What are some universal values that humans value? It must be

>>290522
Eating food is good.

There is nothing on earth that every human can agree on.

Sex is good but reproduction is the ultimate vice.

>>290522
It seems a lot of societies felt that assassinations were a bit like cheating, even if they were commonly employed.

>>290537
Not everyone can agree that sex is good.

File: I bet the patriarchy did this.jpg (68KB, 338x506px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 338x506px

>>290522
Patriarchy

>>290522
eating, staying alive, reproduction

Water tastes nicer the thirstier you are.

>It must be applicable to 99.9% of human population.

Well, to really be universal, it shouldn't have exceptions. I don't think what you're looking for exists. Even social codes extremely popular between civilizations were sometimes disregarded by nomads (like property rights) and considering humanity lived most of its existence as nomadic hunter-gatherers... there were probably not any "laws' the way we think of them for the vast majority of history.

Even if a value was universal to societies; why focus on the societal level? It seems arbitrary to not consider individual morality with the same gravity when asking this question.

>>290522
Honesty, strength (physical prowess), discipline.

>>290522

>Reduction of suffering/Increase in happiness

For the vast majority of human history, this was not a universally held principle; it was pretty much only applied to the nice in-group, however that was defined.

We evolved to live in communities. Humans have always felt the need to justify why their act of murder, theft, or barbarism was justified, indicating that we universally abhor what we consider to be "wrongful" violence against other humans.

Protecting those we consider to be a part of our "tribe," and more specifically the female members of that tribe.

As implied by your post, you can only determine universal values among "mentally healthy" human beings. Sociopaths, as an example, will always be the exception.

The concept of protecting one's own, both in terms of family and property, is a value in almost all animals. This has been slightly obfuscated in human beings in the last few centuries, as globalization and freedom enable many of us to develop the perspective that the entirety of humanity is "our own" and all of them should be protected.

I don't even think taboos against killing, cannibalism and incest have been universal, despite how obviously anti-social and destructive these behaviors are. There's no universal definition of what constitutes an "innocent person" exempt from killing, and incest varies considering shit like first cousins and royal families.

>>290571

>Well, to really be universal, it shouldn't have exceptions

It can and should. Do people born without bones invalidate the assertion that "people have bones"? Technically, yes, but the person who feels the need to inject that nonsense into an argument misses the point and annoys everyone.

>>290580
>Protecting those we consider to be a part of our "tribe," and more specifically the female members of that tribe.

Is there any evidence of male disposability in prehistory? I doubt it.

>>290599

It's called basic logic. A female is more valuable from a reproductive standpoint because they can only experience one childbirth at a time. Add to that the fact that the males are stronger, faster, and more suited for risking their lives for the benefit of the community and you have the inevitable conclusion that males have always been "disposable," although that word seems to deliberately miss the point.

>>290522
Two ideals I've seen time and time again throughout history and cultures is the Golden Rule and the aim to give their children better than what they themselves have received.

>>290596
You can get mad at technicalities, but they're important in philosophy. Why draw the line at 99.9%? Why not 99%? 90%? 85%? 50%? Do you see how arbitrary it is once you start muddying absolute terms like "universal"? It literally means applicable to all cases and an single exception is enough to disprove that, a better word for what you're describing would be "ubiquitous".

>>290623

Even physics may have no universal truths given quantum mechanics. What you're saying reduces all discussion on all topics to "hurrridontknow."

>>290549
Coolant starts looking tasty after a day in the desert

>>290614
>It's called basic logic.

It's called completely hypothetical shit with no real empirical evidence to support it that could easily not resemble prehistory in the slightest. This kind of zero-standards-for-evidence reasoning is why evolutionary psychology gets a bad rep. Just make some shit up that resembles the images you've seen in popular depictions of caveman and call anyone who disputes it an SJW.

>>290631
On the macroscopic scale, any of the spooky quantum effects you read about in popsci have much more than a 99.9% chance of not occurring just FYI. In that case it's pretty clearly negligible. The anon you're responding is being kinda pedantic, but he does have a point.

>>290631
That's just a total red herring argument. How do you non-arbitrarily draw the line necessary for something to be universal, because it's important to OPs question.

>What you're saying reduces all discussion on all topics to "hurrridontknow."

Not all discussions have to promote some universal truths. If their claims can't be generalized that way, it's better not to.

>>290648
I don't see why we should keep the concept of universality if it literally doesn't apply to anything in the universe.

>>290657
So universality universally applies to all nothing?

>>290642

So you're saying that you actually believe the males weren't KIA more often than the females prehistoric civilization? There's this thing called deductive reasoning that allows us to come to sound conclusions in the absence of a piece of paper that says "This is the truth!" Why exactly would a male want a female watching his back on a hunt when he can have another, more physically capable male? Of course this is a generality and we've seen instances of females participating in traditionally "male" roles, but the trend is obvious and didn't just come from nowhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males

This came up when I searched for "chimps patriarchal." I'm sure there's a lot more like it.

