jpahmad

I think the question of "moral imperative" really needs to be addressed in a laboratory situation before we can apply it to world politics. For example, if I'm walking down the street and I see someone being stabbed to death. What would be the virtuous action at this point? Am I obligated to do anything? Or maybe, I'm not obligated ethically to do anything, but I would be considered and spineless loser if I didn't do anything. I don't know the answer to these questions. You seem to have an opinion on this. Would it be appropriate to ask for it here, or is that a topic for another thread?

Ster, I think you are taking two issues and meshing them together. Which is why everyone is arguing. These are the two topics I see in this thread: Is it a moral imperative to intervene when someone else is being violated? Will we be solving the problem in Syria by lobbing in a few missiles to hit "strategic targets?" Regarding the first question, I think everyone on this forum would personal decided to intervene in order to prevent child abuse, murder, and theft - as long as it is clear who the aggressor is and that there is at least a chance of surviving the altercation. But as for the ethical implications of this sort of situation, well, that really is a topic all on its own that doesn't have much to do with Syria. You made an assumption that "people on this board" were not "concerned" with children dying in Syria. Why would you assume that? it just seems out of the blue. The general consensus here, and throughout the country (according to the polls) is that bombing Syria will not solve the problem - will not prevent more children from dying, will not get rid of the current regime, and will not rid that part of the world of chemical weapons. In fact, it seems utterly pointless. I mean, haven't the Obama supporters already stated that this is a "face-saving" campaign? You're talking about ethics, but everyone else is talking about strategy.

This story made me want to vomit. So, why did she have kids in the first place? Oh I know, she just got herself pregnant because that's what everyone does right? Or, even better, it says so in the bible. She's an F&**' loser. Is it satire?

The line of reasoning rests on the idea whether experience can be measured or not. You also have to define what a "measurement" entails. I don't see why it can't be measured.

Well, the truth is I was looking at evolution backwards. But to answer you question, which is a very heavy one, and one that could highjack the whole thread and throw it into the endless conundrum of determinism, I would have to simply say that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what we actually are, or what we think we're genetically coded for. It's irrelevant. If I come to a fork in the road and to the left is statism and to the right is a free society, it doesn't matter what someone tells me about my own biology, I'm going to the right. So, there's no reason for me to worry about anything.

Thanks for the recommendation Andros. I'll check it out. Ribuck, you're right. It seems that I put the cart before the horse. Evolution is one of those concepts that while thinking about it, you can easily get turned around and see it backwards. There is no "coding" for a human being that is set in stone, nor an ant for that matter. That was pretty short-sighted of me to fear that we're "coded for statism." In modern times, survival favors those who are capitalistic and industrious. This would also mean that survival is based on one's ability to manipulate incentives and negotiate; a skill which would never be developed by our "alpha male gorilla" who depends on brute force to get his way. In good time, natural selection will eradicate genes coded for violent and aggressive behavior, and human beings will then be "genetically coded" for living in a free society.

Thanks Alan, this does put things in perspective. I did not think of that. Our ability to exchange value and organize labor is essentially what lifted humanity up out of the brink of disaster. Not "alpha male" dominance. So essentially the evolution of the free-market not only saved us from subsistence living, but it is the one thing that distinguishes us from animals. Pepin, I wasn't trying to make a solid argument. I just wanted someone else's input on a particular thought that occurred to me that was a bit nagging. Actually, I was hoping for someone else to "fill in the gaps" and show me where I was confused. Your point about infant mortality, starvation, illness and disease, etc.. is well taken. This is where I get little confused. I know that the genetic programming of a species occurs at the individual level. But doesn't the interaction of the individual members within a species evolve as well? Like the eusocial insects. Ants for example. The genetic code for the ant not only makes the actual organism, but also codes for the manner in which the ant is going to interact socially. Is this correct? So, it gives the appearance that evolution is favoring species survival over individual survival.

I've been having a thought that I have not been able to shake lately. Someone please help me!Could our pre-human ancestors have survived without the social hierarchical structure that is so commonly found in chimps and apes? An alpha male who rules by force. A social "pecking-order" where some members get to pick what they want and others just get told what to do?This social structure must have evolved for reasons of survival. Does this have any implication on human societies? It's really bothering me and I just can't shake the idea that "statism" might be somehow genetically programmed into us through evolution. It goes like this: Peacefull volunteerism is the submissive "beta" trait. Violent dominance and the pursuit of power is the "alpha" trait. That these two character types will always be entangled in some kind of sick symbiotic relationship where individuals get abused, extorted, and massacred. And that evolution had selected this as the best chance for survival of the species. Hasn't this been the history of the word so far? Not just for humans, but for all mammals high up on the food chain?

