I wanted to make a few random comments. I have been reading this shit about evangelistic xristians taking over the military. I spent a year in vietnam waiting to take an AK bullet up my ass, and not once did I ever hear religion; not once; not fucking once; no protestant; no catholic; no buddhist; no muslim; no nothing. And now I am on the fucking net and it is all I hear.This is going to be death to the US military, because no decent man or woman is going to re-up. We are going to be left with the sugar creek gang to defend this republic, and good fucking luck. I am going to buy a one-way ticket to Sweden.

I wish to connect the foregoing with Darwin. Some of this may not be welcome, but so be it. I believe in no objective morals. The so called "new atheists" are keen to establish morals on the foundations of evolution. This won't happen. Be consistent, and follow through. We are sophisticated animals up on our hind legs. There aint no morals. Face it.

We had better, by all that is unholy, not be sitting around talking to jesus, and not trying to substitute philosophy when jesus dies. The name of the game is survival. Survival does not mean prayer; hymns; holy books; doctrines; dogmas, and slicing off part of your son's dick.

What will be happening--and it sounds like justice--is that weak, pussy americans are going to be replaced by a more deserving breed.
Or perhaps, with another 200 years, we might just wise up.

You see? That's the sort of comment that gets us into trouble. Sure, when it comes down to kill or be killed morality tends to fly out the window, but the whole idea behind morality is not allowing it to come to that point.

We, as an advanced species of animal, a "sophisticated animal" if you will, have the power of being able to make social contracts that allow people the right to live and work in peace. This lets us advance not only as a society, but also individually, since none of us have to be worried about another coming in, taking our shit, and killing us in our beds. Do you honestly want to live in a world where any person, at any time, can be targeted, have the fruits of their labors stolen, or be killed because somebody happens to like their shoes?

No. Now I realize that those rights aren't acknowledged by everyone, and that they have to be defended by people who stick their lives on the line and ARE forced to live with the "kill or be killed philosophy," but the whole reason for their sacrifice is to protect their rights, and the rights of others NOT to be put into that situation.

It is the environment of safety and privacy that allowed Fleming to discover Penicillin and extend our lives by years. It's the environment of safety and privacy that allowed Copernicus and Gallilleo to promote their idea of the Earth revolving around the sun, and it was fear and lack of freedom that forced them to withdraw it.

How can we say we have objective morals when no other animal has developed them? Because we, unlike other animals, have the mental and social faculty to create and enforce them. We can grasp the concept that people have a right to the work that they do, and that it is theirs to give, not somebody else's to take. We can create a social contract that protects your right not to have your own life and the things that you create taken from you. And then we can come together as a society to enforce that contract. A person feels that they shouldn't be part of that agreement, that they deserve something they have no right to? That they deserve to be allowed to take somebody's life for a pair of shoes? Well that's very well, they've given up their right to their own life and we as a society can place them in prison, deprive them of every item their life has created, or ultimately kill them.

So is morality a human construct? Yes. Is it a bad one? Hell no, it's our ticket to being something BESIDES just a smarter animal on hind legs.

walrus, I had enormous difficulty following your reasoning. I do not know if you agree with me or not, nor do I care. My reply is out of simple curiousity.

I understand what you are saying about the ideals of safety and privacy. I should imagine that you have the sense to know that it is my kind that has defended those ideals, and will continue to do so, while your kind can moralize.

And yes, we are sophisticated animals. The top dogs are the ones who design the best weapons, who can field the most troops, and who can train the best officers. The losers eat shit.

And let me remind you.........if we hadn't won at Midway, you and I would be speaking japanese. And we likely would have neither safety nor privacy.

Ryan,let me remind you that if you hadn't been born in a christian nation you'd be an Islamic fundy,Jew,or other.

I just spent an hour listening to Ben Stein kissing Glen Becks ass.What a dick!

ryan,

you said:
I understand what you are saying about the ideals of safety and privacy. I should imagine that you have the sense to know that it is my kind that has defended those ideals, and will continue to do so, while your kind can moralize.

Agreed. And there are situations, when people refuse to acknowledge the rights of others, where it is unfortunately necessary to meet that threat with force. There is no end to the gratitude I have for yourself and the others who put their lives on the line to defend those rights. I know for a fact that in a war, I would be useless. But tell me, if there are no rights and no morals anyway, why should people fight and die to protect an ideal? If this useless moralizing doesn't mean anything, who cares if we're all speaking Japanese with no right to privacy? What difference does it make?

And yes, we are sophisticated animals. The top dogs are the ones who design the best weapons, who can field the most troops, and who can train the best officers. The losers eat shit.

True, if you ignore all instances of human cooperation in history. Then again, if you do that, you're left with every man for himself instead of every country for itself, which would be complete chaos.

If you're consistent with the "To the victor goes the spoils" philosophy you seem to be agreeing with here, then any sort of government places a restriction on the strong's ability to conquer the weak, and anarchy is the only possible form of government.


Then again, how would your idea that the world belongs to those who find the most creative and effective ways of killing and destroying ever lead to a decent quality of life for anybody?

Look, I have no problem with the vision of life that you present. I like Norman Rockwell and Glen Miller the same as ya'll.

But before we can sit around and watch re-runs of Father Knows Best, we first need to learn how to kill without remorse. First comes the killing, then the morals. In that order. Is there something about this that I am missing?

A tremendous article on the development of morality is "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR: The evolution of in-group morality" by John Hartung.

The article is a bit lengthy, but a .pdf version is available for download by clicking here.

Hartung is the Associate Editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the State University of New York. His website is Strugglesforexistence.com

In anticipation of the Walrus.

Walrus: One of my comments has disappeared!

WM. Your comments are better gone.

Walrus: I can't believe you would be using censorship. What happened to freedom of speech?

WM: I am steadfast in my support of your freedom of speech. I believe that everybody should be able to have (or refuse to have) anything they want within the bounds of the law on their own websites.

In keeping with that, the people who write and edit this site have the right to have (or refuse to have) anything they want on their own website. If one of the things they don't want is a comment that you have posted, they aren't depriving you of your freedom of speech. You're free to put that comment up on your own webpage.

A special thanks is extended to Boing Boing for the inspiration leading to this comment.

Walrus, post away on your own site. If anyone wants to read what you write, they'll stop by.

How about:

"Wow, I was just heading back to this site to take that comment down, because after thinking about it, I decided it was in poor taste. Besides, on your website you're allowed to say or refuse to post whatever the hell you want. That's true freedom of speech."

It's a shame what the internet does to people's expectations of one another.

Meh, beside the point.


What I wanted to say instead was this:

You can't claim that killing comes before morality, and here's why:

Fighting for a cause assumes a cause to fight for. If there was no cause, then there would be no reason to fight.

If you fight to protect the lives and property of others, then you must value those things enough TO fight for them. Otherwise you're killing simply for the purpose of killing.


I'm sorry that my argument that morality exists has offended so many people.

I am with you Walrus. The beating you seem to have taken actually quite shocked me. Human rights have often been won with struggle and need to be defended. As for killing without mercy, well we had a couple of yobs here in Britain who beat up and killed someone 'cos they looked different.

Hey Ryan,
So here is how evolution works to create morals.

1. Some big guy goes around taking stuff, hurting people and raping women. Basically trying to live out "survival of the fittest" on an individual basis.

2. The smaller people don't like being raped and having their stuff taken, so they talk to other small people that feel the same way.

3. They group together and beat the shit out of the big guy, most likely killing him.

4. They agree among themselves that those behaviors are bad and anyone else that tries them will be "taken care of."

5. These small people have kids and teach this to them.

6. The kids refine the rules as they find things they agree on that are "bad".

7. They also talk among themselves and decide what is "good" and what should be encouraged for their kids, since they know that if their kids step out of line, the group will take care of them. Which would not be "good."

8. The folks that don't follow the rules get taken out, the ones that do follow the rules pass their genes on to the next generation.

And so on...


Evolution is not about survival of the individual, it is about survival of the species. It is about us hairless primates working together in groups. We evolved as social animals, and morals came along with the process.

As for your statement that you believe in no objective morals: If some guy comes to my house and rapes one of my daughters, I don't care how big the guy is, I'll get as many people as I can to cram my objective morals down his fucking throat. I assume you would do the same thing.

We may agree in the sense that I don't think morals are about what is right or wrong in some cosmic mystical way. They are about power and control as doled out among us sophisticated animals. But whatever they are, or wherever they came from, they do in-fact exist.

Is what you meant when you said "There ain't no morals," that there is no right or wrong being handed down to us from a supreme being? If so then I agree with you.

Morals are nothing more than rules people agree on to make life on this rock a little better. Or at least they should be.

-----

Now on another note, I agree that the Christianifying of the military is a weird and dangerous thing. When I was in the military during the early 1980's, the fundamentalists were making inroads. And I was one of the idiots at the time.

But I don't worry about the Christian military becoming pussies as you say, since history has shown that Christians can be some of the meanest mother fuckers around. Being a Christian doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to being a nice guy. Especially when you put a gun or sword in the Christian's hand.

The Christians I knew in the military had no problem with the thought of killing to protect their country. And most right-wing fundies don't have any problem keeping guns in their houses with the intent to use them if necessary. Christian love be damned as far as their family and property are concerned.

But what scares me about all the fundies in the military is that many believe in the concept of Armageddon in the Middle East, and may be working to bring it about.

That my friend is some scary shit.

- Lance

Lance, that was an excellent overview of morality.

This is where I see religion enter the equation:

In order to obtain a position of undeserved privilege, certain members of the community deliberately break the consensus-morality of the group and substitute their god-rules. Rules that, on the surface, resemble the community law.

