and other times, MD&D creeps me out...

[_Drifting]

"oh no" you say "he was saying something else"

Do you have the same level of angst when mopologists use this technique to explain away Book of Mormon anachronisms etc?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Oh settle down I meant it as a term of endearment. I used to use it in reference to my group of friends. "yo, Chump, what u been up to?"

Whew! thanks for clearing that up for me

[_sock puppet]

What a funny thread, emblematic of how this plays rolls.

Some critical character from MD complains about some comment or statement attempting to make it suggest something the comment does not and soon enough the whole crowd chimes in whining about the misinterpreted comment. Am I really the only one who recognizes that these kinds of things are just a bunch of hot air whinings and whimperings? I think its sporty to the majority here to make mountains out of molehills then go on and complain about others who make mountains out of molehills for making mountains out of molehills.

Ahh...when will we ever learn.

You're whining about whining again...

That's the only time he says anything interesting. When he's simply whining, it is banal. Heaven forbid he should post something with substance and not mere whining.

[_stemelbow]

That's the only time he says anything interesting. When he's simply whining, it is banal. Heaven forbid he should post something with substance and not mere whining.

That's what I'm saying about all your guys' posts. You guys go on and whine about some Mormon who isn't even posting here and then others jump on board and the bandwagonin' begins as everyone whines together. I pipe up to suggest there's a better way and suddenly the whining turns on me. Whinin' in teh key to this joint.

[_beastie]

That's about all I am saying.

But why do they function better?

I am going to repeat that because I really want you to answer it.

Why do they function better?

It seems that all the knee-jerk prejudices you have against "traditional values" come flying out regardless of if they are reasonable or not.

Incidentally, I meant that "you" as a "you-plural" since it appears more than one here think I am attacking humanistic values. I am not. I think that humanistic values are largely compatible (not perfectly, not always) with LDS or "traditional family values"

No, I don’t think you’re attacking humanistic values at all.

Here’s the issue I have with your statements on MDD. Either you were careless and didn’t really mean what you said, or statements like this are a problem:

All morality conforms to natural law which places the value of life and life affirmation at the center of the moral code. In other words, what is "moral" is what leads to the best expression of the survival of the species.

This is problematic. In the history of mankind, actions that led to the best expression of the survival of a particular group could well be predicated on destroying another group vying for the same resources. But by this definition, those actions are “moral”. Well, God probably would agree, since he ordered the Jews to exterminate other groups vying for the same resources in the Bible.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, often the most successful reproducers engage in behavior that I can’t imagine you would call “moral”. The most successful mating strategy for males appears to be to have one primary relationship, which is the recipient of emotional and physical investment, and which offspring have the best chance of survival, coupled with furtive cheating on the side. The offspring of cheating will not have the best chance of survival, due to not benefiting from emotional and physical investment, however, chances are that *some* will survive. (especially if the cheating involved cuckolding another male) So the male who has a primary relationship and cheats on the side will have a higher rate of reproduction than a faithful male.

Does that make this behavior moral? Yes, according to this philosophy.

Look, I don’t have any problem with simply asserting that a society with rules and laws, and a way to enforce such, will likely function more smoothly than an anarchistic society. But to make the leap and then assert that any behavior that enhances survival of the species is “moral” by definition seems extremely problematic. Is this what you meant or not?

Moreover, this conversation is very limited due to your unwillingness to define an optimal society. I suppose morality has already been defined: anything that helps the species survive.

As to why societies with reasonable rules and law function more smoothly, it is because an apparatus is in place to help control, to whatever extent possible, predatory behavior that harms others.

But what I think you are missing, and where the "survival stuff" comes in is in the answer to the question of why the meme of the Golden Rule has survived in virtually all peaceful societies, from the time the Didache was written until today and, I believe, beyond, and why I see it as a moral Pragmatic/Utilitarian "absolute".

It has survived because the meme itself defines the best possible model for human relations to make things "run smoothly" to use your phrase, and "running smoothly" allows a culture to survive better and longer than those which don't "run smoothly"

We are talking here about evolution of values and cultures, not the evolution of Conan.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

And if you think fragmented families make for a society which runs "more smoothly" than one with traditional families, I think you are sorely mistaken.

I didn’t say anything about fragmented families. I did ask why things like fornication between consenting adults is immoral, under the philosophy you’ve expressed here. Hopefully you can see the difference between that question and asserting that fragmented families aren’t problematic.

I maintain you are incorrect about the “golden rule” being the most successful meme. Studies have shown that “tit for tat” is the most successful meme, albeit with a minority of predatory behavior. And despite what Christians or others claim, in practice, their behavior is usually guided by tit-for-tat.

[_beastie]

That's what I'm saying about all your guys' posts. You guys go on and whine about some Mormon who isn't even posting here and then others jump on board and the bandwagonin' begins as everyone whines together. I pipe up to suggest there's a better way and suddenly the whining turns on me. Whinin' in the key to this joint.