>>290614

Given that death in the month following childbirth seems to have been about 1 in 5 per pregnancy (Barbera Hainswalt), and the existence of multiple pregnancies was pretty much a guarantee of a woman's death while young unless she was infertile, you could easily make the opposite argument, that societies would view women as disposable, at least as long as they died squirting out more babies.

>>290677
All people are disposable, men more so than women. Sorry to trigger you.

>>290667
If what you're saying is true about QM, I believe the phrase is something akin to "not even wrong". Although note, being able to make a language paradox about the statement doesn't mean it has real world applicability.

>>290677

I guess you could make that argument, but you could never make the argument that females would generally be sent to do "a man's job." It's just moronic. Human females are quite literally disabled during pregnancy. They aren't going hunting or warring with ooga booga and his tribe.

>>290682

Nonsense. Societies for literally millenia got along just fine with way more women dying young than men. That makes women the disposable ones.

>>290690
Which society? All great society had multiple wars throughout the years that regularly killed many of their men. Women don't nearly suffer that much of a rate, only time they suffer that rate is when their cities fall to invaders and they get raped(and kidnapped)/murdered. However the men would be put to death. So the survival rate of men would still be worse than women by long shot.

Men have always been disposable, unless the society was matriarchal and men were actually valued.

>>290690

Which societies? Prehistory is not "society" as we know it. In prehistory, your small community is actually at risk of becoming extinct if you don't keep up your population. Every single newborn is valued as a future contributor to the community's survival, rather than just an individual who will eventually seek their own individual happiness and fulfillment. In that case, there is an objective and clear value to every single 9 month pregnancy period of every woman which exceeds that of the analogous function in men.

>>290702
Pretty sure he's just doesn't want to admit that men can be inferior to women.

>>290707

That poster and myself aren't arguing that men are inferior to women. This is exactly why I left 4chan. You retards try to politicize everything. Pretty telling that obsession with politics is the mark of a boring, insufferable person, and politics is exactly what every fucking thread on 4chan comes down to the last few years.

>MUH POLITICS

To make matters worse, your extrapolations are always fucking wrong. A person arguing that men have been disposable throughout history is not necessarily or even likely to be an SJW or whichever buzzword you retards spam most recently.

>>290719
>exactly why I left 4chan
You're still here.

The door is over on the right.

>>290702

>Which society?

Pretty much every single one before the advent of modern medicine.

> All great society had multiple wars throughout the years that regularly killed many of their men.

No they didn't. Go look up casualty totals in battles in the Ancient or Medieval periods. Battles killing more than 20% of one's sides participants were extraordinarily rare, and winners often had few casualties period, since so much of the killing was in post-rout pursuits. Meanwhile, pregnancy is happening all the time.

>Women don't nearly suffer that much of a rate, only time they suffer that rate is when their cities fall to invaders and they get raped(and kidnapped)/murdered.


And I will quote once again from her book, "Growing up in Medieval London" from the Oxford University Press, 1993 version, page 234.

>This figure rises to approximately 20% when deaths resulting from complications of pregnancy or some condition related to child-bearing, rather than the birth process itself, are added.

> However the men would be put to death.

Except, you know, every siege where they didn't do that, like most of them in the HYW or many of the Germanic wars.

>Men have always been disposable, unless the society was matriarchal and men were actually valued.

And women have, until the past 200 years, died younger and in greater numbers. Funny how that works.

>>290719
Inferior, less important whatever. I'm not trying to politicize it, I'm saying I think he already has.

>>290703

>Which societies? Prehistory is not "society" as we know it. In prehistory, your small community is actually at risk of becoming extinct if you don't keep up your population.

Literally all of medieval and Renaissance Europe.

>>290719
>>290729

And as the guy saying it, no, I'm not trying to "politicize" it.

I'm simply stating a rather simple, factual claim, that for most of human history, women died young far more frequently than men, because death in childbirth was so prevalent.

And any sane society would have recognized this, which would have inured them to the concept of female mortality, at least when it's in the "natural" place of a birthing bed.

I agree with this anon, which is why I never tried to rebut his claims. >>290689

>>290673
>So you're saying that you actually believe the males weren't KIA more often than the females prehistoric civilization?

I'm saying we don't know. It's called prehistory for a reason, it's not well documented.

>There's this thing called deductive reasoning that allows us to come to sound conclusions in the absence of a piece of paper that says "This is the truth!"

Deduction can easily lead to valid arguments, but hardly sound ones in your case, since you inject so many unproven assumptions as premises that would have to be true for your conclusion to be sound. Really, what you're attempting is abductive reasoning, and a poor attempt at it. Falsifiability is another issue, as I said before, we're talking about prehistoric humanity over thousands of years with no written documentation and only a tiny fraction of remains being well preserved into the modern era depending on the environment.

You seriously belittle the scientific method by calling it "pieces of paper"? I can see you're all about commercially published books instead of peer-reviewed journal articles, for sure, though I don't doubt you'd be all over these studies you deride if they supported your POV.

>Why exactly would a male want a female watching his back on a hunt when he can have another, more physically capable male?
>Of course this is a generality and we've seen instances of females participating in traditionally "male" roles, but the trend is obvious and didn't just come from nowhere.

