/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2885342]

Humans are a amoral animal, we act as though there is such a thing as morality. It is not about defining morality in any real sense, it is about why the majority of humans generally act as though they believe that certain things are "moral" ("right"), and certain things are "immoral" ("wrong").

In the book "The Moral Animal" Wright ends the chapter "Evolutionary Ethics" with these sentences: "We are potentially moral animals - which is more than any other animal can say - but we aren't naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren't." Though he wants us to be, and has a feeling that we should be, he unequivocally admits (as we will see that he must) that we aren't moral at all.

The author intends to show that our "moral impulses" are the result of an evolutionary process which has left its mark (to one degree or another) on each of us. For instance, the general, human prohibition against indiscriminate murder is present in virtually all cultures not because it is morally true, but because it has proven to be good evolutionary strategy. Monogamy is another moral ideal in virtually all cultures for the same reason.

In essence, we feel the way we feel because organisms which felt that way made it through the sieve of natural selection more often than those which did not. We feel these feelings because the genes which form us command it. We possess what Wright calls "the knobs of human nature", one for guilt, one for lust (and so on), and each individual has the knobs tuned slightly differently due to random chance and the environment in which we mature.

[Anonymous No.2885343]

Above all - the master volume control, if you will - is the prime directive of the gene: Survive and reproduce. All moral predilections will generally be subverted to this main goal. It's not really a goal, of course, since no consciousness directs the process of evolution.

Wright acknowledges, early on, the "naturalistic fallacy" (The inference of "what ought to be" from "what is", and something that, as any honest scientist will tell you, science cannot do) though he constantly commits it. Note that he didn't subtitle the book "The Way We Ought to Be". Even after acknowledging that the fallacy exists, he cannot bring himself to admit the fatal flaw (to his case) inherent to his premises: If Darwinian evolution is what really happened to produce homo sapiens, then "what is" is all there is. There is, and can be, no "ought".

Accordingly, here are a few of the things that are NOT moral behaviors: Familial love (whether man/woman, parent/child or sibling/sibling), monogamy, promiscuity, altruism, charity, jealousy (even leading to murder), grief, friendship, conscience, guilt, shame, lying, pride... You get the picture. The things that we act upon as if they are real turn out to be ephemera; fantasies concocted by our genes and opaque to true introspection.

[Anonymous No.2885344]

Add to the list: There is no good, there is no evil. Awe, hope, despair, inspiration, "the human spirit", beauty, magnificence - these feelings which lead us to excel aren't real at all. One person looks at a giant sequoia and sees an irreplaceable, priceless miracle. Another sees a warehouse full of toilet paper. Neither is wrong; neither is correct. Both are merely expressing their feelings.

That list illuminates the flaw in his premise: There can be opinion; there can be desire; there can be consensus; there can be fact; but there can be no truth. You can NOT trust what you feel, because it isn't real. We are the result of billions of unlikely accidents and if we were to vanish like the dinosaurs, leaving only a few bones and suppositions behind, absolutely no moral truths would be lost with us. Wright can't accept this; he irrationally insists that morality is exempt from the constraints of his premises. A belief in morality (given his premises) is irrational on its face.

As an example, investigate his opinion on homosexuality. It seems clear that "homophobia" might be a perfectly reasonable genetic reaction to an organism which has no desire to follow the prime directive (Let me say here that I disagree, but for totally different reasons. In my opinion, persecution based upon any human attribute is wrong). Wright brings up the subject himself in the FAQ appendix of the book, and his opinion mirrors perfectly the chasm between what is real and what he feels.

[Anonymous No.2885345]

don't care

[Anonymous No.2885346]

He finds that human homosexuals don't serve a function similar to non-reproducing individuals in other species, since the latter sacrifice their own reproduction to the good of the whole. To the contrary - in his words - homosexuals do not seem to spend extra attention or resources on those organisms desiring to reproduce.

Neither does he find a straightforward genetic reason for homosexuality. Perhaps there is a confluence of genes and environment which "impels" an individual towards that lifestyle - probably, but perhaps not.

Ultimately his answer is, "Who cares? Leave them alone, they aren't hurting anybody." Sadly, given Wright's foundational premises, this answer is just as morally true as "I don't like them. Kill 'em all". It is his opinion, and he has nothing to base it on but his feelings. Thus the title of this review.

The ultimate message of the book is this: Do not go looking for "moral animals", for you will not find them. You will find self-serving gene machines doing what it takes, even if it appears to be against their best interest. Though we can, if we choose to, override or manipulate the machine, the vast majority of us will not do so - we will follow the prime directive. Though we "feel" that things are moral, they really are no such thing. It's just the way we are.

[Anonymous No.2885347]

baby's first nihlist rant.

[Anonymous No.2885348]

Now you know why you should choose God over athiesm. True athiesm will only lead to an almost inescapable nihilism and if you are of a particular kind then this nihilism will lead to self-destruction of the highest order.

[Anonymous No.2885350]

>this is what atheists actually believe

[ok !!tOcTopYaTLd No.2885351]

ITT: some kind of rant i might have cared about when i was 15

[Anonymous No.2885356]

>The author intends to show that our "moral impulses" are the result of an evolutionary process which has left its mark (to one degree or another) on each of us. For instance, the general, human prohibition against indiscriminate murder is present in virtually all cultures not because it is morally true, but because it has proven to be good evolutionary strategy.
>not because it is morally true, but because it has proven to be good evolutionary strategy.

