In this society, we seem to have a list of things that are right or wrong - it’s wrong to two-time your boyfriend, it’s right to be honest, it’s wrong to swear…
but what exactly defines those lists? What is the fundamental thing that makes something right or wrong?
I keep returning to the hedonistic idea of happiness, but that doesn’t always fit - it makes me happy to kiss someone else and it keeps my b/f happy if he doesn’t know, but that’s not right at all - it’s downright dishonest and that makes it wrong, right?
So is there any one thing that our moral code is based on? If there isn’t, should there be? I don’t see how a society can really function on baseless laws with no actual foundation.
In this society, we seem to have a list of things that are right or wrong - it’s wrong to two-time your boyfriend.
but what exactly defines those lists? What is the fundamental thing that makes something right or wrong?
I keep returning to the hedonistic idea of happiness, but that doesn’t always fit - it makes me happy to kiss someone else and it keeps my b/f happy if he doesn’t know.
So is there any one thing that our moral code is based on?
There’s a lot of two-timing going on in our (USA) culture. Right and wrong are concepts. Did these concepts come from genes or memes?
See no. 1.
According to Candace Pert our bodies are hard and soft wired for hedonistic pleasure (happiness). If your b/f discovers that you are using one of his competitors in order to get your pleasure, then he is mostly likely going to display his fitness indicator, sexual jealousy. If he discovers you kissing one of his competitors, and retaliates against you, explain to him that you are only doing what comes natural, and that his retaliation should be directed against his competitor, not against you. If he accepts your scientific logic, and retaliates against his competitor, you should observe both the males for fitness indicators, suchas athletic ability, posturing, etc. If they come out equal, then keep doing what you are doing. If one of the males out performs the other, then choose the winner and drop the loser. If you are overly concerned about your boy friend’s painful emotions (empathy) then you must question your own fitness indicators. If sympathy keeps you from doing what is natural, then you should keep searching. Relationship problems can be resolved quite easily when looked at from a scientific view point. Good luck.
I have often wondered about this. I was raised in a rough neighbor that had a lot of people that would steal anything not nailed down. But most of the people were “honest” as we called them. same economic status. never figured it out.
My sisterinlaw is the type to do things that don’t hurt people but aren’t right. example: at a place with kids meals for kids 12&U, she lets her 14 year old get the kids meal. I don’t agree because I think it is teaching the 14 yearold bad things. so will her children grow up to be sneakers? and will mine grow up being judgemental?
I have had fellow office workers brag about how the person at the meat counter mismarked the steaks and they got $20 worth of steaks for $2. wrong is wrong isn’t it.
I bought a book at a store that was 30% off. I was reading it next door at a resteraunt when I noticed that they had charged me only 30% (instead of 70%). I took the charge receipt back and tried to explain it and when they finally understood they are amazed. what is so amazing about being honest? it made me feel bad that we are such a dishonest society.
–Let’s assume you are asking about a fundamental moral code that affects the society that you and I are living in right now (North American/European).
If you are a Christian I would suggest the OT and if you are a Jew I would suggest the Bible.
It was the Jewish religion that started what has been defined as Ethic Monotheism. Those particular ethics seem to have been the major influence upon our society.
If what jesse is saying was really applicable, all women would be with big burly guys whose only fitness is physical. That’s clearly not the case nowadays, as the fitness of a mate is based more on personality and compatability than physical strength. jesse, it may be easier to define our actions scientifically, but it’s not more accurate. Our society and our species has evolved; we’re not fighting off bears or lions to survive long enough to mate. In fact, and in order not to make this a complete hijack, I would say that our ethics have transcended our survival instincts. If I’m hungry, my survival instinct may tell me to steal bread from a supermarket, but my moral values tell me this is wrong.
No it wouldn’t. Humans are social animals that require other humans to survive (well maybe not any more but even up until, say, 200 years ago this was pretty much true). Your survival instincts reflect this fact by being hardwired for social survival as well as directly physical. If you steal the property of other members of your troupe your social standing drops. Do it often enough and you will be driven out, particularly if you’re male. If you’re hungry your survival instinct tells you to beg food first, and steal only if starving. In other words risk your social standing only if the probable alternative is worse than social loss. Of course there is also at some level a risk benefit assesement. If the benefit is high enough and the risk of getting caught low enough then perhaps theft is warranted.
This seems to be a point being missed here. Humans aren’t solitary. Our actions aren’t based entirely on personal survival, but on a plethora of pack heirarchy considerations that in turn affect our survival. I suspect Jesse was being a little facetious in his response, but his example is fairly typical of a lot of coffe shop social Darwinist theories. It overlooks the fact that playing potential mates off agianst one another and being genrally decietful gains you a reputaion of being untrustworthy. Although it may get you the best genes for your offspring it also gets you a mate who has little trust in you and as such has little interest in looking after your health. This is a definite survival disadvanage for your children.
I think that this may well answer the OP. The fundamental thing that makes something right or wrong seems to be whether it affects your genetic survival prospects. Happiness has little to do with it, but our brains are wired to be happy when we increase our survival chances. Kissing someone else makes you happy, but it also generates guilt because you know you could get caught, and if you’re pregnant to your BF and don’t know it ( a real risk in pre-contraception society) the consequences of getting caught will be terible indeed. Similiarly not telling your boyfreind may keep him happy, but you will be considered even less trustworthy by him when he does find out. A mate who is untrustworthy and unfaithful has big problems. Her own value and that of her children is halved. There is only a 50% chance that your BF is the father of any children and so he will only work half as hard to feed and protect both them and you. That’s just good sense evolutionarily. If he knows the children are his he can legitimately lay down his life provided two of his children and you survive. If there’s only a 50% chance they are his then he can only afford to die if four children and you survive.
Now whether such morality is hardwired in that way because of evolutionary pressure, or whether it is done because of an intelligent designer is another debate, but morality itself seems quite consistent with ensuring the survival of the individual.