Why the hell should survivability matter at all for morality?

Death is painless, life isn't. Morality is about reducing suffering and increasing pleasure as far as I'm concerned. The priority being on reducing suffering. It's only worth surviving if life is overall pleasurable for ourselves or others. If all life was absolutely torturous overall, surviving wouldn't be morally important.

As theVOID said, many of our most basic moral intuitions have nothing to do with survival. How does giving money to a charity for starving Africans increase our chances of survival? It doesn't. Africans can't return the favour. Survivability may be, and probably is, how our morality came to be, but it has nothing to do with our ethical views in most situations.

(October 6, 2010 at 8:01 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: As theVOID said, many of our most basic moral intuitions have nothing to do with survival. How does giving money to a charity for starving Africans increase our chances of survival? It doesn't. Africans can't return the favour. Survivability may be, and probably is, how our morality came to be, but it has nothing to do with our ethical views in most situations.

One could argue that giving money to starving africans simply increases our own feeling of well being and inflate our already bloated egos. Since giving a few bucks to buy footballs for some starving african kids does nothing to help them survive and prosper independently, the only consequence of the action of "moral charity" serves to keep others dependent on outside help, and as i said, inflate the ego.

As for the OP's "blog"... there is no seriously tangible meaning of right and wrong, it all depends on the rules laid out by the society you happen to be in at the time. And if a man was marooned on a desert island, he would make his own ideas about what is right and what is wrong...




ohhh dammit i'll get back to this later, i have much to say and to little time lol

Survival isn't ideal if, like I, you think there are some experiences out there in the world that would make death seem preferable.

(October 6, 2010 at 8:01 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: As theVOID said, many of our most basic moral intuitions have nothing to do with survival. How does giving money to a charity for starving Africans increase our chances of survival? It doesn't.

It increases the strength of bond we share with other members of our species. We have to live together on this Earth, and altruism is a way to relieve tensions and work towards a common goal - such as eliminating hunger or stopping disease, both very moral actions.

How does increasing the bond with people we'll never meet help us survive? And I'm not denying that these are moral goals, just that they are beneficial to survival.

Morale affects physical health too somewhat. And, of course, higher morale means less suicides in a population.

(October 6, 2010 at 9:15 am)Cerrone Wrote: As for the OP's "blog"... there is no seriously tangible meaning of right and wrong, it all depends on the rules laid out by the society you happen to be in at the time. And if a man was marooned on a desert island, he would make his own ideas about what is right and what is wrong...

I disagree, under desirism all moral statements can be factually true or false.

A man isolated on a desert island can still be judged in terms of the impact his actions have regarding promoting desires vs thwarting desires. If he is alone then his desires can't thwart any desires but his own, and he will always act in accordance with his more numerous and/or stronger desires, so he cannot act morally wrong.

---

(October 6, 2010 at 9:57 am)tavarish Wrote:

(October 6, 2010 at 8:01 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: As theVOID said, many of our most basic moral intuitions have nothing to do with survival. How does giving money to a charity for starving Africans increase our chances of survival? It doesn't.

It increases the strength of bond we share with other members of our species. We have to live together on this Earth, and altruism is a way to relieve tensions and work towards a common goal - such as eliminating hunger or stopping disease, both very moral actions.

I agree it increases our bond with them, but that alone does not make it morally right. My torture of jews may increase my bond with Nazi's, and as long as their are more Nazi's than jews my bonds have increased positively, but that has no impact on the morality of torturing jews.

Eliminating hunger and stopping disease are morally good because they promote more and stronger desires than they thwart. It is impossible to desire torture, because it is non-consensual act, therefore considering the desires of all persons, there cannot possibly be more and stronger desires to torture than there are to not be tortured, so torture is morally wrong UNLESS the torture will allow more desires to be promoted, such as preventing murder from the information, and since you cannot desire to be murdered either, and the desire to not be murdered is arguably stronger than the desire not to be tortured, this becomes a numbers game and under circumstances where more and stronger desires will be promoted than thwarted, torture is morally good.

/2cents

(October 6, 2010 at 6:55 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why the hell should survivability matter at all for morality?

Death is painless, life isn't. Morality is about reducing suffering and increasing pleasure as far as I'm concerned. The priority being on reducing suffering. It's only worth surviving if life is overall pleasurable for ourselves or others.

Human beings are essentially self interested animals. Many if not all moral rules are related to individual and/or group survival as they are reciprocal.

EG in our society:

Not killing and eating each other
Not raping
Not stealing others' property and food
Incest taboos
Not drunk driving
The concepts of compassion and charity have definite survival values.They mean we may survive when we have no food are,sick,injured or old.

Quote:If all life was absolutely torturous overall, surviving wouldn't be morally important.

Non sequitor.The purpose of life is itself. The most powerful drives we have are to survive and reproduce. Whether life is pleasant or horrible is irrelevant. Until only about two hundred years ago,life for most humans on the planet was " nasty,brutish and short"*. Still is for many millions.



* Thomas Hobbes; 'Leviathan'

Right, wrong, good and bad are all relative. Now correct and incorrect on the other hand -.-