We Are Straying from the Path that was Laid out Before Us

[ketostix]

1) I don't believe in a universal definition of morality; I believe there is an unavoidable degree of moral fallibilism, especially considering that many ethical issues we will face in the future (i.e. cloning, etc.) did not always exist..

I wanted to briefly comment on the this. I think it is somewhat of a strawman when one says the other side believes in a universal definition of morality. What i would say is most of the time the moral thing to do is obvious and instinctive. But things can get complicated and complex. My view is no matter the situation there is an objectively best course of action. It may not be perfect and it may not be obviously clear or easily determinable to the person(s) involved but "right" exist independently. The thing is if you apply common sense and the golden rule it's not that hard to determine what would be the right course as opposed to the most obstensibly gratifying, self-serving or pleasurable course. Your natural drives and following your gratification might will often lead you to error, being gluttonous, a drunk or drug addict, maybe a criminal, someone that no one trust or likes or what have you.

 

[STR8UP]

That's almost funny almost. That's about as much as a red herring as saying if I like the color white, it's moral to paint everyone car white with spray paint. Maybe that argument would be true if a person is retarded or humans are really monkies like amoralist seem to suggest.

No, you clearly stated that morals are nothing more than "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

You said:

It's the concept of reciprocity that determines morals. It's abundantly clear that all humans have the ability to discern how they want to be treated. So is it really that hard to understand and all gray and fuzzy how you should deal with others?

I wasn't being facetious, and I believe my point was perfectly valid. It has nothing to do with being retarded or being like monkeys.

My main point is the ability to determine right and wrong is built into the normal human mind. I believe it's only confusing if you choose to make it confusing.

Um, no.

Morality is a social construct. NURTURE. Do you think for one second if you were raised by a pack of wild dogs instead of mom, dad, grandparents, teachers, priests, etc, that you would have any qualms about stealing food from someone else?

You guys have this nature/nurture thing waaaaay out of whack. And I'm getting a whiff of religious influence, which could explain a lot.

To be honest a big reason you have people give you problems on this forum is because you don't disagree all that agreeably or even honestly and other things that I want go into.

I already stated that I don't care what people think of me. I'm not trying to build a fan club. Not sure what you mean about "honesty" and "all those other things". I would be curious to know though. Maybe you would be so kind as to PM me...

I never even posted my viewpoint directly toward you yet you never cease to come out of the woodwork to try to dismiss it a tone of contempt. Contrast that with say Rollo. You can dissent directly at his post and he'll come back with well thought out reply without any tone of condescension.

Maybe I'm not as good of a conversationalist as Rollo. Maybe I'm not smart enough to figure out that the sensitivity level around here is a little high. I dunno.

Str8up, you are not open to other views so why expect your "nemesises" here to be? When someone says "moral" or "quality"/low quality girl, you really do build strawmen such as, "absolutism", perfect/imperfect women, black and white etc., when that's not really what's being said. No one is perfect or completely moral all the time but it's about degree not perfection. But being able to precieve degree is still a signficant thing.

That is precisely the thing that pisses me off. I'm the one talking about shades of grey instead of black and white, yet I get painted as the one as being small minded. That's what is wrong with this board and a big part of the reason why I'm leaving.

The people on this board so desperately to cling to their beliefs and hold onto their AFC "comfort zone" that we have posters such as iqqi that have nearly as high of a reputation as you and me. You guys can sit around and have your intelligence and your masculinity insulted by an attention wh0ring troll. I'm gonna post my thoughts somewhere else.

Moral and right and wrong are essentially interchangable. If determining right and wrong or what's moral is futile and indeterminate, then there is no right or wrong.

Once again, it's not about there being no right and wrong, it's about the fact that right and wrong is interpreted as many different ways as there are people living on this planet. I know the lines I won't cross. I know the value of working WITH other people (which is the only real, proper, tangible, HEALTHY purpose of morality). And I also know that the world is full of sneaky fukkers who USE the guise of morality to conceal their immoral (according to me) intentions.

Lots of people talk a big game and act just the opposite. It's really a great strategy for short term gain, and a lot of people employ these tactics because they are either not smart enough to see long term benefits or they are too greedy or impulsive to wait for the bigger payoff.

