The idea that the social contract is incompatible with a materialistic outlook is the artifact of an ossified mind so accustomed to spoonfeeding that it cannot think even enough to spot its own errors.

(May 28, 2015 at 9:52 am)robvalue Wrote: Indeed, there are no objective moral values, as has been explained at length earlier.

I don't mean to toot my own trumpet, but I'll put myself under the microscope as an example. I want to die, I'm utterly sick of life and how ill I am and I've wanted to die for about 8 years now. They only reason I don't kill myself is because of how it would devastate my wife. So I'm choosing to carry on living for an entirely selfless purpose, which I get nothing out of personally except knowing I make my wife happy. If I only cared about myself and what was good for me, I'd be off to do myself in right now. I don't do it for any big reward at the end, or because I'm scared of being punished if I kill myself. I do it because I care more about my wife's happiness than my own.

This is an interesting riddle of death that I haven't wrapped my brain around yet.  I worry about what happens to my loved ones if I die while I'm alive.  But if I die, I won't be worrying about what happens to my loved ones.  So I only care about what happens in a future timeframe up until the timeframe starts, at which point I no longer care. 

---

(May 27, 2015 at 6:07 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 3:54 pm)wallym Wrote: This is fair. The key point I'm making is that Me > Not me for a vast majority of not me's.

You seem to be ignoring our evolutionary past in your calculation. 

When our ancestors lived in small groups or 50-150 (most of our history), there was a bit more emphasis on altruism, reciprocity, kin selection. And every member knew everyone else.

A member of a group, while their own survival was paramount to them, they could not get away with treating the other members of the group as if they did not matter. If so, they risked being ejected from the group. Which would mean almost certain death. We are a social species after all.

Those evolutionary traits are part of our nature. They are driving force that causes us to be moral agents. 

Here's the trick.  I consciously know that a lot of things are a result of me being programmed to do things that are not in my best interest because of some survival need from 50 million years ago.  So I can just say "Fuck that nonsense" and ignore it if I don't find it to be rational.  And in many cases, I can completely purge it from my system when the remnants of my old-timey evolutionary impulse are weak enough/stupid enough.

What I imagine is happening for everyone, and explains the huge gap from theoretical "Let's all be good" and what we actually see, is that such ideas have been subconsciously weighted way lower as time has moved on.  

Consequence being, Omaha can get crushed by a tornado, and I can not care even a little.  I can not be afraid walking into a dark room.  I can do a number of things that my evolutionary impulses say not to..  The rational part of my brain is able to trump stupid stuff time and time again.  And that's why I am unmoved by the evolutionary motivations of ape-men.  

If a thread asking Why be good? must continue to this point, then clearly someone has an illogical argument of which s/he seems incapable letting go.

(May 28, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Kitan Wrote: If a thread asking Why be good? must continue to this point, then clearly someone has an illogical argument of which s/he seems incapable letting go.

Must be all the people who recognize the safety and security that society provides, and prefers that over a lawless battleground where they must viciously compete over scarce resources that aren't being renewed. Has to be, because that catholic just dismissed their arguments with a fiat assertion he never bothered to prove!

How can all those people who are rationally invested in a society packed with infrastructure to keep them safe argue with "because I said so!"?

(May 28, 2015 at 6:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How can all those people who are rationally invested in a society packed with infrastructure to keep them safe argue with "because I said so!"?

Are they truly rational, though?.......

(May 28, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 6:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How can all those people who are rationally invested in a society packed with infrastructure to keep them safe argue with "because I said so!"?

Are they truly rational, though?.......

Certainly less rational than the guy who is unable to see why people would prefer all that over a world where they fight for survival every day while resources dwindle and crime runs rampant! Who would choose safety over Crime World?!

The theist who thinks safety is only sought through god returning to schools, obviously.  

You know, I've given great thought to the OP's post, and have come to the conclusion that he's absolutely right.


Consequently, I'm embarking on a 5 day, 7 state killing spree.  Toodles!

I didn't realize murder was the only act considered immoral....

(May 28, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I didn't realize murder was the only act considered immoral....

It is not, but neither is every act silly religious people consider immoral thus as they state.