3 ms·

Human ethics transcend nature, where might makes right. Ethics is meaningless if it is "just how it is." That's not to say that nature and natures way can't i

Human ethics transcend nature, where might makes right. Ethics is meaningless if it is "just how it is." That's not to say that nature and natures way can't inform ethics, or to commit to any particular ethical outlook.

Amezarak 9y ago
Some people claim their ethics transcend nature, which is an entirely different. Nobody can explain why their version of the good is right with reference to objective criteria, thereby allowing everyone to come to the same conclusion. Ethics, when not studied from an anthropological perspective, is just religion. Here in reality, you might not feel that might makes right, and I may or may not agree with you, but that's moot when some other ethical outlook out-competes yours via violence, oppression, demographics, or social trends and a thousand years from now someone is reading about your ethical system and laughing at its quaintness, or perhaps shivering a bit with horror. Personally, I regard 'universal humanitarianism' as something of a suicide pact.
- durge 9y ago
  I hear you, and agree. An individual human being living to increase the fitness of others would be considered extrememly mentally ill, possibly toxic in their inability to sustain themselves. When this is taken to a societal scale (ie many industrialized nations devouring themselves inside out for the benefit of a few at the very top and helping to pull many globally out of poverty) it is seen as somehow a sustainable thing. I'm not here to debate whether or not this is what should be done, but clearly the demographics of this way of being are the human equivalent of 'colony collapse disorder'.
blfr 9y ago
Human ethics transcend nature I don't think that's true. Of course you can come up with ethical systems which transcend nature but the ones that actually get adopted are simply sets and heuristics which make the group benefit the most from "just how it is." Considering that moral attitudes are partially heritable, on a long enough time-scale, ethics that are truly separate from nature are bound to disappear or be relegated to marginal groups of people.
- comicjk 9y ago
  I suspect that human ethics transfer much faster memetically than genetically. In which case, their heritability is relatively unimportant. What matters is believability. It seems as though there will be a natural ebb and flow between ethics which propagate by defeating others, and ethics which propagate by convincing them. The equilibrium ethics will be somewhere in between, as I believe we observe for most real societies.
  - blfr 9y ago
    human ethics transfer much faster memetically than genetically Almost certainly. But they transfer much more permanently genetically.
- carsongross 9y ago
  > get adopted are simply sets and heuristics which make the group benefit the most from "just how it is." "Group" is a slippery thing, though. There is always a tendency for individuals and sub-groups to cheat on whatever wider group ethics might exist. It's a more complex phenomena than most people give it credit for.

Amezarak 9y ago

Some people claim their ethics transcend nature, which is an entirely different. Nobody can explain why their version of the good is right with reference to objective criteria, thereby allowing everyone to come to the same conclusion. Ethics, when not studied from an anthropological perspective, is just religion. Here in reality, you might not feel that might makes right, and I may or may not agree with you, but that's moot when some other ethical outlook out-competes yours via violence, oppression, demographics, or social trends and a thousand years from now someone is reading about your ethical system and laughing at its quaintness, or perhaps shivering a bit with horror. Personally, I regard 'universal humanitarianism' as something of a suicide pact.

durge 9y ago
I hear you, and agree. An individual human being living to increase the fitness of others would be considered extrememly mentally ill, possibly toxic in their inability to sustain themselves. When this is taken to a societal scale (ie many industrialized nations devouring themselves inside out for the benefit of a few at the very top and helping to pull many globally out of poverty) it is seen as somehow a sustainable thing. I'm not here to debate whether or not this is what should be done, but clearly the demographics of this way of being are the human equivalent of 'colony collapse disorder'.

blfr 9y ago

Human ethics transcend nature I don't think that's true. Of course you can come up with ethical systems which transcend nature but the ones that actually get adopted are simply sets and heuristics which make the group benefit the most from "just how it is." Considering that moral attitudes are partially heritable, on a long enough time-scale, ethics that are truly separate from nature are bound to disappear or be relegated to marginal groups of people.

comicjk 9y ago
I suspect that human ethics transfer much faster memetically than genetically. In which case, their heritability is relatively unimportant. What matters is believability. It seems as though there will be a natural ebb and flow between ethics which propagate by defeating others, and ethics which propagate by convincing them. The equilibrium ethics will be somewhere in between, as I believe we observe for most real societies.
- blfr 9y ago
  human ethics transfer much faster memetically than genetically Almost certainly. But they transfer much more permanently genetically.
carsongross 9y ago
> get adopted are simply sets and heuristics which make the group benefit the most from "just how it is." "Group" is a slippery thing, though. There is always a tendency for individuals and sub-groups to cheat on whatever wider group ethics might exist. It's a more complex phenomena than most people give it credit for.