Virtues such as chastity, loyalty, honor, courage and plain old moral leadership are universally attractive. And when a guy lacks those things, he simply cannot command respect from other men. You know it, I know it.

To follow these "virtues" blindly is to be a pawn in someone elses game. To follow them as a means to an end for your own benefit is wise.

 

[guru1000]

A man who believes that societal conditioning trumps biological imperatives. He might begrudgingly acknowledge that nature plays a "small role", but will never admit that it is the primary motivator behind all human behavior.

The pain/pleasure dynamic is the "primary motivator" behind all human behavior.

Our actions are solely based on what can potentially cause us the most pleasure and least pain. For a bodybuilder the pleasure associated with placing in a national contest outweighs the pain of a ten meal a day diet. For the attorney, the pleasure associated with the three letter ESQ outweighs the pain of three gruesome years of law school. For the ambitious, the pleasure of success outweighs the pain of blood, sweat and tears. For men of integrity, the pleasure of staying true to one's convictions outweigh the pain of denying short term gratification.

At the end of the day, biology may prompt, but certainly is not the prime motivator for most. We can go further to state, those whose prime motivator is derived solely from biological imperatives essentially have the same thought process of an animal. The only difference between us and animals, is choice in spite of instinct. Animals, the lower life form, have only biology to motivate their behaviors. As such, they are easy to direct and train. Feed them and you are their masters. I believe we all know a few people (man or woman) that are not very different than animals in this respect.

That said, it logical to to assume that men or women who are least likely to follow their biological "hard wiring" derive the most pleasure from dynamics of a higher purpose.

This brings us to the conclusion that those "evolutionary psychologists" who believe human behavior is directed by biology form this "opinion" by observing this same type of behavior from people who are closest to them (no different than neanderthals). This only further validates the old cliche "Birds of a feather, flock together".

 

[Luthor Rex]

The issue lies in a mans biological imperative towards sexual variety. So the logistics to effect this dictate that we devise methods of contraception. The man having sex with multiple women, while never actually breeding, may be thwarting the survival of the species, but he is still very much following his biological imperative.

The proximate motive is pleasure, the ultimate motive is reproduction.

In ethology, the study of animal behavior, causation can be considered in terms of these two mechanisms.

* Proximate causation: Explanation of an animal's behavior based on trigger stimuli and internal mechanisms.
* Ultimate causation: Explanation of an animal's behavior based on evolution. Requires that behavioral traits, like physical ones, are genetically heritable, and then explains behavior using an explanation of why this specific behavioral trait was favored by natural selection.

These can be further divided, for example proximate causes may be given in terms of local muscle movements or in terms of developmental biology (see Tinbergen's four questions).

A variety of women will give satisfy the proximate motive 'feeling good'. The ultimate motive is to get as many women pregnant as he can so as to give both genetic diversity enter as many children into the next generation as he can.

A man who does not leave behind children does not serve his ultimate Darwinian motive. What people consciously tell themselves is bullsh!t, what is actually driving us is what matters. Contraception for mind-distracting 'fun' is bullsh!t, leaving as many babies behind as you can is what matters.

The bitter irony of the 21st century is that jokers like this who poop on Darwin are showing the most Darwinian fitness.

Damn good OP post, and damn good post here:



This is a great discussion, and it relieves me to see it happening.

And I wish Jeffst would also post at nextlevel.

Awww cripes, we're feeding iqqi... maybe we should stop...

:nervous:

 

[STR8UP]

Our actions are solely based on what can potentially cause us the most pleasure and least pain.

Our actions are based on what is most likely to send our genes into the next generation.

Why do men build empires?

Why do women wear makeup?

The pleasure mechanism is nothing more than the "orgasm". Would you fukk if you didn't come?

At the end of the day, biology may prompt, but certainly is not the prime motivator for most.

I've said this before, and I have yet to have anyone even debate me on this because it is an irrefutable truth:

"Biology RULES. Any deviation from this will inevitably result in the extinction of the species."

