Yes and no. Lambs and eagles do not think, at least not like humans. Evil and taste are not thoughts for them, they are experiences. However evil and taste have their own existence in the human mind, separate from experience. And that's why humans can be manipulated by thoughts only, not just by experience.
Who in their right mind wants to send their offsprings to butchery in war? It can only happen if you first create meaning and justify the war (e.g. a clear danger worse than war) if you expect people to follow.
So the real issue here is how easy it is to manipulate humans, to make them act like robots programmed by mainstream media so eager to show us a danger and the difference between "us" and "them".
This does not mean there is no intentionality though. Is it really a coincidence if some weapon manufacturers invest in media companies? Is it a coincidence if the same source of finance feed both sides of a conflict?
I don't understand what it means to "all just come down to" a metaphor. Metaphors are inherently high level and abstract - the very opposite of what things "come down to", which is used to describe a concrete, pragmatic causation. The specific metaphor also is unhelpful, as it throws away the uniquely human nature of both morality and freedom of choice.
Aaron suggests that is childish to think evil people do evil things intentionality. But isn't actually the notion of good and evil completely childish? Arnt bankers just predators and their victims just prey? The banker isn't even thinking "I'm good" they are just thinking "I'm hungry"
Realistically adults don't think about the morality of their actions much at all.
Realistically adults don't think about the morality of their actions much at all.
If you're basing this on personal experience then either you or I are atypical because I think of the morality of my actions all the time (and sometimes makes judgement calls which are different to social norms).
I think you're both right here. From the outside, it seems like most people don't consider the morality of their actions, but I believe it's a matter of degrees and instances.
For instance, I've been told by many in my social circle that I tend to think more deeply than most about the morality, direct or implied, of my actions/beliefs, than the average person, but when I speak to people, there's always some code they're holding themselves to, even if they don't articulate it as such, but then there are also people who will have sex with anything in sight, but will engage in extreme handwringing over every food choice and environmental impact. Even if someone isn't weighing the morality of their own actions, they're acutely aware of how others' actions comply or contradict their moral code.
Practically everyone has some common moral code that they abide by, while ignoring other parts because of convenience, desire, etc.
People who are highly morally consistent tend to be seen as ascetics, extremists, idealogues, or the like.
Like intelligence, moral IQ is a spectrum that probably most don't consciously think about until a conundrum comes up, but that generally centers around a mean, and spans multiple areas that overlap across cultures and generations and behaviors.
In a pyramidal society it all depends where you stand. Most people function from a partial narrative, biased towards some local/invented optimum. The higher you go in the pyramid, the more conscious evil you can find. And usually you can only go high in the pyramid because you have proven yourself capable of evil.
Lambs don't think eagles are evil because lambs don't have complex systems of morality. The lamb is just frightened and sad that it's gonna get eaten. It isn't judging the eagle. It knows there's nothing "personal" about getting eaten; the eagle has to eat to survive.
Whereas in our world, we judge each other with our own set of complex rules, and we treat each other based on those rules, rather than just rules of survival. It results in a lot of conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with competing for a mate, finding food, or sheltering. We trick ourselves into believing the complex rules are more real than reality. We think 'evil' is real, when in reality it's an imaginary concept that doesn't exist as a part of nature. There is no such thing as an evil being.
Hell, we think there's an invisible being in the sky that watches our every move and judges us, and based on that belief we kill people. As a species, we're insane.
Comments
Doesn't this all just come down to the fact that lambs think eagles are evil and eagles think lambs are tasty?
Yes and no. Lambs and eagles do not think, at least not like humans. Evil and taste are not thoughts for them, they are experiences. However evil and taste have their own existence in the human mind, separate from experience. And that's why humans can be manipulated by thoughts only, not just by experience.
Who in their right mind wants to send their offsprings to butchery in war? It can only happen if you first create meaning and justify the war (e.g. a clear danger worse than war) if you expect people to follow.
So the real issue here is how easy it is to manipulate humans, to make them act like robots programmed by mainstream media so eager to show us a danger and the difference between "us" and "them".
This does not mean there is no intentionality though. Is it really a coincidence if some weapon manufacturers invest in media companies? Is it a coincidence if the same source of finance feed both sides of a conflict?
I don't understand what it means to "all just come down to" a metaphor. Metaphors are inherently high level and abstract - the very opposite of what things "come down to", which is used to describe a concrete, pragmatic causation. The specific metaphor also is unhelpful, as it throws away the uniquely human nature of both morality and freedom of choice.
Aaron suggests that is childish to think evil people do evil things intentionality. But isn't actually the notion of good and evil completely childish? Arnt bankers just predators and their victims just prey? The banker isn't even thinking "I'm good" they are just thinking "I'm hungry"
Realistically adults don't think about the morality of their actions much at all.
If you're basing this on personal experience then either you or I are atypical because I think of the morality of my actions all the time (and sometimes makes judgement calls which are different to social norms).
I think you're both right here. From the outside, it seems like most people don't consider the morality of their actions, but I believe it's a matter of degrees and instances. For instance, I've been told by many in my social circle that I tend to think more deeply than most about the morality, direct or implied, of my actions/beliefs, than the average person, but when I speak to people, there's always some code they're holding themselves to, even if they don't articulate it as such, but then there are also people who will have sex with anything in sight, but will engage in extreme handwringing over every food choice and environmental impact. Even if someone isn't weighing the morality of their own actions, they're acutely aware of how others' actions comply or contradict their moral code. Practically everyone has some common moral code that they abide by, while ignoring other parts because of convenience, desire, etc. People who are highly morally consistent tend to be seen as ascetics, extremists, idealogues, or the like.
Like intelligence, moral IQ is a spectrum that probably most don't consciously think about until a conundrum comes up, but that generally centers around a mean, and spans multiple areas that overlap across cultures and generations and behaviors.
In a pyramidal society it all depends where you stand. Most people function from a partial narrative, biased towards some local/invented optimum. The higher you go in the pyramid, the more conscious evil you can find. And usually you can only go high in the pyramid because you have proven yourself capable of evil.
Morality is childish? What?
Lambs don't think eagles are evil because lambs don't have complex systems of morality. The lamb is just frightened and sad that it's gonna get eaten. It isn't judging the eagle. It knows there's nothing "personal" about getting eaten; the eagle has to eat to survive.
Whereas in our world, we judge each other with our own set of complex rules, and we treat each other based on those rules, rather than just rules of survival. It results in a lot of conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with competing for a mate, finding food, or sheltering. We trick ourselves into believing the complex rules are more real than reality. We think 'evil' is real, when in reality it's an imaginary concept that doesn't exist as a part of nature. There is no such thing as an evil being.
Hell, we think there's an invisible being in the sky that watches our every move and judges us, and based on that belief we kill people. As a species, we're insane.