The "Moral Matrix"

[amicus]

xssve's posts #91 &92, sophisticated, verbose and familar, reminded me of the old social darwinists, precursors to Fascism, led me to a little research and a conclusion, "Liberal Fascism", the new and preferred term identifying a motley crew of democrats, social democrats, the left, left wing nuts/radicals, socialists, ad nauseum.

~~~

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/3052/Default.aspx



The first was communism and the second was social darwinism, .... of the modern social democracies, although within a democratic ... Social democracy is to socialism what "liberal fascism" is to fascism. ...


http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/

Our new masters have it in their power to deepen the economic crisis and worsen our distress in the manner of Hoover and the younger Roosevelt. By instituting a second New Deal, as they would very much like to do—by sharply raising taxes on fossil fuels, dividends, and capital gains; by targeting the earnings of the well-to-do; by pursuing protectionism, expanding the regime of programmatic rights, and forcing workers into labor unions—they can discourage investment, curb entrepreneurship, reduce foreign trade, and decisively slow economic growth, or even bring it to a lasting halt, while offering to those consigned to the dole thereby a dependence upon generosity of an all-encompassing state. Just how ruthless they will prove to be on this occasion, just how far they intend to hustle us down the path we tread, remains as yet undetermined.

~~~

Liberal Fascism depends partially on denying faith, the source of morality for most, and secondly, upon the acceptance of social darwinism, that men are simply animals and can be defined, as xssve does, in terms of type A, animalistic behavior, but as humans, must be controlled and molded in such ways as to 'dampen' their animalistic urges, of which the liberal fascists are most adept.

There is nothing new in liberal fascism, they represent the age old definition of dictators or totalitarians, who wish to impose their view of mankind on those the can hornswoggle into belief.

Such a deal...

amicus...

 

[xssve]

Um, actually, Social Darwinism is a right wing racist ideology, you moron, as in you are a Social Darwinist, it reflects an absolute obsession with notions of "purity" and morality, blah, blah, particularly racial purity and is typically associated with inbreeding.

 

[amicus]

Denial is the first response of the guilty, I guess...., and perhaps you forget that others can research and read and follow the evolution from the initial social darwinists to liberal fascism.

You are such a faith based advocate, you need a church to pray in.

amicus.

 

[xssve]

Racism is also included in the definition of fascism, so is lying - you're Three for Three.

 

[amicus]

Never for an instant did I expect agreement or even understanding; rather like discussing atheism with a Jesuit, only the audience, if there is one, will benefit from the jousting.

From time to time I like to inform folks of the roots from which you emerge and the tangle always returns to oppression of the individual for the greater good; always.

Regardless of the nom de plume you accept or reject, they all fall in, inevitably with those who wish to control the individual for their own purposes.

I, on the other hand, have a much simpler task, that of advocating human individual liberty, which most recognize as an honorable pursuit.

Thus, keep up the consistent advocacy of slavery, we all know what you really want.

And you aint gettin' it...

amicus.

 

[Pure]

anyone...

anything to say on my post #93 and disgust? would a role for disgust in morality, make it 'irrational'?

or the opposite, rational (e.g., there are excellent reasons not to eat carcasses)?

the usual battles get boring.

 

[Verdad]

Not sure whether there's a point in returning to a thread laden with nonsense right from the original material, made worse by misrepresentations, but if there's something interesting about the topic, it's been pointed out by Pure:

Haidt and Schnall used a number of examples in their experiments on these topics:


Dog
Frank’s dog was killed by a car in front of his house. Frank had heard that in China people occasionally eat dog meat, and he was curious what it tasted like. So he cut up the body and cooked it and ate it for dinner. How wrong is it for Frank to eat his dead dog for dinner?

Kitten
Matthew is playing with his new kitten late one night. He is wearing only his boxer shorts, and the kitten sometimes walks over his genitals. Eventually, this arouses him, and he begins to rub his bare genitals along the kitten’s body. The kitten purrs, and seems to enjoy the contact. How wrong is it for Matthew to be rubbing himself against the kitten?

How do you react to them? Do you have moral views that go beyond fairness and ‘no harm.’

These examples elucidate the problem of considering reason as the sole source of morality. One is hard pressed to find a rational explanation for why these action should be wrong, yet everyone will agree they're at least controversial.

Haidt's answers share all the problems of evolutionary approaches plus some of his own, but perhaps the question is of some interest.

 

[amicus]

I heard somewhere that dogmeat is haute cuisine for the Spanish and that felines, cats, fill the same menu for Asians, Vietnamese...dunno...guess peeps will eat about anything when they are starving, even other people and sometimes just from religious rituals.

These, 'lifeboat ethics', fabricated scenario's, always the exceptions, to challenge an opposing opinion are usually verboten from even sophomoric discussions, but apparently not here.

They always indicate an intellectual bankruptcy, no funds left, a last ditch sneer, in an attempt to salvage face and very little else.

Just ignore these intellectual Trolls.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

another pair of examples from Haidt

these are intended to suggest a role of purity/decency in morality.