Your very EXISTENCE is predicated on the fact that your ancestors followed their biological imperatives. Great Grandpappy wasn't analyzing how much pain/pleasure he would derive from fukking Great Grandma. The testosterone flowing through his veins made his d!ck hard, and made your existence possible.

We can go further to state, those whose prime motivator is derived solely from biological imperatives essentially have the same thought process of an animal. The only difference between us and animals, is choice in spite of instinct.

We are motivated by biology, and influenced by society. Your PRIME motivator is biology. Eat. Sleep. Fukk. Societal influences are good in that they allow us to build a stable, cohesive society, They are bad in that it is easy for the unscrupulous to use them to shame and scare others to carry out agendas that are not in the individual's best interest.

This brings us to the conclusion that those "evolutionary psychologists" who believe human behavior is directed by biology form this "opinion" by observing this same type of behavior from people who are closest to them (no different than neanderthals). This only further validates the old cliche "Birds of a feather, flock together".

Convenient conclusion to a weak argument.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

The pain/pleasure dynamic is the "primary motivator" behind all human behavior.

Agreed, but your presumptions of defining WHAT that pleasure reward is is why you're a moralist:

Our actions are solely based on what can potentially cause us the most pleasure and least pain. For a bodybuilder the pleasure associated with placing in a national contest outweighs the pain of a ten meal a day diet. For the attorney, the pleasure associated with the three letter ESQ outweighs the pain of three gruesome years of law school.

As with most of your responses on this subject, you insistently presume that the more ephemeral, higher-self, seemingly deeper aspects of the reward-for-sacrifice should necessarily always be the pleasure motivator. You cast it in this light because it fits in with your overblown need to give higher meaning to that sacrifice. In Morals Land the body builder is motivated by the pleasure of standing on a stage (amongst others with the same or more dedication as he has) for a fleeting moment to be judged in a contest rooted in convictions. In Animal Land not only does he enjoy the reward of being counted among impressive peers, but he also receives the pleasure of the attention of adoring, physically superior women, he's envied by, or inspiring to, those men of lesser physical status, and the ego-affirming confidence all of this provides him with.

The same comparisons can be made about your attorney. Again you presume that the higher motivation (three small letters next to his name) is 'true pleasure' while ignoring that the status and money associated with that profession far outstripped the pride of having attained that status when he set out to sacrifice what he did to attain it.

This is what makes a moralist; presuming that higher-order, internal rewards are, or should ever be, the ONLY valid pleasure for motivating behavior, while simultaneously downplaying or deliberately ignoring external, physically motivated reward / pleasures as prompting behavior.

That's not to say that higher-order internal rewards are insignificant; it is to say that they are generally a by-product of what the prospects of the external rewards initially prompted a person to do. For instance, a successful surgeon at 45 y.o. may indeed find his personal sacrifice to become one a source of pride, respectability and integrity, however when he entered medical school at 20 the prospect of wealth, status, female attention, and retiring early with a yacht (not to mention repaying the high cost of med school) were far more visceral motivators. Now I'm sure there are various rare examples of idealistic individuals who set out in their ambitions to serve a higher purpose, but even in this case, their initial goal was to pursue a passion, NOT to ultimately be thought of as virtuous. In fact to aspire to would invalidate the sacrifice. Altruism is ALWAYS suspect.

 

[jophil28]

Relax STR8UP - I know you are getting lots of sex from girls so you don't care what other guys think.

OH yes he does. He cares so much what other guys think that he is willing to spend a goodly chunk of his time writing poorly conceived graffiti in thread after thread on this forum in a tiring(for us) attempt to force his views on them, and have them think HIS way.

 

[STR8UP]

This is what makes a moralist; presuming that higher-order, internal rewards are, or should ever be, the ONLY valid pleasure for motivating behavior, while simultaneously downplaying or deliberately ignoring external, physically motivated reward / pleasures as prompting behavior.

That's not to say that higher-order internal rewards are insignificant; it is to say that they are generally a by-product of what the prospects of the external rewards initially prompted a person to do. For instance, a successful surgeon at 45 y.o. may indeed find his personal sacrifice to become one a source of pride, respectability and integrity, however when he entered medical school at 20 the prospect of wealth, status, female attention, and retiring early with a yacht (not to mention repaying the high cost of med school) were far more visceral motivators. Now I'm sure there are various rare examples of idealistic individuals who set out in their ambitions to serve a higher purpose, but even in this case, their initial goal was to pursue a passion, NOT to ultimately be thought of as virtuous. In fact to aspire to would invalidate the sacrifice. Altruism is ALWAYS suspect.

Props for once again being able to dissect this on a deeper level and better express it from a scientific POV.

That's kind of what I've been getting all along, that moralists assign way too much credit to the higher self while they downplay the fact that we are all still animals trying to survive and replicate by the easiest and best means possible.

 

[samspade]

At the end of the day, biology may prompt, but certainly is not the prime motivator for most. We can go further to state, those whose prime motivator is derived solely from biological imperatives essentially have the same thought process of an animal. The only difference between us and animals, is choice in spite of instinct.

It's not the only difference - obviously another one is the human ego's propensity to lie to and convince itself that it is above the driving impulses of evolution.

This brings us to the conclusion that those "evolutionary psychologists" who believe human behavior is directed by biology form this "opinion" by observing this same type of behavior from people who are closest to them (no different than neanderthals). This only further validates the old cliche "Birds of a feather, flock together".

Wrapping words you disagree with in quotes...You can do better than that. And scientists are only observing their like-minded friends? This is an inane conclusion, try again.

 

[Unprez]

When you choose your morals to address your own self-limiting beliefs, you are destined for a less than fulfilling life.

If that is so, than why are there so many celebrities on drugs and depressants and y do so many become religious because the 'pimp' lifestyle doesn't bring peace.

 

[ketostix]

Let me take a crack out what it is to be an amoralist:

1. You are an atheist, you believe for a fact there cannot be the entity of God in any form.

2. You believe evolution is a fact. All life originated by happenstance from base molecules and evolved into all the distinct species we have today.

3. There can not be right or wrong. Only evolutionary and biological imperatives. Lower order animal species are the only model for right and wrong because only they are operating purely on evolutionary and biological imperatives.

Well I think one and two are indeterminate and cannot be considered fact, so 3. cannot be just considered fact either. For 1. and 2. I consider several other possibilities. The things is I don't know any human species that actually want to live a reptilian life or several animals speices that do either. It's not exactly the model for highest survival rate in the first place. These low order species have a pretty low survival rate and so produce thousadans of fertilized eggs a year to compensate. the point is even if evolution is the answer that doesn't tell you much about what human species evolved or what their behavior should be like. It doesn't mean reptilian "evolved" behavior takes precedent over all other "evolved" behavior.

DonS you posted a quote that actually demonstrates what I'm talking about:

Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than randomly selected pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins. Also, biological siblings are more similar in personality than adoptive siblings. Each observation suggests that personality is heritable

Adoption studies indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are no more similar than random pairs of strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on personality are zero by adulthood.

What this tells you is humans inherit a whole litany of behaviors. Behaviors that are "evolved" and not just created out of thin air. Ignoring that is the revolving theme of some of the amoralist. They have a tendency to accepted indeterminate things as fact and draw simplified conclusions that fit what they want to believe. I know what they'll say in essence, "But the dominate imperative is to fvck...so all women are hors or xyz." No, the imperative to have sex doesn't tell you anything in itself.

 

[Señor Fingers]

@ OP,

Straying is part of the fun. Everybody has to find their own way, even if that means getting lost for a while. There is no perfect path that we were meant to follow. The only failures to be found are in those who either refuse to move an inch, or those who walk in circles believing that they have traveled great distances.

Plus, its liberating when you dont have to live up to anyone's expectations but your own - even though its a given that these expectations matter most from people on forums :crazy:

 

[guru1000]

This is an inane conclusion, try again

You missed the disparaging hyperbole.

In Morals Land the body builder is motivated by the pleasure of standing on a stage (amongst others with the same or more dedication as he has) for a fleeting moment to be judged in a contest rooted in convictions. In Animal Land not only does he enjoy the reward of being counted among impressive peers, but he also receives the pleasure of the attention of adoring, physically superior women, he's envied by, or inspiring to, those men of lesser physical status, and the ego-affirming confidence all of this provides him with.

What is the true motive behind his ambition, the reward of hot women or personal achievement? His motivation in Animal Land would be in attracting the best looking women but in professional competition motives generally remain solely in personal achievement. It is often the men that take bodybuilding to the extent of national competition that lose their physical appeal. Taking it further, to qualify for the nationals one generally takes two grams of testosterone, diuretics and one kit of GH weekly which is counterproductive to passing one's seed on. It is more self damaging than survival of the fittest. Maybe using a bodybuilder wasn't the best example in your counter.

The same comparisons can be made about your attorney. Again you presume that the higher motivation (three small letters next to his name) is 'true pleasure' while ignoring that the status and money associated with that profession far outstripped the pride of having attained that status when he set out to sacrifice what he did to attain it.

Now here is a good counter argument. Is the underlying motivation of an attorney, hot women or a deeply rooted ambition?

The more appropriate question would be how ambitious is the liquid attorney once he is married with children.

Now I'm sure there are various rare examples of idealistic individuals who set out in their ambitions to serve a higher purpose, but even in this case, their initial goal was to pursue a passion, NOT to ultimately be thought of as virtuous.

Thanks for proving my point.

Altruism is ALWAYS suspect.

Pain/pleasure that is not governed by biology is altruistic?

Our actions are based on what is most likely to send our genes into the next generation.

Why do men build empires?

Why do women wear makeup?

The pleasure mechanism is nothing more than the "orgasm". Would you fukk if you didn't come?

This would suggest everyone who is liquid with children no longer have ambition or purpose. Tell that to Warren Buffet or Donald Trump.

"Biology RULES. Any deviation from this will inevitably result in the extinction of the species."

Yet you proclaim marriage is for fools.

Quite a contradiction if biology forces you to have children, isnt it? Tell Mr. Biology you refuse to have children because raising a child in a disfunctional family environment could potentially damage your genetic plan (survival of the fittest).

Your very EXISTENCE is predicated on the fact that your ancestors followed their biological imperatives. Great Grandpappy wasn't analyzing how much pain/pleasure he would derive from fukking Great Grandma. The testosterone flowing through his veins made his d!ck hard, and made your existence possible.

The caveman had the same thought process ten thousand years ago. So much for evolutionary growth.

We are motivated by biology, and influenced by society. Your PRIME motivator is biology. Eat. Sleep. Fukk. Societal influences are good in that they allow us to build a stable, cohesive society, They are bad in that it is easy for the unscrupulous to use them to shame and scare others to carry out agendas that are not in the individual's best interest.

We are primarily motivated by neither. We are individually motivated only by what derives the most pleasure and least potential pain.

 

[john siegal]

Nice idea...but way too IDEALISTIC.

Now put "Ken and Barbie" down and come jump up on daddies lap and listen to the way the world really works.

Morality is a Societal concept.

If the society you live in believes one way, and you another, you will be perceive to be an "Iconoclast."

So let me get this straight, you want to become a monk, and you want everyone else to join in with you?

You want to hold a "cuck" strike and looking for recruits?

LOL...good luck bud.

Try changing the sex drive of Billions of Men around the world, and then we will see where your idea lands.

Wow...what an idea!

 

[Luthor Rex]

1. You are an atheist, you believe for a fact there cannot be the entity of God in any form.

According to the OP, it was my post that inspired him and started this sh!t storm. I'm guessing most people would put me in the "moralist" group... Well I'm an atheist... a "moralist atheist" ?? so I guess that places me in the middle of the two camps here.

2. You believe evolution is a fact. All life originated by happenstance from base molecules and evolved into all the distinct species we have today.

It is a fact and life has no meaning, but don't let that get you down.

3. There can not be right or wrong. Only evolutionary and biological imperatives. Lower order animal species are the only model for right and wrong because only they are operating purely on evolutionary and biological imperatives.

Here is why I guess I'm in the "moralist" camp: I think it can be arguably shown that Nature points to what is right and wrong. But I won't go into the details of all that right now. Too long.


....


It may not be pretty or what we want, but even evolutionary psychologists know that altruism exists.