The best way to look at it would be with what carlip said above. Compemsation for eveyone's labor in society gets granted in the form of wages. There are no "I owe you's" left over. The circle is closed, no one owes anyone anything after wages have been paid. Barak Obama seems to think that everyone's labor is an offering of good will, which is why he says things like "you didn't build that." People do jobs, provide services, build things, for a wage. A wage which is market value compensation for their labor. No more, no less. Obama has swaped the word "help" for "work." We are not a nation of helpers. We are a nation of workers.

Oh. I see. Social contract thing. Just tell him that there is no where else for him to go. The state is everywhere. The only way to get out of the terms of the "contract" is to die. If you do want to discuss this idea of a contract with him, then you can start by telling him that there is no contract. There was never a contract from the beginning. It's as mythological as the concept of god. There were just people who used force to get things done the way they wanted. For example, not everybody in the states in the late 18th century wanted to be independent from Britain. Only the wealthy elite. In fact, independence made life worse for everybody in the colonies except the gentry. The Indians got massacred. Slavery was increased farther south and west. And, the lower classes got the shit taxed of them. What a shit contract.

That is great news. Thanks Daniel.

Well, there was a time when women couldn't vote. Those were the rules. Would it have been reasonable to ask them to get up and make a mass exodus out of the country? What about the abolitionist during slavery? They certainly thought the "rules" we're immoral. The civil rights movement? The list goes on and on. Anyone who makes a statement like that doesn't really think too much. Why don't you propose the following question: How would any organized society exist without people who wanted to change the rules first? I mean, there has clearly been a lot of rule changing since the Stone Age.

How about responding to him by saying that he should never complain about life ever, because he is free to leave his own life by killing himself.

Oh man, Costa Rica is one of my favorite places. I loved going through all the little mountain towns when driving from San Jose to the west coast. My buddie would get car sick on those roads. But know I think they have a big highway going west from San Jose.

This is so true. It's like nurses who are all concerned about patient care and then they treat people they work with like shit. Yeah, I think what we're talking about is motivational news. I prefer that term. Good news could be something like, "oh look, a dog paddled itself to safety in a flood" or "gas prices are going down...blah, blah, blah." But motivational news is not only good, it's interesting as well. Stefan just put up a video featuring a doctor in Oklahoma talking about the real price of healthcare and how medical services should be a lot cheaper in a free market. I was very excited by this. Imagine if healthcare was cheap enough so as not to necessitate insurance! But then again, Stefan isn't the news.

Ok, "thrive" was the wrong word. I meant "watch."Whether they prefer it or not? Well Daniel posted something about that. But I do think conscious preference and that which we're conditioned to be attracted to through evolution, are not always the same thing. It depends on the circumstances. In your circumstance, you want to hear good news right now. You should check out the article posted on the other board about how some entrepreneurs are starting to pick up the pieces in Detroit. That's good news.I really do think that bad news has entertainment value. That's why it's around. I mean, people can sit there and laugh all day about guys getting hit in the balls on video. Getting hit in the balls is bad news.You do have a choice when it comes to the news programs. You can turn the TV off. You don't have to be watching TV. There are plenty of people who don't. If its junk, turn it off. Ha, ha! What about flies? I think about that a lot. I mean how manny near death experiences does a fly have when it's annoyingly buzzing around a group of people sitting outside on the patio. But the thing never seems to get traumatized. It just keeps coming back for more swats. Real short term memory.

Isn't "unselfish-concern" an oxymoron? How can you be concerned about something without experiencing an acute subjective emotion? If you act on that emotion in the attempt to alleviate it, then you are acting in self interest? I never understood the concept of altruism. It seems to me impossible.

Well, according to Daniel's citations we're hardwired for it. From an evolutionary stand point, that would have something to do with survival in a hostile environment, like, the jungle, or tribal warfare. Even dissidence and unrest within your own tribal community would be something that our ancestors would have to be keenly aware of in order to survive. But, that doesn't change the fact that some of us want to hear good news. The only question then becomes: what do we consider good news, and why do we consider it good? There is also a third category; irrelevant news. You can find that on CNN all day long. Let me ask a provocative question. Was the news of Detroit's bankruptcy good or bad? Wait, it's not that provocative of a question on these boards. Unless you live or own property in Detroit.

let's not assume that human beings are "naturally" attracted to tragedy and scandal. I know that there is a large population, probably the majority today, who thrive off the stuff. However, I'm not sure what the reason is. And yes, the news and media in general exploits this fact for ratings. We know that is true. We also know that there are people who exist that don't care for it, don't own a television, and are only concerned with their immediate reality, as they should be. Remember, there are millions of people out there who don't own televisions, don't watch movies, probably don't use the internet that much, and don't care. They are probably wrapped up in day-to-day survival though. What's my point? Well, I think there is an issue of boredom in the country I live in (usa).