Example adapted from Haidt and Graham, 2006

Suppose your next-door neighbor puts up a large sign in her front yard that says “Cable television will destroy society.” You ask her to explain the sign, and she replies, “Cables are an affront to the god Thoth. They radiate theta waves, which make people sterile.” You ask her to explain how a low voltage, electrically-shielded coaxial cable can make anyone sterile, but she changes the subject.

The DSM-IV [psychiatric manual] defines a delusion as “a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary” (APA, DSM-IV, 1994, p.765). Your neighbor is clearly delusional, and possibly schizophrenic. She is responding to forces, threats, and agents that simply do not exist.


But now suppose your other neighbor puts up a large sign in his front yard that says “Sodomy, unpunished, pollutes our society.” You ask him to explain the sign, and he replies, “Sodomy--a male fucking another's ass—is unnatural; it is an abomination to God.” You ask him to explain how allowing two people to engage in sodomy behind closed doors will harm others in society, but he changes the subject.

Because your neighbor is not alone in his beliefs, he does not meet the DSM-IV criteria for delusion. You, if you are a liberal, are focussed on harm; you see none. So you might well consider your homophobic neighbor almost as delusional, and probably more offensive, than your cable-fearing neighbor. He, too, seems to be responding to forces, threats, and agents that do not exist. [...] If only there were some way to break through your neighbor’s delusions – some moral equivalent of Thorazine – which would help him see the facts as you see them.[[{some substitutions in example two; no additions}]]

--
one can see the moral stance of the neighbor, in the second case. how does one argue with it?

purity, disgust, decency, as involved in morality, create problems as to evidence, cultural variations, etc. first cousin marriage is a present example where Catholics disagree with Protestants and Orthodox Jews. abhorrence of incest seems variable, in some instances.

 

[amicus]

"...“Sodomy--a male fucking another's ass..."

Well, we have two of Pure's moral 'virtues' up front and personal, butt fucking and abortion. What a lovely pair to draw to.

Anything else to insult common morality?

You may as well fess up to all...did you kill kittens as a boy?

 

[Pure]

note to ami.

pure said,

another pair of examples from Haidt

these are intended to suggest a role of purity/decency in morality. [...]

[pure gave an example based on Haidt, with the following definition] Sodomy--a male fucking another's ass...


amicus said,
"[pure, offering a definition]...“Sodomy--a male fucking another's ass..."

Well, we have two of Pure's moral 'virtues' up front and personal, butt fucking and abortion. What a lovely pair to draw to.
=======

you must learn to read, man. my post described, as an example based on Haidt, a 'neighbor' of someone, who found sodomy disgusting. that is all.

in fact, your post demonstrates the point; you have a moral view of sodomy based on your disgust. the question naturally is, Is your view also supported by reason, since you present your morality as, at the core, reason based.

if your response is pure froth, as above, the emotional and nonrational basis for your views will be evident.

 

[xssve]

So ami, the great individualist is now hiding behind "the common morality"? C'mon out where we can see you.

 

[cantdog]

The dude is trolling and you are biting. He doesn't even seem to need good bait.

To begin with, I am against elevating disgust to the status of a principle. I have seen it argued: All decent people recoil... That's a verbal trap and an appeal to conformity, in one.

Such arguments are very powerful to tribesmen. People in a tribe need the tribe, need to have it keep its cohesion. They are rule-bound. Citizens, on the other hand, are expected to have a hand in making the rules, and have an eye to the intent of the rule. The success of such a call to join the herd will vary by the culture of the hearer.

Of your examples, I have to say both are delusional. But I'm a citizen, and I want the rules to make sense on the face of them. In my house, we made it clear to my child that once the intent of the rule was understood, the rule vanished, replaced by her judgment. "Stay back from the open window" is a rule you don't need once you understand what's at stake, for instance. Your own judgment takes it from there. Maybe I'm not even a citizen.

 

[xssve]

Mores work on a very primitive level, they're possibly even functions of the limbic system, the reptilian brain, ritualistic behavior - they don't have to make sense, it isn't about whether it's logical or not, it's a display, it signals group inclusion.

I argued with a guy once who was complaining about a colleague, an African American, who wore a Dashiki to a business meeting, which he considered very unbusinesslike and disrespectful, "suit and tie" is the accepted mode of dress.

Now I hate fucking ties, a more ridiculous garment has never been invented, it serves no functional purpose, it's a pain in the ass to tie, it's uncomfortable to wear, and it cuts off the blood supply to your brain - but by god, there are restaurants where they won't let you in the door without one - it's function is purely symbolic - whatever it's symbolic of has been long forgotten, but the behavior persists in spite of all reason.

Similarly, Church is a congregation - literally, a group of people gathered together ostensibly to support each other in pursuit of common goals - in order to be included in the group, one must adhere to it's rituals and values, the values themselves are often ritual in nature - obscure details of dogmatic minutiae that in and of themselves are neither here nor there, but one cannot dispute them without risking ones status within the group.

