Human perception certainly has nothing to do with simple physics (unless of course, everything we know is wrong, which i am not casting aside).
Do you honestly believe that? Do you believe morality is instinctual? OR, is it not safer to assume that morality is not hard-wired, and is instead a man-made idea to better live in civilization, i.e. the social contract. Certainly you could argue that empathy and shame/guilt are 'natural' feelings that can cause morality, but they themselves are not morality. The Romans thought it was fun to watch other people crucified and fight to the death. In fact, not even that long ago (at least relatively) our ancestors would gather around to watch people executed for amusement. People today say we are becoming 'desensitized' by violent TV and games, but in fact we are WAY too sensitized to this sort of thing. Morality is subjective, therefore it can easily be said that some normal people hold no morals whatsoever, (as no morality is factual or set in stone) and they do not have to be sociopaths. These people can feel empathy and guilt, except they see nothing wrong with babies being curb-stomped.
by aspieniggaIt is an adaptation for group survival. It is important for a species to survive and prosper. The morality of ants to one another (they all cooperate) is not important to humans. But the morality of humans is important to humans, because it is a successful survival tactic.
I said elaborate not reiterate.
by CalebI for one do not believe objective reality can exist. If this is the case, then all morality is subjective, therefore sociopaths arent outrageous because they have no morals. A hundred years ago gay marriage was seen as morally wrong in American society, now it is almost as if it is morally wrong to not allow it. Sociopaths are just ahead of the game and see nothing as morally wrong, including drowning children in front of decapitated parents. Maybe in a hundred years, it will be morally wrong to stigmatize socipaths. (In my own opinion, I think morality is for the weak, but again thats my opinion).
w Okay, point by point...You should have some basis for believing objective morality doesn't exist, some convincing line of reasoning, if you're going to engage in this kind of thinking.
I'll take it as a given that morality is subjective for the sake of argument but so what? What about it being subjective makes it less important or binding? If a group of morals have been decided on by the general consensus of a specific group, might not that make them even more important and worthy?
You've assumed a sliding scale model of morality. I see it more as a plane, an x,y axis where different ideas will shift quadrants but they still exist on that moral plane. So gay marriage is acceptable now, marrying children no longer is. A shift in one arena does not mean the whole moral system is weakening.
Do sociopaths in general feel nothing is morally wrong? Yes, they might lack the emotional conviction of empaths but I've read on ME`s blog how she intellectually accepts that certain things are wrong (ruining someone without their consent) and makes an effort to refrain from them. The framework for considering morality might be different and more focused on self interest but that's a good way from it being absent altogether.
Would a general lack of morals really benefit the sociopath? In a world where the sociopath was greatly outnumbered by empath only guided by their concern for themselves and those they liveddo you think they'd suffer a threatening sociopath to live? In a world where righteous empath were free from moral constraints don't you think sociopaths might be an obvious target?
Morals are sort of like herd immunity. With enough group buy in even those who didn't vaccinate or don't personally feel obliged to follow the rules benefit from the protection they offer.
Anyhow, some things to consider.
How does morality add to benefits in group survival? What are the advantages? For example:
Your tribe a group of five is running from a predator, one person falls. Since you are the leader everyone is following you. Do you:
1. Run back and help them, to risk the entire tribe?
2. Say fuck it, and dig out. Idiot shouldn't have fell in the first place.
I'm very aware of the weaknesses in this example and how it can be over analyzed, just trying to wrap my head around your point aspie, that's all.
Throughout history people have ignored the morality of actions which resulted in great benefits. I theorize that morality is going extinct. The original existence for morality is for survival. In the world today, It serves no purpose and often has negative outcomes.
I don't think that's how to view the origins of morality. It's not because we needed it that we developed out, it's because those that developed out did better then those who didn't. In those moments of running from the predator maybe one group doesn't go back for the fallen. But those are very hard times. People lived a lot closer to the edge and the loss of one member of a small group could be a disaster. What if that person is the only experienced hunter? The knowledgeable gatherer of food? They're fucked in short order and don't pass on they're genes. What if the person who fell was the only one that could bear children? Fucked again in terms of genetic legacy. Who passes on their genes? The ones who got as many people through life as possible even if it meant turning back to fight predators.
Morality then proved useful in competition with others people I'm guessing. Take a look at the longest and most stable civilizations in history and you'll see rigid, conservative societies with strict moral codes.
I don't think it's going anywhere. It's how people understand their roles and responsibilities in community and until community disappears, morals won't.
by MedullaI used to serve you to celebrities in a restaurant on Sunset run by people who ran nightclubs in Montreal and had a one hit wonder in the 90s about the former locale.
Those hazy days of greasy curds and hot gravy...I've repressed most of those memories I fear.