(June 13, 2012 at 8:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -Or for the abolishment of the death penalty for humans in the case of multiple homicides, yeah. Of course, your lions bit is sleight of hand, they don't have laws. We're making rules for ourselves here, and why would any given morality or law that applies to humans apply to lions if it wouldn't apply to slitznarpians? There can be quite a bit of similarity between us, including how we go about making decisions or how we conceptualize our actions, but so long as there were differences in our circumstances (biologically speaking) the lions get off on the same card you used to excuse the slitznarpians. All this being said, when was the last time you saw someone brought up on homicide charges for hunting deer, because that's a more accurate comparison, now isn't it? If you are referring instead to lions killing lions, well, that's as wrong as humans killing humans (and for the same reasons), in my book, but I don't have the same ideas of morality as you, nor do I expect lions to bring each other up on criminal charges, nor do I insist that what is wrong in my book is even remotely objective or authoritative regardless of what I base it on.
So, now do you understand that human and animal morality are different?
(June 13, 2012 at 8:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -You can give someone a solution and they can employ it with great success without ever having considered the solution at all (you can use a telephone, correct, but I'm guessing you can't explain how it works). This also doesn't stop a heuristic process (if that's what our morality is) from continuing even after any given solution has been found. We could continue to develop more solutions and we could communicate these solutions to each other. I mention this only because it seems to fit with our observations about how we form and employ this "morality" thing.
Also irrelevant. Just because heuristics can continue, doesn't mean it does continue. Even if the beginning of morality was heuristic, i.e. figured out by trial and error, once we had the capacity to reason and consider our actions and their consequences, it'd no longer be so.
(June 13, 2012 at 8:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -Again, so you say, but I wasn't aware that the subject was so one sided. http://www.southalabama.edu/psychology/g...005)Moral_ This took me 10 seconds to google (and admittedly I was already aware of this particular subject) You seem so confident in stating that we don't work this way, well, excellent. Would you be so kind as to demolish this article for me? I believe the meat is in section 4. Most of it is drawn from Kahneman & Tversky (who you could also demolish for me if you like, though their focus wasn't morality, but just how often we seem to be employing heuristics).
(obviously doesn't have to be in your next reply or anything, we can continue the discussion nevertheless)
You do understand the basic difference between where heuristics is applicable and where it is not right? By the way, the link is not working and as far as I can tell, Prospect Theory has little to do with morality.
