define them, arose from two reasons. The natural desire for all organisms to survive and the sheer variation of opinions and lifestyles made possible by the evolution of a large frontal lobe capable of complex thought."
I agree that survival is the primary source of morality, but don't understand why you think the large variations of opinions and lifestyles have had any influence. Can you offer an example?:)

[Antiplastic]

Er, didn't you post a thread an hour previous to this one explaining that what you're now approaching does not in fact exist?


Some of these groups advocate the adoption of certain "rules". When these groups become the dominant group in its niche, it decides what is "wrong" and what is "right" for the rest of society. There will always be opposition groups who will oppose the ideas of the dominant group. Society is in a constant state of flux between the dominant group and the opposition group. The people who belong to the dominant group believe that the opposition group is "incorrect" and that they are "correct" while the people who belong to the opposition group believe that the dominant group is "incorrect" and that they are "correct".

In my experience, people tend to believe they are correct, not "correct", whatever those scare quotes mean. Or did you mean anything in particular by them?

Usually, the dominant group has control over political and social institutions such as the legal and education systems, which it may use as instruments to further it's cause.

Morals, as we define them, arose from two reasons. The natural desire for all organisms to survive and the sheer variation of opinions and lifestyles made possible by the evolution of a large frontal lobe capable of complex thought.

And that's the story of morality.

So what you're actually talking about is the genealogy of the practice of morality, not of morality itself. And there seem to be far too many counterexamples to the claim that "the desire to survive" is what's driving such practices. In fact, the most interesting thing about moral behavior is that it so often demands that one sacrifice one's emotional, monetary, or material well-being in the service of others. For instance, even though I think not eating meat makes me healthier, I am not a vegetarian because I think this "helps me to survive", but rather because I hate cruelty.

[Condraz23]

A group is a collection of individuals with a common, shared characteristic. Some examples of groups include...

- Religious groups (Jehovah's Wittnesses, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists)
- Political groups (Communists, socialists, fascists, libertarians, liberals)
- Idealogical groups (Nationalists, abolitionists, anti abolitionists, pascifists)
- Scientific groups (Creationists, evolutionists, global warming advocates)
- Sexual groups (Homosexuals, BDSM advocates, swingers, pedophiles, asexuals)
- Moral groups (Anti homosexual advocates, anti abortionists, moral reformists)
- Behavioural groups (Vegetarians, bikers, murderers, arsonists, nudists)

None of these groups exist solely to insure the survival of its group members. They exist because their members were conditioned from an early age to belong to the group. There are cases where a person may "switch" groups, but this is rare depending on the extent of one's conditioning.

All these groups advocate certain behaviours. Morals decide which behaviours are "wrong" and which behaviours are "right". The personal desire for all animals and humans to survive is only expressed in the rare scenario where one group attempts to kill or harm another group.

That is why people usually tend to oppose the group that opposes them. Homosexuals tend to be against people who want to hurt or kill them. Same goes for communists, pedophiles, arsonists, terrorists, and evolutionists. This pattern is expressed almost universally in all groups.

As for the development of these groups...

As the human frontal lobe grew larger, humans gained the ability to conceptualize abstract concepts and manipulate the world around him. People naturally possess a desire to influence the world around themselves, thus most groups tend to "prostelyze".

Non mammals have a relatively undeveloped frontal lobe. Their behaviour is mostly determined by genetics and natural instincts, and survival is usually their first priority. As we move up the ladder of neural complexity, the importance of conditioning rises. Dogs are a prime example of this. Their behaviour is determined by the conditioning recieved from its trainers.

Dogs, however, do not possess a complex frontal lobe. Whilst their behaviour can be easily modified by manipulating them from an early age, they are unable to conceptualize abstract concepts. Also, they have no desire or means to manipulate the world around them. Thus, as a species left undisturbed in the wild, they tend to exhibit almost ideantical behaviours.

Near the top of the ladder of neural complexity, there exist chimpanzees. Chimpanzees exhibit different "cultures" with behavioural variations within and among geographically isolated chimpanzee populations.

Once the agricultural revolution occured, villages and towns began popping up. These were originally comprised of a single group of humans that had expanded the size of its population by settling down and growing their own food. Almost everybody agreed which behaviours were acceptable and which behaviours were not.

