Like when I said this
But that isn't the whole story. I think there is a real, objective human nature, behavioral traits shared by all, some few abnormal people excepted. Hierarchical social structures is an example. Morality builds upon, or tends to respect, these shared values.Or when I said this
[You know one morality is better than another] Based on their different outcomes of course. It's an empirical question.No, IMO, it is not "merely a meme."
except that in your own sentence, you are acting whether 'survival' is the only criterion by which to judge any moral system.
You have me confused with another poster, maybe #69. I don't see how you can infer that from what I said. But I do agree that better moralities will tend to be more influential. Not always of course but generally.
In that case, why exert effort on behalf of *any* system?
I think it's human nature. And from a group point of view, it is eminently rational.
"Why should I accept *your* belief system?
For the same reason you should accept western medicine in preference to voodoo, it works better.
There are an infinite number of others which (as far as I know) are more likely to be true."
Exactly so. And you have no way of knowing. Therefore you should try for increasing reliability instead. History shows that's an attainable goal.
I think we each have been misunderstanding each other's points a wee bit here.
When I said you were treating morality as a *meme*, I was referring specifically to the line I had just quoted,
"But riddle me this, have the Sawi people amounted to anything? Have their moral system spread? Have they dominated a continent as Christianity did Europe?"
The rest of my post 80 was concerned with refuting the idea that morality was merely a meme.
In other words, the line "Why should I accept your morality" was mimicing what a holder of one moral system would say to another, if he accepted the idea that morality were a meme. Obviously, the stronger meme will win out in the end, so why fight or persuade?
And implicit -- but not necessarily valid -- is the idea that the meme "whose star is in the ascendant", the one whose adherents are most forcefully pushing it, or most successful at the moment, must be "the *right* one" since it is winning out by natural selection.
I did read #69, and it did inform my opinion., But not quite as you just said; I realized what Joebuck said in #69 was sarcasm towards you, but since you didn't take pains to refute his charge, I thought you were tacitly confessing to holding a Darwinian view towards ethics themselves; hence my mention of "memes."
One other question -- you replied to the question "why should I accept *your* belief system" in earnest, so I'd like to follow up...
What do you mean "it works better": for whom? Nazism worked pretty good for the Nazis, if only Hitler hadn't been dumb-ass enough to invade Russiah whilst equipping his troops with only light summer gear, and insisting repeatedly on ignoring his generals' advice (see also Stalingrad and Kursk). And on the other foot, Communism did a pretty good job of holding sway in Russia. By what rule do you differentiate between ideologies which work well by stepping on others, and those that preach mercy and cooperation? It seems you can get different answers to "which one works better?" by varying the scope of the test, from an individual playgound to a country to a geopolitical bloc to the entire race. Lots of people in Africa are getting *screwed* by the rest of the world -- if only by neglect and unintended consequences: where do you weigh in with the victims of an ideaology, even (or especially) those who are not active practitioners?
"There are an infinite number of others which (as far as I know) are more likely to be true." Exactly so.
This makes little sense to me, as my remark was not in earnest -- unless by "differing morality" you are thinking of taking specific moral strictures ("do not kill EVER" vs. "do not MURDER" vs. "only if you catch the SOB in bed with your wife" vs. "kill all non-Aryans" vs. "Durka durka! Mohammed jihad!") for violence, ("celibacy forever" vs. "sex only for children, with your wife, and only in the missionary position" vs. pagan revelry vs. San Francisco vs. controlled breeding from any number of science fiction stories) for sex, etc. etc. through all the categories: and applying combinatorial methods to arrive at the best overall configuration.
Please explain...?
Cheers!