5 ms·

There is no such thing as morality and ethics, only darwinism. We have made these constructs because it's advantageous. Imo.

by raitx 2y ago

technothrasher 2y ago
This is a strange take. Yes, both morality and ethics are intrinsically tied to there being existing agents interested in them. But once you establish that those agents exist, saying, "there is no such thing as morality and ethics" is nonsensical.
- raitx 2y ago
  They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.
mhaberl 2y ago
So you are saying there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it?
dmd 2y ago
That is like saying "there is no such thing as a hammer, only subatomic particles". It's not even wrong.
- mjw_byrne 2y ago
  Interpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are sometimes taken to be".
  - dmd 2y ago
    But that's so obviously a straw man. Obviously nobody believes that.
    - asib 2y ago
      Could you elaborate? There are people that don't subscribe to moral or ethical absolutism.
      - card_zero 2y ago
        Or objectivism, which is the nice one. It's rejecting absolutism that drives people into the arms of relativism.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      What a lovely thought.
    - mjw_byrne 2y ago
      What exactly are you saying nobody believes? Moral absolutists, moral relativists and moral nihilists all exist.
  - raitx 2y ago
    They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.
    - mjw_byrne 2y ago
      I think statements of the form "X is immoral" are just secular versions of "X is against God's will", in the sense that they (not necessarily intentionally) use linguistic trickery to present a personal preference as a universal rule. If I am against something I can say "I am against X"; making statements about oneself is generally safe and not an overstep. There's no obvious path from "I am against X" to "I will stop you doing X". If I say "X is wrong", that sounds like an absolute, and is more easily (ab)used as a justification for stopping others doing it. The exact same linguistic distinction applies to offence. "I am offended by X" is accurate and works fine in a society. "X is offensive" is a precursor to censorship.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
There isn't even darwinism, just atoms doing atom things
- brookst 2y ago
  Another shill for Big Atom. Everyone knows it’s all subatomic particles.
- raitx 2y ago
  Darwinism is self evident. Like the water always flows path of least resistance. Moralism and ethics are ideas ever changning depending on who you ask.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Also self-evident: the existence and nonexistence of God.
brookst 2y ago
Isn’t that like saying there’s no such thing as eyelids because they’re a product of Darwinism?
beardyw 2y ago
You may be interested in Darwin's views on morality here: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html#link2HCH0004 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html...
Qwertious 2y ago
If you could choose between having hot sex without any chance of conception, or instantly producing a child (no sex involved), which scenario would you personally prefer? Most people would enjoy the hot sex more. Some people have this weird misunderstanding of evolution, where they conflate the behavior of genes, of human desires, and sometimes of morality. This is rather nicely debunked in The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.
- raitx 2y ago
  Interesting idea and question. This reminds of the current trend that the population developed countries are in decline. So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral, but now it's moral.
  - Qwertious 2y ago
    >So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral Where and when are you talking of? In medieval Europe it was considered immoral by the catholic church (and note: basically everyone ignored them in practice, and not everyone agreed with the church), because they explicitly religiously believed that deriving pleasure from sex was only caused by the Original Sin, and that nobody should have sex, ever. They carved out an exception for preventing humanity from going extinct, but otherwise: seeking sexual pleasure is sodomy. Elsewhere: it varies, but sex is fun and most people wouldn't oppose it.

There is no such thing as morality and ethics, only darwinism. We have made these constructs because it's advantageous. Imo.

by raitx 2y ago

There is no such thing as morality and ethics, only darwinism. We have made these constructs because it's advantageous. Imo.

technothrasher 2y ago

This is a strange take. Yes, both morality and ethics are intrinsically tied to there being existing agents interested in them. But once you establish that those agents exist, saying, "there is no such thing as morality and ethics" is nonsensical.

raitx 2y ago
They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.

mhaberl 2y ago

So you are saying there is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it?

dmd 2y ago

That is like saying "there is no such thing as a hammer, only subatomic particles". It's not even wrong.

mjw_byrne 2y ago
Interpreting the statement charitably, I think they mean "morality and ethics are arbitrary constructs of humankind, not the deep universal principles they are sometimes taken to be".
- dmd 2y ago
  But that's so obviously a straw man. Obviously nobody believes that.
  - asib 2y ago
    Could you elaborate? There are people that don't subscribe to moral or ethical absolutism.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      Or objectivism, which is the nice one. It's rejecting absolutism that drives people into the arms of relativism.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    What a lovely thought.
  - mjw_byrne 2y ago
    What exactly are you saying nobody believes? Moral absolutists, moral relativists and moral nihilists all exist.
- raitx 2y ago
  They are real as ideas are real, but not as truths and the "right" or "wrong" way to exist. I think there's harmony, to live in harmonious way. To live a way that is benificial for everyone. I think the words such as right or wrong and moral, ethics are made up to control people. These ideas are always changing depending on who controls the narrative. I would love to hear what you think. I have a strange mind and I'm just trying to understand and learn.
  - mjw_byrne 2y ago
    I think statements of the form "X is immoral" are just secular versions of "X is against God's will", in the sense that they (not necessarily intentionally) use linguistic trickery to present a personal preference as a universal rule. If I am against something I can say "I am against X"; making statements about oneself is generally safe and not an overstep. There's no obvious path from "I am against X" to "I will stop you doing X". If I say "X is wrong", that sounds like an absolute, and is more easily (ab)used as a justification for stopping others doing it. The exact same linguistic distinction applies to offence. "I am offended by X" is accurate and works fine in a society. "X is offensive" is a precursor to censorship.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago

There isn't even darwinism, just atoms doing atom things

brookst 2y ago
Another shill for Big Atom. Everyone knows it’s all subatomic particles.
raitx 2y ago
Darwinism is self evident. Like the water always flows path of least resistance. Moralism and ethics are ideas ever changning depending on who you ask.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Also self-evident: the existence and nonexistence of God.

brookst 2y ago

Isn’t that like saying there’s no such thing as eyelids because they’re a product of Darwinism?

beardyw 2y ago

You may be interested in Darwin's views on morality here: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html#link2HCH0004 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2300/pg2300-images.html...

Qwertious 2y ago

If you could choose between having hot sex without any chance of conception, or instantly producing a child (no sex involved), which scenario would you personally prefer? Most people would enjoy the hot sex more. Some people have this weird misunderstanding of evolution, where they conflate the behavior of genes, of human desires, and sometimes of morality. This is rather nicely debunked in The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

raitx 2y ago
Interesting idea and question. This reminds of the current trend that the population developed countries are in decline. So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral, but now it's moral.
- Qwertious 2y ago
  >So is it moral to have sex without producing child? In the past that would be immoral Where and when are you talking of? In medieval Europe it was considered immoral by the catholic church (and note: basically everyone ignored them in practice, and not everyone agreed with the church), because they explicitly religiously believed that deriving pleasure from sex was only caused by the Original Sin, and that nobody should have sex, ever. They carved out an exception for preventing humanity from going extinct, but otherwise: seeking sexual pleasure is sodomy. Elsewhere: it varies, but sex is fun and most people wouldn't oppose it.