You bring up some good points. That is an interesting bit about the TV news channel in Texas. I'd like to know which station that was. I actually did fantasize about starting an only "good news" website about 6 years ago. It was just a fleeting thought. However, I did feel the need to hear about some inspiring/exciting stories. I was going through a bit of a doom and gloom phase and wanted to get that feeling, that sense of excitement that the future has something for us, that we're going somewhere. I think someone beat me to it though. Concerning your question about preference. You're right, we can't be so sure that people prefer one way or the other; they really are only given one choice when it comes to news. But, people have a plethora of choice when it comes to other non-news television programing. And they usually choose either fantasy affair stories, sadistic crime stories, or junk reality television. Crime show series, for example, are not up-lifting or positive. The story usually revolves around the discovery of a gruesome crime. And it seems, the more gruesome and horrifying, the more hyped the show is. Shows like Desperate House Wives, Scandal, and Mistresses, all depict morally repugnant individuals who have somehow screwed up their own lives and are in the process of screwing up someone else's. Am I being to critical? Reality television can be summed up using my previous sentence but of course it's "reality." What is entertaining about all this? I think people are drawn to it because it accomplishes one of two things for them. Either the shows make them feel better about their own lives, or, the shows vindicate their own lives. I mean, imagine having television show that glorifies your own vices and makes them seem, well, normal. Can this analysis be applied to news as well? From what I see these days, the news is not that distinguishable from reality television.

Another way to look at it would be to admit that everything on television is entertainment, including the news. Bad news seems to be more entertaining than good news. Therefore, people will watch it more if the focus is on the negative and absurd. Look at reality television. Very entertaining for people. And it is all bad news; messed up people doing messed up things to each other.

I'll tell you what an achievemnt would be: Convincing someone else, through your words and/or actions, to leave the chains of religion behind and walk out into the wide open. But you must be compasionate at all times. Understand the fear that has been driven in to them, and lead the way for them, through sharing your life experience. And remember this, people are emotional first, then reasonable. You must apeal to their emotions!

Joseito, I know what you're saying. It's imposible to raise a kid, and direct them to make one choice over another, without calling upon your own value system at some point. So therefore, there is no way your own personal beliefs cannot effect the raising of your child. That being said. From my own personal experience. My parents are of two different faiths. My mother Catholic, my father Muslim. Before myself or any of my siblings were born, they made an agreement not to push one religion over the other. So, as a result, I never had to go to church, or mosque. I was never read any biblical stories or stories from the Koran and pretty much just grew up figuring things out for myself. (I figured everyhting out after my mother told that there was no Santa Claus) Now, I know you're going to say that somewhere in there, my parents snuck in their value systems when raising me by directing me to make one choice over another. And that they couldn't have done this without their own value systems kicking in. True, absolutely true. However, I'm an atheist now. And my parents still love and accept me. And my mother is still Catholic and my father, well, I think he secretly thinks it's all baloney too. Ha, Ha. He won't really admit it though. So, what I'm saying, is that it is possible too make a rational choice (not pushing one religion over another when getting married) and still have core religious superstition floating around in your head.

Like telling children that disobeying them or mythical beings will lead to eternal death and torture for such evil sins. You know- threats. As long as religious people don't do an action like that, then they can believe whatever crazy garbage they want. You are correct. I am considering the making of threats as "action" even though there is no physical movement. Instilling negative, harmfull ideas in someone's head, like warning of a Hell and eternal torture, is abusive action. Howewver, not all religious people do this. Many individuals are what I refer to as "passive" religious. They keep many things to themselves and selectively omit actions and/or lines of thought that could be damaging to others.

It is not an achievmenent. It's a virtuous disposition that's congruent with reality. Some of us had to shed more bulls#$* than others to get there, but I think it is more like just letting the force of gravity take you there than actual mind crunching work. Joseito, I wouldn't say religious people are "bad" people though. Some are bad yes, but, some atheists are bad as well. Manyreligious individuals have been so indoctrinated since birth, that they are actually not conscious of certian "religious" thinking patterns. And there is a lot of fear involved as well. It's action that separates those that are good from those that are bad. And I know many religious people who don't do or say anything harmful or destructive. If they want to believe that they go somewhere in the clouds when they die, then why not? As long as they don't push this idea on the young without presenting alternatives.