 

[ketostix]

Luthor Rex I would classify you as an moral objectivist. You are very rare in the atheist and evolutionist camp. I don't believe being atheist or an evolutionist is mutally exclusive from being a "moralist" but most of the time it is. On the flipside you could believe in God and evolution at the same time and not believe in objective morality. One point of mine is I don't believe evolution is an invisible hand controlling human behavior and the determinator of "right/wrong" and that this right is indeterminate and not evident to humans. We have an urge to eat, but what does that tell you about your dietary habits and whether you'll eat garbage constantly and get fat or what?

 

[grinder]

Gentlemen,

I read this forum daily, hoping to come across insightful posts that strike a chord with me, that remind me of the correct path to take in life. These posts are few and far between. The DJ Bible and the Book of Pook tell us which way to go, but we are straying from this path that was laid out before us.

Gentlemen, the morality debate disturbs me. I think it is obvious that we are not born with morals, because if we were, we wouldn't be seeing them change so rapidly. They come to us and become ingrained in us through exposure to good examples and mentors, but this forum has become infiltrated with men who are willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator. Why has this happened? Well, I'll tell you why: because we're using men who have strayed as our examples and mentors. Their mantra is:

"There are no (or almost no) quality women in America, therefore, I will beat them at their own game and pre-emptively strike, doing whatever it takes to reach my objective while minimizing risk to myself."

Is this what we have become?

It's time for real men to stand up for morality and good old-fashioned values. If that means being celibate in protest, so be it. Men are no longer going to have sex with married women, we're no longer going to cheat, and we're not going to deceive.

Be reclusive if necessary, be rocks, be men and be proud of yourselves. There's a certain peace that comes over all of us when we realize our actions do not hurt others. We feel it because we've done right. If we want our women to be moral, we have to set the example; it's our job as men to do so.

It does not matter if the quality woman exists or does not exist. It does not matter what are neighbour does, or our "friends." We know what we have to do, and until we do it, there is no hope for our culture.

Take a stand. For f*ck's sake.

This post was inspired by Luthor Rex's post.

I am not celibate, I do have sex with married women, I do cheat, and I do deceive. I am a human being and I have found all moralist arguments are full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[samspade]

At some point, there's going to have to be an agreement to disagree, so we can get back to reporting on gaming and saving AFCs from doom.

There is obviously a fundamental difference of opinion, and it seems to creep up in every other thread.

 

[STR8UP]

At some point, there's going to have to be an agreement to disagree, so we can get back to reporting on gaming and saving AFCs from doom.

There is obviously a fundamental difference of opinion, and it seems to creep up in every other thread.

Problem being, the moralist movement actually serves to keep AFC's right where they are by feeding them with feel good ideas that are detrimental to their own success in the mating game. Good for women and society maybe, not good for men as individuals.

 

[WestCoaster]

I haven't posted in awhile, but this post intrigued me -- mostly for STR8UP's line of a "***** strike", I gotta use that, ha!

I haven't been reading the posts, saw one on how to cheat on a girlfriend. I don't think one posts means we're straying off some morality path.

While I don't advocate cheating (I never have), doing drugs (I haven't done that either), getting drunk all the time (I've had my moments), I also think it's good when one is single to certainly explore the varieties of life. And yes, that would mean perhaps drinking too much (please, don't drive), and dating a lot of women, no matter what your age. (I'd say sleeping with a lot of women, but make sure you take care of yourself regarding birth control and diseases.)

I think the morality post is to get us back in the AFC line and dispute the qualities of DJism. (Please, don't throw that Book of Pook bullsh-t at me, that guy is a long-winded gas bag. Live your own life. Anyone who talks in the third person is full of it.)

These morality posts crop up now and then, we're labeled sinners and so forth, then the religious debate arises -- religion has nothing to do with morality, and the most moral people I've met are either athiests or not very religious.

So called "loose" women I've dated have been the most loyal. The Christians I've dated? The first to cheat.

So please, don't tell us who is and who is not going down the right morality path. If someone wants to explore singlehood to its fullest with all its vices, so be it. Let them live their lives and learn from these experiences. Your moral path might not be the right one to go down.

To quote Woody Allen: "You're not rewarded for being a Boy Scout."