What does it matter in what one's morals are grounded? Not killing is still moral behaviour.

>inb4 define moral
>inb4 why is not killing moral

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU PEDANTIC ACADEMIC LIMPWRISTED LIBERALS.

[Anonymous No.2885357]

OP.

Please tell me that ugly fucking baby mug of a face is your picture so I can laugh harder.

[Anonymous No.2885364]

>>2885357
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6laGvKtPZYQ
don't laugh at me you atheist scum

[Anonymous No.2885360]

>>2885357
He's pedo-bait. Some women are attracted to that.

[Anonymous No.2885373]

OP reads a book of opinions and thinks he's enlightened.

[Anonymous No.2885378]

>>2885364
Christ!

I want to smash it with a hammer!

[Anonymous No.2885381]

>>2885378
calm down baby-girl

[Anonymous No.2885385]

>>2885381
That cracking voice!
That Jewish face!
The fucking meaningless sappy bullshit!
What the fuck is wrong with him?

It must die!

[Anonymous No.2885392]

>>2885385
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f_ec37PXNQ&list=UUMf2IaFRcZY5uExJYp56p-w&index=1&feature
=plcp

[Anonymous No.2885411]

>Humans are a amoral animal

Go hug an Alligator or a monkey with a boner

[Anonymous No.2885421]

>>2885342
Biofag here, morality is found in many other mammals, empathy/compassion has an evolutionary advantage to it. It's biological advantageous to be kinder to others. This is why the low portion of the populous that don't care about others and view them only as "prey" are the minority and usually result from a family history of inbreeding. While the expression and interpretation of our morality is always in constant flux, the corner stones of moral codes, empathy and fairness, are biologically ingrained.

[Anonymous No.2885446]

>>2885421

Mathew 5:38:

>38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
>39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
>40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
>41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
>42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

>43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighborh and hate your enemy.’
>44 But I tell you: Love your enemiesi and pray for those who persecute you,
>45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
>46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
>47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
>48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

What Christianity teaches is miles away from 'morality' and 'compassion'.

[Anonymous No.2885448]

>>2885421

What about cannibalism in monkeys and carnivorousness animals not caring if prey is still alive while eating. Dolphin rape

animals having morals seems like bs to me

[Anonymous No.2885453]

>>2885421
>didn't read the entire thing

the fact it is biological proves it is meaningless and inherently only to propagate viruses (genes)

prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.2885469]

>>2885421
But this is always limited, for example to certain groups within a species, and it is not a principle on which the entire behavior of an animal is built, but a mode of behavior that occurs but just as often is violated in favor of another behavior which we would consider 'amoral'. The biological underpinnings of morality would never support the way morals are (almost always) conceived for humans: Moral injunctions function precisely as a suppression of biological urges, so to the extent that they have been formulated in human societies this has only happened because they are not actually biologically 'existant' (i.e. observable). Morals tend to relate to groups of beings that we are not biologically equipped to see as homogeneous: Mankind, or a certain race or people (these kinds of morals are not so popular nowadays), but they all involve culturally constructed groups that we have to consciously attempt to treat according to the moral rules (which obvious observable tendencies to treat favourably people you know, like, or are related to, contradicting the 'morals' you supposedly adhere to).

[Anonymous No.2885474]

>>2885469
>(which obvious observable tendencies to treat favourably people you know, like, or are related to, contradicting the 'morals' you supposedly adhere to).

>Though we can, if we choose to, override or manipulate the machine, the vast majority of us will not do so

[Anonymous No.2885511]

>>2885446
Seems pretty compassionate to me.
>>2885448
Humans have had to experience cannibalistic cultures that still had a semblance of morality when it came to the inner tribal workings. And Carnivores are doing what is natural to them because not doing so would cause them to die via starvation. Morality has often been seen as this idea that makes people feel special and superior to the rest of the animal kingdom when in reality >>2885453 it is a means for the continuation of the species. However it's not quite meaningless. Just because it's not the meaning you want doesn't mean there can't be some value derived from it. Not to mention, to describe it as a means to spread genes is a false application of the intent of morality from a biological perspective. It allows the species to not tear itself apart. Which, when you think about it, is actually an excellent and wonderful starting point on which more moral rules can be established.
>>2885469
I'm sorry, I followed your first part regarding how a "moralistic" behavior is an extension of just typical animal behavior and can be suppressed when necessary but exactly what are you trying to say afterwards? To me it looks like you're saying that morals aren't biologically observable in the second part and that morals are a social construct in the third and that because morals are different they don't exist. Do you mind clarifying?

[Anonymous No.2885704]

>>2885511
> Seems pretty compassionate to me.

'Compassion' is not 'morality'. Quite the opposite, 'morals' are rules to contain and curtail 'compassion'.

And anyways, did you read the quote??

>46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
>47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Christianity doesn't teach 'compassion'. Christianity doesn't teach one to be 'nice'. Christianity teaches that even the most broken and disgusting human beings are still images of the absolute and infinite possibilities. (Godhood).

Quite the opposite from 'compassion' and 'ethics'.