With a few exceptions, of course. "Extras" that benefit their priest-caste by encouraging worship of a specific god. Or rules that deliberately anathematize identifiable minorities such as gays or people with red hair or people who stay up late at night. Perpetual strife and hatred of the "other" = A persistent market for the crap being offered by religion-merchants.

Let me just take a few moments to comment. I have had these talks before and they lead nowhere. Since I believe that existence is without point, that is fine.

One of you said that morality comes before killing, because there must be a recognition of a "cause" in the first place. That was the walrus, I recall. Read my jaws.......SURVIVAL. That is the cause. To live your own life; on your own soil; to think as you wish; to do as you wish; to strike down those who would take it from you. What the damned hell does this have to do with morals? What cause? I am the cause.

Someone else talked about cooperation. As a soldier, I can tell you all things about cooperation that you can't dream of.

And about evolution: I do not give a rabbit's ass about evolution. Evolution does not dictate terms to me. I am not the slave or tool of evolution. I am who I am, not the distant cousin of a ring-tailed lemur.

See ya'll on the morrow.

Getting back to "Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin"

The sad thing about all this is; dumb-ass ignorant Christians are going to eat this shit up. They are too deluded and stupid to recognize that the producers of "Expelled" are just playing to their misconceptions, ignorance and the shallowest of their emotions, to support their fairytale world. The very notion of giving equal time to creationism or ID in the science classroom is like teaching alchemy in a chemistry class -- watch kids how I can change lead into gold --come on!

What the producers, ignorant christians and creationist don't comprehend, is creationism doesn't even deserve to be heard. It has no merits. It is not science. If we were to let creationists -- through history -- spew their kooky propaganda, and silly superstitions, we would be teaching our kids that god causes volcanoes to erupt, droughts, tsunamis, rainbows, lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes, aurora borealis, comets, eclipses and on and on and on. Just because science didn't have an explanation to these phenomenon, at the time, does not mean "god did it". Science does not concern itself with the answer "god did it" -- because if they did, we would all still be in the dark ages, which is exactly where some ignorant christians and creationists still are.

--S.

Just throwing a thought or two out on morality.

In our earliest years, and throughout our lives; we choose to either live or die.

Our "choice" to "live", based on our behavioral actions, establishes a pre-moral "foundation".

Our pre-moral foundation/choice for "life” creates the need to generate/produce constant and continual actions for sustainment; to include the mental actions that render concepts, thoughts, ideas, strategies, etc.

Morality is our conceptualized method, for how to be successful in sustaining our "life". That which fails to support our existence, is "immoral", that which sustains us - is moral.

It was late, will add one last thought to connect to previous posts.

Morality is a method; based on a physical idea... the idea itself holds objective existence.

In terms of an objective morality, suggesting that there is only "one" morality that can be deduced for "all" people, universally - I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but only because nothing seems impossible; hypothetically speaking.

However, morality as we pragmatically know it today is not universal. The individual has a method of maintaining their life; yet there is also the collective society which creates a social/cultural morality based on the collective majority.

There is much room for conflict between individually held morality, and the social/cultural morality they are held to.

To name one major conflict that sticks out;

--Altruism: A concept that dictates an individual sacrifices themselves for the benefit of another person; one person's need becomes a claim on another individual's actions. Altruism requires subservience, in general.

Altruism is antithetical to sustainment of a person's life; religious circles prominently display martyrdom as the ultimate altruistic achievement.

The individual chooses to either accept their individual life as the more important factor, or the collective majority of a society/species.

Morality has its root formations in our physical actions that present a desire to survive. However, over time, as we develop our capability to think, we begin to define what it means to "live", and what "life" entails, entertaining notions such as "quality of life", etc.

In our developmental years, we search for meaning, purpose, etc., and in this journey, many are presented by religious friends, leaders, etc., with the notion that "life", extends "beyond" our biology, into a metaphysical realm.

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution, suggests we individually have the right to; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, the manner in which a person perceives "life", provides the framework for their sense of morality.

Those who believe that living according to a particular morality, that will successfully sustain their life, for all eternity... will likely conflict with those who accept that "life" is only limited to our current bio-forms.

Those who accept an eternal life, are led by religious leaders, etc., and altruism, self-sacrifice, etc., become noble efforts. Of course, such efforts are self-destructive.

Benevolence and compassion would seem to be beneficial for multiple parties, while not corrupting one's own sense of individual morality. Benevolence and communal standards have provided enough structure to enable people to live in harmony, based on "common interests".

At this time, I'd say there isn't a harmony of interests being enjoyed, by everyone in the U.S. because of the divergent "meaning" placed on "life". The diversity of meaning creates diversity in methods to successfully sustain "life"; thus, we observe the conflicting behaviors of multiple people and organizations, whom all claim to be "moral".

Just as Ben Stein involves himself in quote-mining, so do those who attempt to be selective in how they proffer a morality, based on a religious/biblical sense of eternal life, using a book of literary fiction.

it's amazing how vietnam vets can use their service as the basis for almost any argument.