Why would he want a 12 year old boy helping him on the hunt compared to a 20 year old man? Surplus of labor isn't plentiful in pre-agricultural societies, and having an extra woman on hand doesn't stop you from bringing men. The division of labor is also another factor that didn't become prominent until later in the neolithic.

>didn't just come from nowhere.

I didn't say it came from nowhere, just that we can't tell how recently. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder.

>>290725
>>290732

When you first used the world "disposable," everyone knew it was a thinly veiled whine at feminism. Attempting to convince anyone that you were always referring to disposability as being purely a consequence of nature or happenstance is not going to work.

If you send more men than women to do tasks that put their lives at risks, then you consider men to be more "disposable" than women. The word of course is idiotic and misplaced though, because it comes with MRA beta faggot connotations. Men have always risked their lives more than women because they do so more efficiently. Jobs that involve danger are done better by men than by women. If you want to refer to that as disposability like a whiny little faggot, that's your choice. But you can also go back to /pol/, the board for whiny little babies.

File: 1446368498342.jpg (15KB, 364x344px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 364x344px

>>290673
>Why exactly would a male want a female watching his back on a hunt when he can have another, more physically capable male?

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-qLTBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA437&lpg=PA437&dq=%22success+rate%22+women+men+hunting&source=bl&ots=NZ9mkKn1mG&sig=d8eQoIb3PYZdPWhS_i1-4FkZ04M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju74W_safJAhWUSogKHQU2B3oQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=%22success%20rate%22%20women%20men%20hunting&f=false

>About 85% of Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men
>Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate, as opposed to 17% for men
>Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men; mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta

>>290746

>When you first used the world "disposable," everyone knew it was a thinly veiled whine at feminism. Attempting to convince anyone that you were always referring to disposability as being purely a consequence of nature or happenstance is not going to work.

No, I did not. Wonderful strawman. I used "dispsosable" in the sense of what actual, observable (not prehistoric) societies did, and who did the bulk of the dying. This was women, and it's very well known.

>If you send more men than women to do tasks that put their lives at risks, then you consider men to be more "disposable" than women.

So, since pretty much every woman was expected to bear children, something that carried an extraordinarily high risk of killing them, I guess we considered women more "disposable".

>The word of course is idiotic and misplaced though, because it comes with MRA beta faggot connotations.

Your words, not mine.

>Men have always risked their lives more than women because they do so more efficiently.

Which is why so many more of them lived to have grey hairs.

> Jobs that involve danger are done better by men than by women.

Childbirth.

>If you want to refer to that as disposability like a whiny little faggot, that's your choice. But you can also go back to /pol/, the board for whiny little babies.

I'm not the one resorting to a baksetful of fallacies to try to "prove" a nonsense point.

>>290725
Lets look at the recent wars.

Vietnam War and Iraq War.

>Vietnam War
There were about 60,000 American soldier casualties. Guess how many were females? 8.

>Iraq War
About 4000 casualties American soldier deaths. Less than 100 were females.

>females die as much as men
kek

Its even prevalent in workplace.

>4700 deaths per year from workplace
>Roughly 300 are women or less than 8%.


>men live longer
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_verified_oldest_people
Of 99 of the oldest confirmed people to live, only 7 are male. All of the current verified oldest people are females.

>>290825
>generalizing statistics from industrial wars to human prehistory

Shiggy diggy

>4700 deaths per year from workplace
>Roughly 300 are women or less than 8%.

In accidents. Women are much more likely to be deliberately murdered at work than men.

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/126621/3464561/DOTJ2014.pdf

>Women were at much greater risk of injuries from workplace violence, experiencing 66% of such injuries
>Women workers suffered two thirds
of injuries related to workplace violence
>Workplace homicide was the leading cause of job death among women workers in 2012,
accounting for 28% of their work-related fatalities

>>290883
I fucked up my greentexting but yeah, you get the idea.

File: aa.jpg (307KB, 1737x1308px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1737x1308px

>>290883
>women suffer more from workplace violence

If you consider the ratio of male to female births, which is pretty much 50/50, would that not lead you to believe that the mortality rate is fairly similar between men and women?

>>290927
Only if you ignore reality. Men work more, harsher, have less support, etc.

>>290917
>absolute number of men is higher

Well, no shit. But if you look at the statistics, they're being killed by robbers - who are by and large just criminal opportunists and most likely have men making up a majority of workers in jobs like gas stations and 7-elevens. On the other hand, violence by partners and coworkers is generally committed with the pure intention of hurting somebody, and considering the more intimate nature between assailant and victim, is more likely to be due to something such as gender. We can also see this in serial killers, where something like 70% of victims are women.

>>290962
Also, that data being correct for 2014 doesn't invalidate the 2012 study, either. It's proportionally more likely for women to be killed by homicide than unintentional death compared to men.

>>290571
I actually once read a list of "most culture universals". It was basic stuff like "smiling means happy".

values

Memes

Death is absolute.

Killing people is generally frowned upon