Nobody knows exactly why they do it, Biblical literalists will regurgitate Augustinian interpretations of scripture that are just that: interpretations that are mentioned nowhere directly in the Bible - there is no mention that eating from the Tree of Life is a sin, but have become part of an oral tradition that has numerous branches and eddies, but there is very little distinction made between the text and the various intrepretations over the centuries - there are self described strict textualists who are really Calvinists and who have never even heard of Calvin.

The justifications are always some vague appeal to authority, "unclean", "ungodly", etc., but the real purpose is often predominantly simply to draw distinctions between "us" and "them", deep thought and outside sources are not only alien, they're a distinct threat to group cohesion.

 

[amicus]

The 'Moral Matrix', the thread title, has been used in a couple interesting ways, none admirable. One, to slap the liberal wrist over the abortion issue in an attempt to prod them into at least facing a rational moral decision on the issue instead of the imbedded faith they usually profess.

Secondly, a not so transparent effort to classify conservative behavior and thinking, as a genetic malfunction and thus inferior to the more 'liberated' left wing mantra that goes back to the tribal chieftan enforcing his dictates.

Haidt's entired niche in psychology is fatally flawed in that man is conceived without preconception, instinct, racial memory; in other words, tablula rasa, born with a blank slate to be writ upon by reality.

The 'disgust' factor is a red herring, a distraction from rational thought and easily dismissed, which I shall do so right here and now.

I express disgust and revulsion at a can of worms writhing, or maggots in the eye sockets of a dead animal. A child, will happily look upon either event, smile at the new input, reach out to touch and confirm the information and maybe even taste a worm to amplify the experience.

Abortion and butt fucking are learned aversions as both are unnatural antithetical to life and without value to the whole of mankind.

Thus I conclude your psychology to be bullshit and your personal morality likewise and without foundation or value of any kind.

Amicus...

 

[cantdog]

Mores work on a very primitive level, they're possibly even functions of the limbic system, the reptilian brain, ritualistic behavior - they don't have to make sense, it isn't about whether it's logical or not, it's a display, it signals group inclusion.

I argued with a guy once who was complaining about a colleague, an African American, who wore a Dashiki to a business meeting, which he considered very unbusinesslike and disrespectful, "suit and tie" is the accepted mode of dress.

Now I hate fucking ties, a more ridiculous garment has never been invented, it serves no functional purpose, it's a pain in the ass to tie, it's uncomfortable to wear, and it cuts off the blood supply to your brain - but by god, there are restaurants where they won't let you in the door without one - it's function is purely symbolic - whatever it's symbolic of has been long forgotten, but the behavior persists in spite of all reason.

Similarly, Church is a congregation - literally, a group of people gathered together ostensibly to support each other in pursuit of common goals - in order to be included in the group, one must adhere to it's rituals and values, the values themselves are often ritual in nature - obscure details of dogmatic minutiae that in and of themselves are neither here nor there, but one cannot dispute them without risking ones status within the group.

Nobody knows exactly why they do it, Biblical literalists will regurgitate Augustinian interpretations of scripture that are just that: interpretations that are mentioned nowhere directly in the Bible - there is no mention that eating from the Tree of Life is a sin, but have become part of an oral tradition that has numerous branches and eddies, but there is very little distinction made between the text and the various intrepretations over the centuries - there are self described strict textualists who are really Calvinists and who have never even heard of Calvin.

The justifications are always some vague appeal to authority, "unclean", "ungodly", etc., but the real purpose is often predominantly simply to draw distinctions between "us" and "them", deep thought and outside sources are not only alien, they're a distinct threat to group cohesion.

What you say here finds great resonance in many thinkers. Aversion to incest and cannibalism and revulsion at one's own species' shit are often cited as examples of mammalian-brain, "instinctive," phenomena, tending to push the gene endowment outward and avoid premature death from diseases which might happen before the organism has reproduced.

There is certainly a baggage of inborn things, some quite deeply ingrained. We are far from being blank slates. Sign stimuli such as a nurturing response to small mammals with round heads, short muzzles and so on-- one feels it for baby animals of other species as well, though not to the degree that one does for one's own. The upturned ass triggers sexual interest, and so on. Some of these things are completely clear, but others less so. Brain studies attempt to site these responses in the hope that certain areas of the brain may be found where the responses built into the grue might be located.

Right now, though, we still can't be sure how wide our "instinctual" endowment is, partly because we are capable of overriding nearly all of it.

 

[amicus]

Like wolves howling at the moon, seeking each other, or the proverbial 'daisy chain', Cantdog joins the chorus in stipulating that most of man's nature is either Pavlovian or worse, inherited instinctual behavior and gee, guess what, all the bad inherited traits define conservatism and should be bred out of the species.....and this ain't social darwinism and it incestual sister Eugenics?

Sure does appear that way....although....wait for it....here come the denials, all in four part harmony....hum mmmmmmmm....hari krishna like....these folks ain't changed since their seventies maturation....gads...


ami