A challenge for all you Tate (not the gallery) fans out there!

"what is he 'on'? anti-anti-depressants?" Yan - anti-depressants don't make you 'feel good'. They're meant to stop you feeling crap. Some do this by efectively numbing all feelings, so you don't really feel good or bad about anything. "Welcome to the world of natural selection, Jack. Where's the objective morality gone? Not everyone has the 'balls' to believe in themselves!" I don't follow you at all. You said that tribal instinct makes people automatically jump into a river to save a child. I said that's a load of cock, which it is. You're now saying that the fact that some people would and some people wouldn't is natural selection? What? No. A person is quite capable of not jumping in to save a child, but deciding that this is the wrong course of action. They could be racked with guilt afterwards. If we did everything for selfish reasons - ie. the only reason we do good things is to avoid guilt - then, sure, we'd all jump in to save the child. But you know what? Some of us *don't* give to charity. I can't recall having done so in recent years. And yet, I don't feel guilty or ashamed about it. Nor do I believe that doing so would make my life any better. It *may* give me a good feeling, but not as good as buying myself something nice. In fact, spending the same amount on something for me as I would for chairty would almost always make me feel better. By the logic of you and Peps, I cannot possibly believe that giving to charity is the morally better option, because my morality is guided by my desires. "No Jack...they have subjective opinions as to what is moral and immoral." The buffoonery continues! The protagonist of 'La Chute' doesn't think it was moral to leave the woman drowning! Who would? The whole book is based him recognising his moral failing! People are often able to distinguish between what's good for them and what objective moral values they believe in, but are not always able to act on them. In a world where morality was whatever suited them best, then there would be no conflict between what they wanted and what they believed was the right thing to do. "They may be no use to a 'caveman' tribe, Jack...but the prospect of rescuing them promises great rewards for the hero. Ever wondered why women naturally have a 'thing' for firemen?" Are you having a distracted day, Yan? Third rubbish point in a row. I mean, that's weak with a capital W. Fetishes for uniformed figures are consistantly to do with sub/dom desires (the uniform represents authority). Added to that, firemen have to be well built, which is also something *some* women (but not all, or even most, I'd say) like to see. And why would rescuing promise great rewards for the hero? That makes no evolutionary sense. To an extent, there has to be bravery, yes, but only it has to be strongly tempered by a sense of self-preservation. I chose the fire scenario because that's a situation where the likely loss from a rescue attempt (no fire-fighting equipment in prehistoric tribes) far outweighs the loss from not doing so. Human beings consistently go above and beyond the call of any useful evolutionary survival instinct. They also consistently fall well below it - doing things exclusively for themselves when it can only hurt the race/tribe as a whole. I'm not going to argue with the idea that morality/actions are based on survival instinct anymore, because, frankly, it's too stupid to bother with. Some tribal instinct survives in us, and can be seen in - say - the bodily reaction of producing adrenalin when anxious. But it is a small factor in most of our actions, which are based instead on degrees of rational thought. Enzo: "I'm saying *I* don't believe in an objective good, any more than I believe in a god. But I acknowledge others do, and the rest of your argument seems to follow for those people that do." But you *do* believe in objective goods, or objective moral truths! I'm sorry, but if you have anything you truly consider 'values' then you do! If you believe your values are only 'subjective truths' then you don't believe that they apply to anyone who doesn't also have them in their own subjective reality. The fundamental thing here is the African female circumcision situation I mentioned above. If you only believe in subjective moral truths, you cannot say that there is anything wrong with female circumcision in African - you can only say "This would not suit me" or "This would not suit my society." Equally, you can not believe that, say, sexism in society was actually 'bad' at a time when everyone agreed that it was right. The moral subjectivist believes that it was neither right or wrong - merely that it suited people then, and doesn't suit people now. Basically, if you believe morality is subjective, then you believe two distinct moral value systems that serve their communities in different ways are of equal value. You, Enzo, believe that your moral values are better than those that would serve to justify and promote female circumcision. Not better for you - better, full stop. You also believe that sexism is wrong, and has always been wrong. There is no basis for these beliefs other than the belief in a greater moral authority that transcends yours and theirs. Unless I'm wrong and you have no real problem with female circumcision or sexism as long as they stay away from you and yours. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

In terms of describing what I'm saying, you're almost spot on, JC. Until this: "Unless I'm wrong and you have no real problem with female circumcision or sexism as long as they stay away from you and yours." I believe it is wrong. I choose not to be overly proactive in preventing it (like most of us) although when I hear sexist comments, for example, I sometimes object. For the rest, I agree more with what you say. For example: "If you believe your values are only 'subjective truths' then you don't believe that they apply to anyone who doesn't also have them in their own subjective reality." Yep, I agree with that. They can believe what they want, and I will disagree with them if I so wish. "If you only believe in subjective moral truths, you cannot say that there is anything wrong with female circumcision in African - you can only say "This would not suit me" or "This would not suit my society."" Almost. I would amend slightly. I can say, 'I don't believe it to be suitable behaviour.' "Equally, you can not believe that, say, sexism in society was actually 'bad' at a time when everyone agreed that it was right. The moral subjectivist believes that it was neither right or wrong - merely that it suited people then, and doesn't suit people now." Not really. Remember I've said that my perspective is All and Everything (caps for emphasis only). Therefore, as I don't agree with sexism right now, I would say that it is inappropriate and has always been so. However - as an example only - if I were to change my mind on the matter, then I would say that all this PC nonsense has gone to far, and we should get female linesmen out of football and that they had it right in the 11th century. My values change over time, as do most peoples. This is perfectly natural, because values are subjective. "Basically, if you believe morality is subjective, then you believe two distinct moral value systems that serve their communities in different ways are of equal value." No. I agree with people that share my views and disagree with those who don't. Just like we are now. Just like people do all the time. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

'I'm not going to argue with the idea that morality/actions are based on survival instinct anymore, because, frankly, it's too stupid to bother with.' So what (or who) are you appealing to for an answer, Jack? Game theory is very interesting when studying human interactions. There are various complex models that I can't recall (maybe you could google it) but one interesting little statement derives from Game Theory to serve as an example as to the complexity of social interactions: a genie visits a man and offers him one wish. The genie also stresses that whatever the man wishes for his neighbour will receive double. So the man says, "ok - poke one of my eyes out." The problem I have with your argument, Jack, is that it's so conceited. History has taught us a valuable lesson regards discarding human-centrism, egocentrism as non-progressive regards understanding life. Maybe cumulative selection inevitably leads to intelligence and intelligence inevitably leads to objective moral codes that we can pass on in the future? Who knows. Good idea, peps. Jack, you read Dawkins or Gould, even Robert Winston's 'Human Instinct' if you like a lighter read, and I'll read one of your recommendations - the bible or something :) Or whatever. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett