Since morality was created by evolutionary pressures which promoted

>>9771772
Why are you speaking in the past tense. The benefits of moral law still apply.

File: 1497723681144.png (602KB, 1007x664px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 1007x664px

>>9771772
>Since morality was created by evolutionary pressures which promoted the furtherance of our species
ur a big guy

>>9771776
this debunks your whole post

File: 19477365_457436384624793_7282038324293185211_o.jpg (123KB, 1008x720px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1008x720px

lmao woah spook ahahahaha

Care to explain what you exactly mean?

I will say this tho: morality is not hardwired, it is partly preprogrammed in us - with cognitive and physical traits influencing it - but within those boundaries it takes shape

>personal subjective morality
>subjective morality imposed outwardly onto others

>>9771772
No, why would it be?

>>9771772
The is/ought problem is also created by evolutionary pressures.

File: Peterson.jpg (119KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1200x800px

>>9771772
>since morality was created by evolutionary pressures which promoted the furtherance of our species

can you provide some citations or explanation for this? i am legit interested but i don't know how you get to this conclusion.

morality imho has at least three major cultural forms and those can be said to be in some evolutionary*:
>myth
>tragedy
>axial-age psychology & religion

i think pic rel
>muh Wise Surrogate Father Figure
is also aiming for this idea w/piaget & others. but i still don't understand the claim. so i'm not aiming to make this a peterson thread but i am legit interested in this question you are suggesting

so, bumping w/interest

*pretty sure anyways

>>9773106
Everything living has been created by evolutionary pressures.

>>9773177
According to who?

>>9773106
>morality imho has at least three major cultural forms and those can be said to be in some evolutionary
>imho
So that's it? It is just so because it ought to be?

>>9773177
But not everything is 'hardwired', for example books like Our Political Nature and Predisposed argue that there is a biological basis for political leanings left and right
But it is not deterministic in the sense that your biological traits will determine whatever you become a transhumanist, fascist, militant atheist or anarcho-primitivist - it will shape your ideology and increase the probability but life experiences and social dynamics will shape it too

File: Karl_Jaspers_1946.jpg (507KB, 763x987px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 763x987px

>>9773177
true, but OP is talking about evolutionary pressures that lead into morality, which is pretty interesting.

>>9773569
>So that's it? It is just so because it ought to be?
no, of course not. but the reason why i am such a girardfag is because he articulated something really interesting about the relationship of religion to tragedy. the original concept of the axial age is associated with jaspers, who is an interesting dude.

but girard is the guy who suggested that tragedy itself - and one of the endbosses of western philosophy is nietzsche, who has a thoroughly tragic perception - is completed by religion in the same way that myth is completed by tragedy. it's a fairly long and complicated argument, but not really all that difficult to grasp, i think. tragedy is what you get when Good clashes against Good - it's the fruit of taking all of your mythopoetic deities out of the countryside and squashing them together because urbanity is something cultures have to go through. and this leads to, during the AA, all of your great wisdom traditions being founded: namely, *psychology.*

now nietzsche is a great psychologist, perhaps the greatest the West ever produced. his vision is no joke. but girard asks, what if the meaning of the tragic ideal was to communicate the idea of the scapegoat, of the interior logic of violence and the sacred, the meaning of the tomb, and so on? it's hardly postmodernism 101.

now there are problems with this, of course. for one thing, tragic hero-myths are *also* evolutionarily necessary. just ask JBP. but in terms of Just So and Because it Ought to Be, these are things that tragedy raises up: why *ought* it to be so? why *ought* it to be? and this will take you, inevitably, back to nietzsche, or others, i think.

but sometimes these kinds of things can be *existential* - *inwardly tragic* - rather than external, political, and so on. peterson will talk about this. girard definitely talks about it. nietzsche talks about it too.

so what about science, is what i'm wondering. hence my interest in this thread. evolution and morality. it's interesting stuff.

>>9773551
>literally asking for a fallacy

>>9773596
Sure, but life experiences and social dynamics are ultimately just as deterministic as genes.

>>9773679
I'm glad you took my question the right way.
>so what about science, is what i'm wondering. hence my interest in this thread. evolution and morality. it's interesting stuff.
It is my interest as well, but we are worlds apart, as I do not refer to Nietzsche or Girard when I want to understand it. See here >>9773596, that was me as well
But that's okay because my own idea is that religion, ideology and mythology are simply the result of the same mental faciliaties and so there really is no difference between them. You can make the distinction but that makes it a social construction of reality but not so much 'reality itself'
And now to answer why I think it is okay is that I think that even if you were informed by cold-hard facts your brain morphs it in non-factual ways; confirmation bias and memory quirks do that.
That is my objection with rationalists, I do not think we can be fully rational as our minds do not allow it, though I guess you could be more rational up to a point

Anyway you are always interesting to talk to and you tend to put more effort in your posts as others, but on an ideological level we are worlds apart and I think that's fine

>>9773736
>Sure, but life experiences and social dynamics are ultimately just as deterministic as genes.
I absolutely agree
People tend to think that we come to moral and political beliefs by rationally deciding what's best but I disagree
Though besides biology, life experiences and social dynamics (which also intertwine) maybe our brain also decides on basis of associative information of sorts (not sure what to call it)

But I feel here I am talking about concepts that are actually not concepts in themselves as they are all interconnected
Genes are there, but life experiences must be the interaction with genes and all sorts of biophysical phenomenons, and social dynamics are both - if you want to take a reductionistic approach of sorts
(I bet I'm talking a bit of shit here)

>>9773733
What do you mean, I was asking who told you that?