Morality is simple self-preservation.
Discussion
Tango13 said:
I thought morality was invented by the weak to guilt the strong into not taking advantage of them.
In essence, yes. But the weak are many, and the strong few. And it's to humanity's gain.
Morality and socialisation are the tools with which the species gains advantage over the rest of the heap. We're the ultimate predator - because we cooperate.
ClockworkCupcake said:
Stealing is wrong because you don't want people to steal your stuff. Slavery is wrong because you don't want to be enslaved. Murder is wrong because you don't want to be murdered. Cannibalism is wrong because you don't want to be eaten.
Morality is simple self-preservation.
Discuss.
This is based around the do unto others as you would have them do unto youMorality is simple self-preservation.
Discuss.
But more simply than that, kicking f
k out of someone just isnt a nice thing to do, regardless of whether they might do it to you. There are other optionsDon said:
Tango13 said:
I thought morality was invented by the weak to guilt the strong into not taking advantage of them.
In essence, yes. But the weak are many, and the strong few. And it's to humanity's gain.
Morality and socialisation are the tools with which the species gains advantage over the rest of the heap. We're the ultimate predator - because we cooperate.
Edited by brrapp on Monday 23 January 15:12
brrapp said:
Don said:
Tango13 said:
I thought morality was invented by the weak to guilt the strong into not taking advantage of them.
In essence, yes. But the weak are many, and the strong few. And it's to humanity's gain.
Morality and socialisation are the tools with which the species gains advantage over the rest of the heap. We're the ultimate predator - because we cooperate.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
brrapp said:
Don said:
Tango13 said:
I thought morality was invented by the weak to guilt the strong into not taking advantage of them.
In essence, yes. But the weak are many, and the strong few. And it's to humanity's gain.
Morality and socialisation are the tools with which the species gains advantage over the rest of the heap. We're the ultimate predator - because we cooperate.
brrapp said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
brrapp said:
You should read Friedrich Nietzsche's work on Morality of the Weak. It might turn your head inside out.
I presume you are referring to the idea of Master and (vs) Slave morality.And from the existence of this morality, of course the Slave morality is something of a natural reaction to it. Thus providing an origin for the Slave morality.
However, it is difficult to see where the Master morality originates.
To my way of thinking, it would have been an exceptionally 'enlightened' stone age tribal leader that acquired such traits and ideas naturally, and indeed then manages to pass them from father to son.
It seems to me, that both are valid concepts and worthy of consideration, and I think many people generally understand both moralities or some parts thereof.
I would also argue that many would quite easily suggest that many highly moral atheists tend to both sides, and that many honestly moral Christians would do the same, though I accept that Christianity could quite logically have been the major influence over the Slave morality as he defines it.
But his reasoning would imply that Master morality existed (must exist) first.
I would have supposed, in the absence of a Master morality, that the Slave morality could and would have come about naturally (as suggested above - for survival of the species), and that Master morality could have evolved 'above' that. But that goes against the argument that Slave morality may not survive on its own, and that it begins with the rejection of the Master morality.
I would imagine that many (taking first Nietzsche's definitions), would describe the modern culture of high Political Correctness as being a considerable slave revolt of sorts.
For the sake of argument ethics is the questioning of absolute rights and wrongs, morality is a conversation of the application of ethics in the real world based around a couple of baseline philosophical doctrines most notably utilitarianism and consequentialism.
Since man could write we've been jotting down little more than notes and guidance for our future selves, whether it's cave wall diagrams of how best to kill a mammoth or complex EU law.
Most philosophy classes will start here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Since man could write we've been jotting down little more than notes and guidance for our future selves, whether it's cave wall diagrams of how best to kill a mammoth or complex EU law.
Most philosophy classes will start here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Goaty Bill 2 said:
However, it is difficult to see where the Master morality originates.
To my way of thinking, it would have been an exceptionally 'enlightened' stone age tribal leader that acquired such traits and ideas naturally, and indeed then manages to pass them from father to son.
I don't agree with that bit of your comment at all.To my way of thinking, it would have been an exceptionally 'enlightened' stone age tribal leader that acquired such traits and ideas naturally, and indeed then manages to pass them from father to son.
I think that Master morality is based on natural animal morality or instinct. It is completely natural (and what evolution relies on) that the big dog will take the food from the little dog in order to eat and the little dog gets what the big dog leaves for it. In my opinion, that's what Neitsche was getting at.
