Replies

However accurate the depiction of the long term impact of child manipulation is, it is still merely descriptive. It is not prescriptive; it does not say why one ought not to do that.

Because one does not wish to be in that position. Why would I wish it on someone else? If you're actually asking why people act on their morals at all... you get into psychology. The only operational explanation is that it satisfies us to do so. For lack of a better term, it's a selfish desire. When we see another in pain or suffering, our compassion - the strengthened human ability to put one's self in anothers' frame of mind - makes us feel bad. This is psychological negative reinforcement and we look for a way out of that situation. Possible solutions are making the events into something more satisfying or suppression of the stimuli.

but you do not say why historical development creates an obligation to refrain from causing unwanted human suffering.

"Selfish" reasons. The need to satisfy yourself. If you've ever stolen a candy bar, there's always that little pang in the back of your head telling you not to. Is the reward (candybar) greater than the cost (pained conscience, other physical punishment)? From this construct, it's easy to see how superstition/religion can develop evolutionarily as a social meme - by increasing the perceived cost of violating the conscience, among other reasons. This meme would be especially important as the organism becomes more and more self-aware, able to think abstractly, and is less confined by instinct.

Another example of this phenomenon is sex. Which animals have sex for pleasure? It's easy to identify animals who engage in sexual activities clearly not designed for reproduction. The most popularly known are dolphins, elephants, monkeys, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. You've listened to me talk about elephants before, many people know that dolphins are considered very intelligent as well. All of these animals are considered intelligent. Could it be that the greater the intelligence, the less constrained by instinct, and evolution becomes more reliant on reward and punishment? This could be applied to understand the conscience, to understand elephants grieving for their dead, to understand dolphin sexual practices, etc.

doesn't address why one ought to act with altruism and a protective instinct for society's members and culture (land, rituals, etc), especially if doing do conflicts with one's self interest.

It's just the way it is. Nature has gone out of its way to encourage social behavior in certain situations. To accomplish this successfully with cognitively higher species requires more than just instinct. Although stealing may be in your self interest, you have to do so with some level of cognitive punishment - what we call guilt.

you are not saying why is there an obligation to be compassionate

There isn't of course. It's clear that any "obligation" to compassion/morals is broken all the time - resulting in antisocial behavior. We punish antisocial behavior because that behavior is not only detrimental to the individual victim, but to the society as a whole.

Thus, the "why do you act morally" has a number of answers. There's the selfish (alleviation of guilt/conscience/punishment), the social (instinct to uphold my society's standards), and compassion (being able to recognize others' states of mind - and the innate desire to help).

Why then is raping children always wrong and why do people/societies do bad things? Why are they wrong?

Well, Dr. Zimbardo has clearly shown that these safeguards can be broken (surprisingly easily) with the right combination of social pressure and group think. How then do we deem them wrong? We have to step outside of the pressures and use the most "objective" measure possible - something that almost everyone can agree on. That's the ultimate power of freedom, safeguarding society from the power of government and making objectivity more accessible by reinforcing the conduits of distinct opinion - making it harder to get lost in group think.

Rape is not a Budda-given no-no. Like you say, nature itself doesn't care one way or the other. (You'd think Budda/Allah/Yahweh would have no problem preventing ducks or scorpionflies from raping each other - you get to avoid the human freewill vs Big-Bro debate for free.) But it is a universally human no-no. It's VERY detrimental to society (trust, successfulness, productivity, happiness, anger, etc). Therefore, human culture has deemed it wrong. That and a heavy helping of compassion is way more than enough for me (and should be enough for anyone) to deem it wrong. The power of social memes is enormous and our success as a species is largely a product of our success as a social animal. We live and die (and reproduce or not) based on our social actions. Over the years, it's been programmed into us (and the fascinating part is that it's not just us - but recognizable pieces appear in other social animals as well.)

With all due respect, I think your post illustrates the truth of to betty boop's admonishment to me:

Me: you do not say why historical development creates an obligation to refrain from causing unwanted human suffering.
You: "Selfish" reasons. The need to satisfy yourself.

Morality reductio ad absurdum: "I ought to be unselfish so that I can be more selfish."

All you have done is give a description of bipedal animals conditioned by their environment to act in certain ways a label called, "morality". But what you label "morality" is not morality at all. You're explaining something different. Morality is prescriptive, not merely descriptive, which is why some sort of purported historical process of evolutionary psychology can never serve as an adequate, sufficient explanation for morality. You can't derive an "ought" merely from what is.

Me: you are not saying why is there an obligation to be compassionate.
You: There isn't of course.

More conclusive evidence that we're not talking about the same thing. Morality entails incumbency. Anything less is unworthy of the name. I know you are UndauntedR, but if I could save you some time and effort, you will never be able to derive a coherent, sufficient explanation of morality from a materialist premise. It's impossible. A materialist premise has no foundation for good and evil. Dawkins himself admits as much, but he can never seem to remember his own words any time he feels like going on a moralizing bender.

Cordially,

The Dalai Lama explains it all better than anyone else I've ever seen:

No matter what country or continent we come from we are all basically the same human beings. We have the common human needs and concerns. We all seek happiness and try to avoid suffering regardless of our race, religion, sex or political status. Human beings, indeed all sentient beings, have the right to pursue happiness and live in peace and in freedom. As free human beings we can use our unique intelligence to try to understand ourselves and our world. But if we are prevented from using our creative potential, we are deprived of one of the basic characteristics of a human being. It is very often the most gifted, dedicated and creative members of our society who become victims of human rights abuses. Thus the political, social, cultural and economic developments of a society are obstructed by the violations of human rights. Therefore, the protection of these rights and freedoms are of immense importance both for the individuals affected and for the development of the society as a whole.
It is my belief that the lack of understanding of the true cause of happiness is the principal reason why people inflict suffering on others. Some people think that causing pain to others may lead to their own happiness or that their own happiness is of such importance that the pain of others is of no significance. But this is clearly shortsighted. No one truly benefits from causing harm to another being. Whatever immediate advantage is gained at the expense of someone else is short-lived. In the long run causing others misery and infringing upon their peace and happiness creates anxiety, fear and suspicion for oneself.
The key to creating a better and more peaceful world is the development of love and compassion for others.