As cities developed from these small settlements, the number of people grew larger. In light of new scientific discoveries combined with the natural ability of humans to question his or her society's established thoughts, the chain of conditioning that had worked so well could no longer continue. New groups emerged. Most were simply forgotten or repressed by the dominant group in its niche. However, some of these new groups grew larger and became established fact.

Society, being so large, is merely a collection of these different groups. It is in a constant state of flux between the dominant group and the opposition group. Usually, the dominant group has control over political and social institutions such as the legal and education systems, which it may use as instruments to further it's cause.

[AdamWho]

I also think that morals are based solely on group membership.

However, I don't think this is a new or radical idea or actually proposes a new approach to morals; it is a description of how morals arise.

[Condraz23]

Maybe, here's chart I made earlier to show this development...

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1718/pacmanym8.jpg

As far as I know, I don't think anything similar to my idea has been proposed before. (but I could be wrong)

[AdamWho]

I like the fact that you made a chart, it will irritate the philosphers.:Cheeky:

So where are you going with this? Are you going to suggest a way to make moral decisions? Are you going to suggest a more advanced moral code?

[Condraz23]

Well, I think it's a bit like the Theory of Evolution. It has little practical benefits, sure, but it provides an explanation why things came about and why things (in this case, morals) are the way they are. I guess it also provides a new way of looking at things.

[AdamWho]

Well, I think it's a bit like the Theory of Evolution. It has little practical benefits, sure, but it provides an explanation why things came about and why things (in this case, morals) are the way they are. I guess it also provides a new way of looking at things.

It would seem that once you drop the idea that god is the creator of morals then it follows naturally that morals are man-made, specifically tribe or group centric.

Marketing really takes this concept and runs with it. A couple of years ago there was a WSJ article about the Starbucks tribe vs the Dunkin Donuts Tribe. Here is a overview (http://tkcollier.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/dunkin-donuts-tribe-vs-starbucks-tribe/)

Your chart is exactly what people in marketing use to brand social groups. It goes WAY beyond morals!

[clovis]

A group is a collection of individuals with a common, shared characteristic. Some examples of groups include...

- Religious groups (Jehovah's Wittnesses, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists)
- Political groups (Communists, socialists, fascists, libertarians, liberals)
- Idealogical groups (Nationalists, abolitionists, anti abolitionists, pascifists)
- Scientific groups (Creationists, evolutionists, global warming advocates)
- Sexual groups (Homosexuals, BDSM advocates, swingers, pedophiles, asexuals)
- Moral groups (Anti homosexual advocates, anti abortionists, moral reformists)
- Behavioural groups (Vegetarians, bikers, murderers, arsonists, nudists)

None of these groups exist solely to insure the survival of its group members. They exist because their members were conditioned from an early age to belong to the group. There are cases where a person may "switch" groups, but this is rare depending on the extent of one's conditioning.

All these groups advocate certain behaviours. Morals decide which behaviours are "wrong" and which behaviours are "right". The personal desire for all animals and humans to survive is only expressed in the rare scenario where one group attempts to kill or harm another group.

That is why people usually tend to oppose the group that opposes them. Homosexuals tend to be against people who want to hurt or kill them. Same goes for communists, pedophiles, arsonists, terrorists, and evolutionists. This pattern is expressed almost universally in all groups.

All the groups you mention are more or less 'chosen' by the members, with the exception of homosexual people. It has been scientifically established that sexual orientation is determined in the womb, so to consider same-sex-oriented people to be in the same situation as the others, and that homosexual men and women share a core of moral values is bizarre in the extreme. It is like saying that left handers, or blue-eyed males, or red-head females share a common moral code:rolling:.
There is little that distinguishes a same-sex oriented man from an opposite-sex oriented man apart from the person he chooses to have sex with. Certainly not their attitude to morality.
Furthermore, unless you have redifined what constitutes a 'moral act', then I dispute your claim that homophobia and anti abortion are moral attitudes.
As soeone else suggested. All you've done is propose a fairly obvious cause of behaviour... in the process suggesting that there is no universal moral code.