Slave morality (which christianity and modern society are based on) was a reversal of the natural evolutionary process and the argument is whether mankind benefits from this in that each of us is more than an individual as part of a caring society, or whether in the long term whether it will lead to the downfall of humanity. This is where Neitsche's ideas were linked to and fed upon by the Nazi idealists.
brrapp said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
However, it is difficult to see where the Master morality originates.
To my way of thinking, it would have been an exceptionally 'enlightened' stone age tribal leader that acquired such traits and ideas naturally, and indeed then manages to pass them from father to son.
I don't agree with that bit of your comment at all.To my way of thinking, it would have been an exceptionally 'enlightened' stone age tribal leader that acquired such traits and ideas naturally, and indeed then manages to pass them from father to son.
I think that Master morality is based on natural animal morality or instinct. It is completely natural (and what evolution relies on) that the big dog will take the food from the little dog in order to eat and the little dog gets what the big dog leaves for it. In my opinion, that's what Neitsche was getting at.
Slave morality (which christianity and modern society are based on) was a reversal of the natural evolutionary process and the argument is whether mankind benefits from this in that each of us is more than an individual as part of a caring society, or whether in the long term whether it will lead to the downfall of humanity. This is where Neitsche's ideas were linked to and fed upon by the Nazi idealists.
From a biological and anthropological view humans are helped and hindered by their large empty brain at birth and excessively long childhood, it necessitates protection from the group for the infants and forces extra familiar roles and larger societal groupings - it's exactly our tribal societal need for kinship that has driven our need for formulised ethics and moral discussions and religion and philosophy come after the fact and explain what we need to survive they don't inform it. Our language skills, intelligence and large kinship organisational structures serve our biological needs that's how cultural evolution works.
brrapp said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
However, it is difficult to see where the Master morality originates.
To my way of thinking, it would have been an exceptionally 'enlightened' stone age tribal leader that acquired such traits and ideas naturally, and indeed then manages to pass them from father to son.
I don't agree with that bit of your comment at all.To my way of thinking, it would have been an exceptionally 'enlightened' stone age tribal leader that acquired such traits and ideas naturally, and indeed then manages to pass them from father to son.
I think that Master morality is based on natural animal morality or instinct. It is completely natural (and what evolution relies on) that the big dog will take the food from the little dog in order to eat and the little dog gets what the big dog leaves for it. In my opinion, that's what Neitsche was getting at.
Slave morality (which christianity and modern society are based on) was a reversal of the natural evolutionary process and the argument is whether mankind benefits from this in that each of us is more than an individual as part of a caring society, or whether in the long term whether it will lead to the downfall of humanity. This is where Neitsche's ideas were linked to and fed upon by the Nazi idealists.
While quite logical, given what we accept to be the nature of primitive tribal cultures, does that not indicate that a considerable degree of mutability in the definition over time must be accepted?
And if mutability of the definition in the past is accepted, does that mutability extend into the future or has it reached its pinnacle as describe by Nietzsche?
ETA
Just ordered "Beyond Good and Evil".
Edited by Goaty Bill 2 on Monday 23 January 16:01
FredClogs said:
That's nonsense. Humans are forever looking at the behaviour of a few alpha species of predatory animals and thinking that behaviour is normative for our species, it isn't, in a lot of examples it's not even normative for their species. And you've completely misunderstood Nietzsche as did the Nazis.
From a biological and anthropological view humans are helped and hindered by their large empty brain at birth and excessively long childhood, it necessitates protection from the group for the infants and forces extra familiar roles and larger societal groupings - it's exactly our tribal societal need for kinship that has driven our need for formulised ethics and moral discussions and religion and philosophy come after the fact and explain what we need to survive they don't inform it. Our language skills, intelligence and large kinship organisational structures serve our biological needs that's how cultural evolution works.
Please bear with me, I haven't had an education in philosophy and am not particularly bright or practised in putting my point across, my interpretation of Nietzsche is just what I've worked out myself from reading some of his work so is by necessity fairly simplified.From a biological and anthropological view humans are helped and hindered by their large empty brain at birth and excessively long childhood, it necessitates protection from the group for the infants and forces extra familiar roles and larger societal groupings - it's exactly our tribal societal need for kinship that has driven our need for formulised ethics and moral discussions and religion and philosophy come after the fact and explain what we need to survive they don't inform it. Our language skills, intelligence and large kinship organisational structures serve our biological needs that's how cultural evolution works.
I think I agree with both you and GoatyBill that slave morality has developed as a result of our reliance on being a social animal and is necessary if we as a species are going to continue developing in the same way into the future.
I still think that master morality is a development of natural animalistic survival instincts, albeit an advanced development.