This conversation actually was interesting. It wasn't just pointless whining - you know, like someone else did so recently on another board long ago and far away.

[_mfbukowski]

Precisely what behaviors are "moral" and which are not may be interesting questions, as is the question of how far we can go morally before we infringe on the rights of others.

But that was not what my post on the other board was about.

My reason for posting here was merely to point out that civilization, law, and consideration for the rights of others, and for that matter even the whole notion that others have "rights" is more conducive to general peace, happiness and a long and productive life than is continuous interpersonal fighting and brutal behavior. And also that such a life has "survival value" and that generally, populations which are civilized will have a longer life span than those who are not.

And I am postulating that that is "true" in something like an "absolute" sense, for all civilized societies vs all uncivilized ways of life.

That is what I meant by the idea that "morals have survival value".

The fact that anyone would dispute that seems pretty darn silly to me.

If they think they can live without civilization, I propose we drop them naked in the Gobi desert and see how well they do.

OK now that everyone acknowledges that the above is totally obviously true, let me amplify it a bit, raise another ruckus from the peanut gallery which again I will probably have to explain again and again in monosyllables as usual.

Hopefully we are now beyond the need for showing that PEOPLE IN GENERAL TEND to live longer in civilized societies than they did in paleolithic times, regardless of the fact that in paleolithic times the INDIVIDUAL with the biggest club got all the babes and the wimp did not. Note the distinction here is that we are NOT AT THE MOMENT talking about an individual who is able to spread his genes farther because he is the strongest guy around, but we are talking generalities- specifically that MORE PEOPLE LIVE LONGER IN CIVILIZATIONS THAN in societies we would not classify as "civilized".

I am defining "civilization" loosely perhaps as Beastie has done, as a society with enforceable laws which prohibit murder and rape and other "biggies" that we could all agree contrasts "civilized behavior" with it's opposite.

In such a society the physically weak are more protected, and the physically strong are prohibited from acting on their physical strength and simply grabbing anything they want.

The physically weak may be intellectually strong; since all reading this are probably at least a little "nerdy" that is something we can relate to. Personally, I would not probably live too long if my only protection was a baseball bat and not the law and civilization. (Though personally I find a few firearms to be great equalizers for this inadequacy)

So now, moving to the question of INDIVIDUAL evolution, morality and civilization has allowed me personally, a wimp, to pass on my genes, such as they are, to the society's genepool as a whole where those genes will be selected or not selected based of the RULES OF CIVILIZATION, and not on the rules of the jungle.

And my wife's genes will of course also be passed on. And many who are here I suspect who would not last 3 days in the Gobi desert on their own if dropped naked, are probably glad also that we live in a civilized society.

The rules of civilized society are what constitute "morality" for that society- and it is the existence of those rules which allow those of us with other talents than hitting people with clubs to survive.

So now, let me quote that phrase which made everyone flip out a bit earlier, which I see as basically no more than a generalization of what I have just discussed:

A moral life is more peaceful and conducive to long term survival of the species than an immoral life.

So what was wrong with that, in this context?

(ducking)

[_mfbukowski]

I don't really believe in utopian visions of the ideal society- that is not the way a Pragmatist linguistic constructivist looks at the world.

It is what it is- how we all have constructed society and we are all responsible for it. Talking about ideals presumes too much about consequences of cultural choices that are totally unpredictable because of the complexity of culture, just as physical evolution is unpredictable. Wipe out one species- what are the consequences? Incalculable.

I mean we don't even know the consequences of Obamacare - how could someone possibly say that "In the ideal society, there would be Philosopher Kings..... " and predict the results?

And no, I don't think that it would be good if everyone was LDS. I have enough dialectical materialism in my intellectual genes from my radical atheist days to know that "opposition in all things" is a good thing.

I really don't know what "ideal" means in the context of evolution- which is more "ideal"- a giraffe or a specific dinosaur? Is a cow more ideal than a crow?

I definitely believe that pluralism is necessary for memes to perpetuate themselves, just as genes need a diversified gene pool to breed healthy individuals.

Going on the idea that this is the "best possible world" of humans as we are now constituted since this is the best mankind seems capable of, I suppose if pressed, I would say that we live in the ideal society for what we are.

Where society would evolve if we were all better and deserved better is anyone's guess.

Politically, I am more on the libertarian side than anything else if anyone cares.

[_mfbukowski]

It probably has something to do with how you vaunt this overarching meta-ethic of "pragmatism," but then show that you didn't really think it through when one considers the pragmatic effect of your equating morality with the survival of the species in an organized society.

You're shooting in the dark. What precisely are you saying?

In other words, "put up or shut up".

[_mfbukowski]

Oh let me say one more thing- by "optimal society" what I meant is a society which places as its highest value what I consider to be the "optimal statement of morality" which is the Golden rule or some variation of it, and such a society I think allows for pluralism and actually speaking in general terms, the best opportunity for all to reproduce and live peacefully.