From what I gathered of Nietzsche, I didn't think he came to a conclusion either way as to which morality 'better' meets man's survival as a species, just explored the various aspects. As you've said, I don't think the nazis fully understood Nietzsche, they looked at his worked and drew their own conclusions .
brrapp said:
Please bear with me, I haven't had an education in philosophy and am not particularly bright or practised in putting my point across, my interpretation of Nietzsche is just what I've worked out myself from reading some of his work so is by necessity fairly simplified.
I think I agree with both you and GoatyBill that slave morality has developed as a result of our reliance on being a social animal and is necessary if we as a species are going to continue developing in the same way into the future.
I still think that master morality is a development of natural animalistic survival instincts, albeit an advanced development.
From what I gathered of Nietzsche, I didn't think he came to a conclusion either way as to which morality 'better' meets man's survival as a species, just explored the various aspects. As you've said, I don't think the nazis fully understood Nietzsche, they looked at his worked and drew their own conclusions .
Nietzsche was born in 1850 something, 150 years ago, whilst his writing is certainly interesting and was at the time was shockingly cutting edge i wouldn't bank on it being massively informative to modern Europe.I think I agree with both you and GoatyBill that slave morality has developed as a result of our reliance on being a social animal and is necessary if we as a species are going to continue developing in the same way into the future.
I still think that master morality is a development of natural animalistic survival instincts, albeit an advanced development.
From what I gathered of Nietzsche, I didn't think he came to a conclusion either way as to which morality 'better' meets man's survival as a species, just explored the various aspects. As you've said, I don't think the nazis fully understood Nietzsche, they looked at his worked and drew their own conclusions .
His idea on the master and slave, I think, are more of an attempt to explain what he observed and explain the necessary inequality in 19th century Europe which was essentially a near post feudal collection of principalities' run by a few families.
The idea that the slave mentality having no vanity and the over man standing between good and evil outside the normal bounds of reality is just an observation of how people behaved, the arrogance of the ruling class, the psychopathy of the noble class and the desperation of the poor.
It would be interesting to know what he would make of our royal family and those of western Europe, a meeker bunch you'd hardly see from the outside and yet much of our culture still seeks to serve their ideal. It patently true to me culture and society does not evolve to serve the master mentality it evolves to serve the greater majority.
If I understand correctly, Nietzsche had postulated the need for a Übermensch (superman or Beyond-Man), to be some 'replacement' of our current selves.
It seems that he did not ever explain conclusively what the Übermensch would 'look' like morally or how this morality would be acquired.
Peterson, a quite well known Canadian psychology professor, almost never refers to Nietzsche without also referring to Jung, who I understand studied Nietzsche and used much of his work as foundations.
Peterson also delves more deeply into the past to religious symbolism (of many religions) and into modern times with Disney.
From the serpent to Pinocchio
I have heard philosophy described as a journey without an end.
Understanding past philosophers is just a stage in creating the tools for our own journey, which is I think, part of what makes discussing their ideas interesting.
The discussion also assists in strengthening ones arguments and reasoning in more down to earth matters.
So while Plato may seem almost childish when read by today's educated adult, he was the first we know of to record his ideas, and where modern philosophy begins.
For all of his flaws, who would not want to have the capability of reasoning an argument like Socrates? If only our intellectual opponents were as compliant as those which Plato has placed to confront Socrates
We all know the Newtonian quote "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
So by understanding Nietzsche we better understand Jung, and by reading Jung.... and so it goes.
It seems that he did not ever explain conclusively what the Übermensch would 'look' like morally or how this morality would be acquired.
Peterson, a quite well known Canadian psychology professor, almost never refers to Nietzsche without also referring to Jung, who I understand studied Nietzsche and used much of his work as foundations.
Peterson also delves more deeply into the past to religious symbolism (of many religions) and into modern times with Disney.
From the serpent to Pinocchio
I have heard philosophy described as a journey without an end.
Understanding past philosophers is just a stage in creating the tools for our own journey, which is I think, part of what makes discussing their ideas interesting.
The discussion also assists in strengthening ones arguments and reasoning in more down to earth matters.
So while Plato may seem almost childish when read by today's educated adult, he was the first we know of to record his ideas, and where modern philosophy begins.
For all of his flaws, who would not want to have the capability of reasoning an argument like Socrates? If only our intellectual opponents were as compliant as those which Plato has placed to confront Socrates
We all know the Newtonian quote "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
So by understanding Nietzsche we better understand Jung, and by reading Jung.... and so it goes.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff