Could ego be a basis for morality?

[sparky94]

Hi Peter,

A few thoughts on your blog...

It seems strange to me that anyone would want to be anything else.

Really? A quick look at society doesn't indicate that there are large numbers of people that regularly choose behaviours that you would consider not to be 'good'? If they regularly choose such behaviours, what makes you assume they want to be 'good' in the way that you are thinking of it? What about other societies?

We all obviously know what good is, otherwise we wouldn’t have a word for it.

Do we really? So when a Kurdish community stone a girl for hanging out with a boy because they see that as the 'good' thing to do, do you still want to claim that 'we all obviously know what good is'? When applied to behaviour, there seems to be a vast array of possible 'goods'. How do you know that your concept of good is correct?

We are quite capable of judging other’s actions as being good or bad. We write stories about gods and devils, heroes and villains. We clearly identify with those characters who are portrayed as good and despise or pity those who are portrayed as bad.

We are also quite capable of being wrong! Maybe we shouldn't be judging at all? Does majority opinion make our views correct? Which majority? - Ourselves, our family, our street, our city, our country, our 'regional bloc', our world? Do you always adopt majority opinion on an issue? Why not?

I think he desire to be good stems from self-image. The human mind is great at making models of the universe in which we live and it is with the help of these models that we we are able to predict the future, to a certain extent. The advantage of a highly complex self-model is that it helps one to predict the behaviour of others. For the model to be effective though, it has to be accurate and to incorporate the good as well as the bad. Believing bad things about one’s self is not pleasant so the obvious solution is to avoid doing bad things.

I don't see that you have defined 'good' yet, so how can you know what the resulting 'self-image' is?

This raises the question of why do people do bad things?

I'm not sure we've moved beyond 'what is a bad thing?' yet. If you find them to be 'bad' and they don't, what makes you correct?

I think there are two possible causes. The first and most seemingly obvious is that the individual’s self-esteem is so low already that there is little point in maintaining their self-image. Those who are poor or oppressed might feel differently about theft and murder than those in more privileged positions. The second, and more subtle, is that the individual’s self-esteem is unrealistically low or high. It was long assumed that violent behaviour, for instance, was associated with low self-esteem but research shows that it may result from unearned high self-esteem:

“Violent criminals often describe themselves as superior to others”
“Playground bullies regard themselves as superior to other children; low self-esteem is found among the victims of bullies, but not among bullies themselves.”
—Baumeister, 2001

Which pretty much shoots your thesis in the foot. Bullies feel good about themselves. Bullying people helps them to continue to feel good about themselves. They should therefore continue to bully people! If only those victims would start bullying people, they could sort out their own self-esteem as well!

So why be good? Because you have to live with yourself.

In other words, I should do whatever will make me feel best about myself!

Cheers,
sparky

[Peter Grant]

Hi Peter,

Hi sparky

A few thoughts on your blog...

It seems strange to me that anyone would want to be anything else.

Really? A quick look at society doesn't indicate that there are large numbers of people that regularly choose behaviours that you would consider not to be 'good'? If they regularly choose such behaviours, what makes you assume they want to be 'good' in the way that you are thinking of it? What about other societies?

The point is not whether I consider them to be good, the point is that they do, or at least want to, consider their own behaviour to be good.

We all obviously know what good is, otherwise we wouldn’t have a word for it.

Do we really? So when a Kurdish community stone a girl for hanging out with a boy because they see that as the 'good' thing to do, do you still want to claim that 'we all obviously know what good is'? When applied to behaviour, there seems to be a vast array of possible 'goods'. How do you know that your concept of good is correct?

I am only pointing out that we all have a similar understanding of what the concept of good is, otherwise the word would be meaningless. Even in a Kurdish community the act of stoning a girl, by itself, would not be seen as good or admirable behaviour. They are justifying this behaviour as serving some higher purpose. Whether they are basing their reasoning on religion or tribalism I am not sure, but either way their model of the universe, and therefore their self-image, is flawed or unrealistic. This is plainly obvious to any outside observer.

We are quite capable of judging other’s actions as being good or bad. We write stories about gods and devils, heroes and villains. We clearly identify with those characters who are portrayed as good and despise or pity those who are portrayed as bad.

We are also quite capable of being wrong! Maybe we shouldn't be judging at all? Does majority opinion make our views correct? Which majority? - Ourselves, our family, our street, our city, our country, our 'regional bloc', our world? Do you always adopt majority opinion on an issue? Why not?

I think he desire to be good stems from self-image. The human mind is great at making models of the universe in which we live and it is with the help of these models that we we are able to predict the future, to a certain extent. The advantage of a highly complex self-model is that it helps one to predict the behaviour of others. For the model to be effective though, it has to be accurate and to incorporate the good as well as the bad. Believing bad things about one’s self is not pleasant so the obvious solution is to avoid doing bad things.

I don't see that you have defined 'good' yet, so how can you know what the resulting 'self-image' is?

This raises the question of why do people do bad things?

I'm not sure we've moved beyond 'what is a bad thing?' yet. If you find them to be 'bad' and they don't, what makes you correct?

I think there are two possible causes. The first and most seemingly obvious is that the individual’s self-esteem is so low already that there is little point in maintaining their self-image. Those who are poor or oppressed might feel differently about theft and murder than those in more privileged positions. The second, and more subtle, is that the individual’s self-esteem is unrealistically low or high. It was long assumed that violent behaviour, for instance, was associated with low self-esteem but research shows that it may result from unearned high self-esteem:

“Violent criminals often describe themselves as superior to others”
“Playground bullies regard themselves as superior to other children; low self-esteem is found among the victims of bullies, but not among bullies themselves.”
—Baumeister, 2001

Which pretty much shoots your thesis in the foot. Bullies feel good about themselves. Bullying people helps them to continue to feel good about themselves. They should therefore continue to bully people! If only those victims would start bullying people, they could sort out their own self-esteem as well!

No. Bullies are able to bully others and continue to feel good about themselves because their self-esteem is based on a unrealistic self-image. Any external observer would see them for what they are, bullies.

So why be good? Because you have to live with yourself.

In other words, I should do whatever will make me feel best about myself!

Yes, provided you first take the time to critically evaluate your own self-image, ensuring the model is as realistic as possible. Feeling good about one's self is also not the same as feeling good personally. I can think of many instances where I chose physical pain in order to avoid damaging my self-image. I can also imagine a situation where even death would be preferable to certain types of damage, though obviously I have been fortunate enough not to encounter such a situation yet.

Cheers,
sparky

Cheers,
Grant

[Peter Grant]

so a deluded person can be sane even though their deluded ideas are insane?

Yes, take suicide bombers for instance.

[sparky94]

The point is not whether I consider them to be good, the point is that they do, or at least want to, consider their own behaviour to be good.

But if the truth about what is good is known only to me, in what sense do we have a similar understanding of what 'good' means?

I am only pointing out that we all have a similar understanding of what the concept of good is, otherwise the word would be meaningless. Even in a Kurdish community the act of stoning a girl, by itself, would not be seen as good or admirable behaviour. They are justifying this behaviour as serving some higher purpose. Whether they are basing their reasoning on religion or tribalism I am not sure, but either way their model of the universe, and therefore their self-image, is flawed or unrealistic. This is plainly obvious to any outside observer.

I don't think it's obvious to me. Nor do I have any reason to think that such behaviour is somehow incompatible with a 'true' model of the universe. Unless I have some adequate grounds for thinking that their view of what is 'good' is incorrect, I have no basis for claiming that either their model of the universe of their self-image is somehow flawed.

No. Bullies are able to bully others and continue to feel good about themselves because their self-esteem is based on a unrealistic self-image. Any external observer would see them for what they are, bullies.

First you say that what matters is 'self-image' but then you say a bully's self-image is 'unrealistic' because others don't agree. In which case, what matters is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself (i.e. reputation and not self-image). Why is the bully's behaviour not justified by the 'good' that results for him?

Yes, provided you first take the time to critically evaluate your own self-image, ensuring the model is as realistic as possible.

You seem to be adding criteria. Why should my 'self-image' be realistic? What is a realistic self-image? Why is a positive self-image not enough?

[Peter Grant]

The point is not whether I consider them to be good, the point is that they do, or at least want to, consider their own behaviour to be good.

But if the truth about what is good is known only to me, in what sense do we have a similar understanding of what 'good' means?

In the sense that we are all human, we all evolved under similar conditions and we all have similar wants and needs. The fact that we are able to effectively communicate ideas with each other means we both have common ground with which to work.

I am only pointing out that we all have a similar understanding of what the concept of good is, otherwise the word would be meaningless. Even in a Kurdish community the act of stoning a girl, by itself, would not be seen as good or admirable behaviour. They are justifying this behaviour as serving some higher purpose. Whether they are basing their reasoning on religion or tribalism I am not sure, but either way their model of the universe, and therefore their self-image, is flawed or unrealistic. This is plainly obvious to any outside observer.

I don't think it's obvious to me. Nor do I have any reason to think that such behaviour is somehow incompatible with a 'true' model of the universe. Unless I have some adequate grounds for thinking that their view of what is 'good' is incorrect, I have no basis for claiming that either their model of the universe of their self-image is somehow flawed.

We have many scientific and rational reasons for claiming that their view of the universe is incorrect. Any outsider who did not share their warped view of reality would naturally judge such behaviour as morally wrong. They themselves would behave differently if their models changed.

No. Bullies are able to bully others and continue to feel good about themselves because their self-esteem is based on a unrealistic self-image. Any external observer would see them for what they are, bullies.

First you say that what matters is 'self-image' but then you say a bully's self-image is 'unrealistic' because others don't agree. In which case, what matters is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself (i.e. reputation and not self-image). Why is the bully's behaviour not justified by the 'good' that results for him?

I did discuss this earlier in the topic. It has been postulated, rather convincingly I think, that self-image evolved from a need to predict the behaviour of others. We cannot access other's internal motivations, but we can observe our own and use these observations, together with our observations of the real world, to build a complex model of ourselves. The more accurate this model the greater the evolutionary advantage our ancestors would have had. Evolution is blind, however, and could not foresee that we might one day judge our own models with the same moral criteria we judge others.

Yes, provided you first take the time to critically evaluate your own self-image, ensuring the model is as realistic as possible.

You seem to be adding criteria. Why should my 'self-image' be realistic? What is a realistic self-image? Why is a positive self-image not enough?

The same reason all your other internal models of the universe should be realistic. They assist you in functioning in the real world. Of what use is an inaccurate map?

[sparky94]

In the sense that we are all human, we all evolved under similar conditions and we all have similar wants and needs. The fact that we are able to effectively communicate ideas with each other means we both have common ground with which to work.

Which means that we have similar wants and needs and can talk about those. As soon as we start to talk about 'good' we seem to get wildly different answers, so how can we be sure that such a thing exists?

I don't think it's obvious to me. Nor do I have any reason to think that such behaviour is somehow incompatible with a 'true' model of the universe. Unless I have some adequate grounds for thinking that their view of what is 'good' is incorrect, I have no basis for claiming that either their model of the universe of their self-image is somehow flawed.

We have many scientific and rational reasons for claiming that their view of the universe is incorrect. Any outsider who did not share their warped view of reality would naturally judge such behaviour as morally wrong. They themselves would behave differently if their models changed.

And surely they would draw the same conclusions about your warped view of reality. Here is a possible framework for their decision:

Those in the society share a similar want to be well-regarded by the other members of the society. In the society - free relations between unmarried men and women are generally perceived as the source of much disruption to society and are therefore frowned on. Behaviour by the members of a family reflect on the opinions formed about the head of that family. The members of a man's family and indeed the whole community therefore seek to minimise such behaviours by eliminating those who engage in them. This sets an example to others and restores the families reputation in the community.

What is warped about this view of reality and how do you know that it is warped?

First you say that what matters is 'self-image' but then you say a bully's self-image is 'unrealistic' because others don't agree. In which case, what matters is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself (i.e. reputation and not self-image). Why is the bully's behaviour not justified by the 'good' that results for him?

I did discuss this earlier in the topic. It has been postulated, rather convincingly I think, that self-image evolved from a need to predict the behaviour of others. We cannot access other's internal motivations, but we can observe our own and use these observations, together with our observations of the real world, to build a complex model of ourselves. The more accurate this model the greater the evolutionary advantage our ancestors would have had. Evolution is blind, however, and could not foresee that we might one day judge our own models with the same moral criteria we judge others.

I don't see how this answers the question. You said we should be good because we have to 'live with ourselves'. The bully is behaving in a way that he thinks is good and is quite happy living with the result. On what grounds do you call his behaviour 'not good'? I don't see how it matters where self-image came from. Whatever role evolution has played, it has produced the bully's behaviour as much as it has produced your condemnation of him. I have still not seen a reason to call his behaviour 'not good'?

You seem to be consistently saying that if someone is happy engaging in a behaviour that you don't like they must somehow have a 'warped' worldview? Yet I have yet to see any grounds for this conclusion.

Yes, provided you first take the time to critically evaluate your own self-image, ensuring the model is as realistic as possible.

You seem to be adding criteria. Why should my 'self-image' be realistic? What is a realistic self-image? Why is a positive self-image not enough?

The same reason all your other internal models of the universe should be realistic. They assist you in functioning in the real world. Of what use is an inaccurate map?

If your goal was 'usefulness' then an inaccurate map might be a problem. If your goal was 'beauty' it might not matter so much. If you wanted to give it to someone else to lead them the wrong way, an inaccurate map would be perfect. You stated that we should be good in order to maximise our self-image. Now you are saying that 'functioning in the real world' is some kind of higher criteria than self-image. On what grounds? If this criteria is used to decide what is good, might it not have some rather different behavioural implications?

[justis]

when i said "moral inhibition" i meant inhibition against the existence of true morals.

Completely disregarding the fact that I used the phrase first myself, and had already indicated how I used it.

people that don't believe in right and wrong regarding the morality of their actions are necessarily deranged,

Already dealt with and shown to be false: you are using such words as "deranged" and "insane" too loosely, which I can only say is disturbing, in that you don't seem to realise what it is you categorise people as. In fact, you do not even seem aware of the more lucid criticisms of the words "right" and "wrong" (you may wish to realise there that one can disagree with you because you use a word badly and still disagree with others who also disagree with you).
For example, there is an ancient Greek saying: "That which is not worse is best."

though it is possible for such a person to behave in a way that people would assume he was morally competent.

This is irrelevant.

as i said, all sane people necessarily believe killing babies for fun is wrong,

That does not make this notion objective per se; glucose is objectively important, for instance...

either that or they are deluded sane people that believe it might possibly be ok to kill babies for fun.

I am not sure it is quite plausible, though it can be possible.

animals are not insane because insanity requires a disregarding of knowledge, animals have limited knowledge, though if a dog tried to fly we could call it insane i suppose.

Absolutely false: "insanity" is a colloquical term for mental instability, which requires no disregard of knowledge.

morals are objectively true or false,

I think you are confusing yourself and mixing your argumentation up.

good or bad,

Not true: morals change according to our capacity to operate as well; if we managed to feed without killing a single cell at some point, in such a manner that our organisms would not atrophy, would our regard for life not increase a single step, since we would no longer have to kill, especially if we were also capable of picking any possible flavour?

That is what we call der Zeitgeist (the spirit of the era): new conditions set up new moral standards.

based on outcome for both the individual and his society.

Which you obviously assume to be static...

it is the case (imo) that good morals increase the value of both the individual and his society simultaneously, though with a preference toward society over the individual.

I am tempted to argue over the internal inconsistency of your words, but this is not the most important matter...

Societies have needs — maybe more so than individuals, since the latter make up the former; morals make sure a viable society is maintained, commonly at the expense of the individuals involved. Enter Malthusian economics...

And, no, I don't think a sane individual will kill infants for fun: either as part of a fit of temporary insanity, or as a symptom of a chronic derangement, maybe even a psychopathic disorder, this can happen, indeed, and it may be that an erstwhile mostly sane person can fall prey to madness after such a bloody affair.

Instead of reading too much into my own words, you may wish to review what I have said.

ok, moral inhibition in the sense you use it is healthy.to show constraint in regard to how one thinks and acts is recognition of there being a right way to act.obviously some people may have the wrong conception of what is the right way to act, these people we can call deluded.

if killing babies for fun is not to be considered objectively bad, then it is only fair to ask for an exact circumstance where such an act is morally acceptable. if there is no conceivable evidence then it is reasonable to assume such an act should be considered truly bad.

well i view insanity as a sound mind descended into absurdity , a distrust of reason.animals do not have reason to the extent we do, so can't descend into absurdity to the same extent.

killing is not necessarily immoral, the reason for the killing can be, so killing babies for the fun of it is immoral.i expect that some nazis may have argued differently given the spirit of their age.

[Peter Grant]

In the sense that we are all human, we all evolved under similar conditions and we all have similar wants and needs. The fact that we are able to effectively communicate ideas with each other means we both have common ground with which to work.

Which means that we have similar wants and needs and can talk about those. As soon as we start to talk about 'good' we seem to get wildly different answers, so how can we be sure that such a thing exists?

I find it hard to believe that we would get such different answers, do you approve of the girl's killing in the example you gave?

I don't think it's obvious to me. Nor do I have any reason to think that such behaviour is somehow incompatible with a 'true' model of the universe. Unless I have some adequate grounds for thinking that their view of what is 'good' is incorrect, I have no basis for claiming that either their model of the universe of their self-image is somehow flawed.

We have many scientific and rational reasons for claiming that their view of the universe is incorrect. Any outsider who did not share their warped view of reality would naturally judge such behaviour as morally wrong. They themselves would behave differently if their models changed.

And surely they would draw the same conclusions about your warped view of reality. Here is a possible framework for their decision:

Those in the society share a similar want to be well-regarded by the other members of the society. In the society - free relations between unmarried men and women are generally perceived as the source of much disruption to society and are therefore frowned on. Behaviour by the members of a family reflect on the opinions formed about the head of that family. The members of a man's family and indeed the whole community therefore seek to minimise such behaviours by eliminating those who engage in them. This sets an example to others and restores the families reputation in the community.

What is warped about this view of reality and how do you know that it is warped?

Because it is obvious to anyone who does not share their warped view of reality that the punishment in no way fits the "crime". In order to justify such vicious murder, and the obvious suffering it caused the girl, they would have to harbour some delusional belief in their own racial superiority or that they were performing God's will, or, more probably, both.

First you say that what matters is 'self-image' but then you say a bully's self-image is 'unrealistic' because others don't agree. In which case, what matters is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself (i.e. reputation and not self-image). Why is the bully's behaviour not justified by the 'good' that results for him?

I did discuss this earlier in the topic. It has been postulated, rather convincingly I think, that self-image evolved from a need to predict the behaviour of others. We cannot access other's internal motivations, but we can observe our own and use these observations, together with our observations of the real world, to build a complex model of ourselves. The more accurate this model the greater the evolutionary advantage our ancestors would have had. Evolution is blind, however, and could not foresee that we might one day judge our own models with the same moral criteria we judge others.

I don't see how this answers the question. You said we should be good because we have to 'live with ourselves'. The bully is behaving in a way that he thinks is good and is quite happy living with the result. On what grounds do you call his behaviour 'not good'? I don't see how it matters where self-image came from. Whatever role evolution has played, it has produced the bully's behaviour as much as it has produced your condemnation of him. I have still not seen a reason to call his behaviour 'not good'?

You seem to be consistently saying that if someone is happy engaging in a behaviour that you don't like they must somehow have a 'warped' worldview? Yet I have yet to see any grounds for this conclusion.

By 'live with ourselves' I meant in both reality and our own minds. The bully will be perceived as a bully by others no matter how much he bluffs himself. Depending on how much he bluffs himself, he will impair his ability to function in normal society. He may just have fewer friends or he might end up in jail depending on the severity of his delusion.

Yes, provided you first take the time to critically evaluate your own self-image, ensuring the model is as realistic as possible.

You seem to be adding criteria. Why should my 'self-image' be realistic? What is a realistic self-image? Why is a positive self-image not enough?

The same reason all your other internal models of the universe should be realistic. They assist you in functioning in the real world. Of what use is an inaccurate map?

If your goal was 'usefulness' then an inaccurate map might be a problem. If your goal was 'beauty' it might not matter so much. If you wanted to give it to someone else to lead them the wrong way, an inaccurate map would be perfect. You stated that we should be good in order to maximise our self-image. Now you are saying that 'functioning in the real world' is some kind of higher criteria than self-image. On what grounds? If this criteria is used to decide what is good, might it not have some rather different behavioural implications?

Functioning effectively in the real world requires a realistic self-image. Moral behaviour is a side-effect of having a self-image that is realistic enough to function effectively.

Here is my response to aesthetics:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=63834#p1523463

[RaspK]

ok, moral inhibition in the sense you use it is healthy.

to show constraint in regard to how one thinks and acts is recognition of there being a right way to act.

Or simply some actions that are wrong.

obviously some people may have the wrong conception of what is the right way to act, these people we can call deluded.

Mostly agreed.

if killing babies for fun is not to be considered objectively bad, then it is only fair to ask for an exact circumstance where such an act is morally acceptable. if there is no conceivable evidence then it is reasonable to assume such an act should be considered truly bad.

The problem lies with "objective" and "bad:" "objective" means that which is agreed by all without any basis on a subjective feeling, which is why it is a pretty problematic term in regard to morals, as not all of them are agreed on by the entirety of the human species (even if we choose to reduce the point of view to humanity); whether an act is reprehensible or not, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter...

Still, I concede that actions should be criticised on a case by case basis, and this seems universally agree upon.

well i view insanity as a sound mind descended into absurdity , a distrust of reason.animals do not have reason to the extent we do, so can't descend into absurdity to the same extent.

Hm... I am not sure this is a very good way to view things (especially considering plausible evolutionary change).

killing is not necessarily immoral, the reason for the killing can be, so killing babies for the fun of it is immoral.i expect that some nazis may have argued differently given the spirit of their age.

Indeed, it is my sentiment that no action, unless explicitly defined, can be categorised as immoral. What you say here seems to be as good a case as any, though I'd argue it applies to killing others for fun, period.

[epepke]

Really? A quick look at society doesn't indicate that there are large numbers of people that regularly choose behaviours that you would consider not to be 'good'? If they regularly choose such behaviours, what makes you assume they want to be 'good' in the way that you are thinking of it? What about other societies?

Hey, Peter. I came back to this thread because you asked. I was going to write a big screed, but I did some Google searching to find some supporting evidence for what I thought. I found that someone had already written a book about it. Here: http://books.google.com/books?id=aIXqOQ ... t#PPA25,M1

[Peter Grant]

Really? A quick look at society doesn't indicate that there are large numbers of people that regularly choose behaviours that you would consider not to be 'good'? If they regularly choose such behaviours, what makes you assume they want to be 'good' in the way that you are thinking of it? What about other societies?

The above is not my quote.

[Peter Grant]

Been Googling and the closest I can find to my ego based morality theory is Why should I admire the moral law? by Alexandre Johan, the Bronze medal winner of the 2007 International Philosophy Olympiad. Here is an excerpt:

At this point Kant needs help of a French philosopher, who is actually a famous oponnent of his ethics: Jean Paul Satre. From the idea that there is no God he developed his atheist existenzialism: Neither what man is nor what man should is determined until man dertermines it. By his actions every individuum makes up a self-image and determines what he or she is and should. But this selfimage also suggests an image of mankind.

We can see that this close to the kategorical imperative, but does not claim objectivity. To defend the moral law it is necessary to combine Kant`s objecitivity with Satre`s idea of making up a self-image: To suggest an image of mankind by a self-image, which is made by actions, whose maximes cannot be universial laws, just makes no sense. What is unreasonable as an universial law; can not be part of an image of mankind suggested by a reasonable being. We can conclude that making up a self-image and an image of mankind is at least partly a reasonable and objective process.

If someone insitis in denying to admire the universial law, we can not only tell him that in this way he is neither reasonable nor free, but we can say that he created an inferior image of him-self. By the moral law man is free. If you don’t admire is, your self-image is the image of a slave. By the moral law man is an end in itself and has dignity. If you don`t admire it, you are a mean, which can be replaced by other means. Only masochists can want such a self-image and this special case is an object of psychological reflection rather than of philosophical reflection.

[sparky94]

Which means that we have similar wants and needs and can talk about those. As soon as we start to talk about 'good' we seem to get wildly different answers, so how can we be sure that such a thing exists?

I find it hard to believe that we would get such different answers, do you approve of the girl's killing in the example you gave?

Firstly, my answer to that question would not mitigate the fact that massively different answers to what 'good' is exist as the example demonstrates.

Secondly, even if there is overlap in the assessment of a particular behaviour, this does not mean that 'good' is the same for two people. A communist and an objectivist may agree that it is wrong to kill a working class person but the 'good' that they are each trying to achieve is significantly different.

Because it is obvious to anyone who does not share their warped view of reality that the punishment in no way fits the "crime". In order to justify such vicious murder, and the obvious suffering it caused the girl, they would have to harbour some delusional belief in their own racial superiority or that they were performing God's will, or, more probably, both.

I have already given you the basis of their belief - the importance of maximising your reputation in the community. Why is this not a valid 'good'?

I still see little more effective argument than calling people who disagree with you as holding a 'warped view of reality' without any basis in fact.

By 'live with ourselves' I meant in both reality and our own minds. The bully will be perceived as a bully by others no matter how much he bluffs himself. Depending on how much he bluffs himself, he will impair his ability to function in normal society. He may just have fewer friends or he might end up in jail depending on the severity of his delusion.

But it isn't a delusion. He thinks well of himself and that was the basis you gave for directing how he should behave. You didn't mention 'societal opinion' or 'the number of friends' or 'the law'. None of these things change the 'reality' that his self-image is just fine. It seems to me that you are repeatedly assuming that 'good' is what you happen to think it is and that this is the behaviour that will be 'approved' by society. I have already given you an example of a society that approves a behaviour that you do not think is good. That the 'bullying' of a young girl to death was in fact seen as 'good' by the society. In their case, a father may have been able to live better with himself by not stoning his daughter to death but the 'reality' of the society he was living in, forced him to do it. It seems that you need to choose between 'self-image' and 'societal image'. These are not the same things and will result in significantly different behaviours as being 'good'.

Functioning effectively in the real world requires a realistic self-image. Moral behaviour is a side-effect of having a self-image that is realistic enough to function effectively.

1. You continue to assume a particular definition of 'good' without giving any reasons why this should be so. Anyone that disagrees with this, you describe as having a 'warped' view of reality without giving any reasons why it should be thought of as warped.
2. You assume that society will approve of this 'good' and hence any person behaving according the societal norm will be thought well of by the society. If they then think the same of themselves, their self-image is 'real'. If not, it is 'warped'. But we have seen that whole societies that function based on entirely different behavioural norms that you do not think of as good and individuals that have positive self-images even when society thinks that they shouldn't.

I don't think you have given a convincing explanation either of what 'good' is, or why we should behave that way.

[Peter Grant]

Which means that we have similar wants and needs and can talk about those. As soon as we start to talk about 'good' we seem to get wildly different answers, so how can we be sure that such a thing exists?

I find it hard to believe that we would get such different answers, do you approve of the girl's killing in the example you gave?

Firstly, my answer to that question would not mitigate the fact that massively different answers to what 'good' is exist as the example demonstrates.

Secondly, even if there is overlap in the assessment of a particular behaviour, this does not mean that 'good' is the same for two people. A communist and an objectivist may agree that it is wrong to kill a working class person but the 'good' that they are each trying to achieve is significantly different.

Nevertheless these overlaps in assessment do exist. Internationally these types of acts are generally condemned, that's one of the reasons we hear about them.

When dealing with the behaviour of an evolved organism the only motivation one can ascribe to it, or rather it's genes, is survival. One has to ask, how would this behaviour increase its chances of survival? The areas of "overlap in the assessment of a particular behaviour" seen thus are simply the most successful strategies, whatever the motivation behind them might be. Evolution has equipped us with moral computers that enable us to function in whatever society we are born into based on information we absorb growing up in that society. For the purposes of this discussion I am simply assuming that we all want to be good, however good may be defined.

Because it is obvious to anyone who does not share their warped view of reality that the punishment in no way fits the "crime". In order to justify such vicious murder, and the obvious suffering it caused the girl, they would have to harbour some delusional belief in their own racial superiority or that they were performing God's will, or, more probably, both.

I have already given you the basis of their belief - the importance of maximising your reputation in the community. Why is this not a valid 'good'?

I still see little more effective argument than calling people who disagree with you as holding a 'warped view of reality' without any basis in fact.

It all depends on how broadly one defines the community. Such actions would not maximise one's reputation in the international community.

An individual with a warped view of reality will still be able to function reasonably effectively in a community with similarly warped views. It only becomes evident that his view is warped when it is contrasted with the views of other societies. It could also be argued that a community's effectiveness as a whole would be impaired by having views that differ too greatly from that of the rest of society.

By 'live with ourselves' I meant in both reality and our own minds. The bully will be perceived as a bully by others no matter how much he bluffs himself. Depending on how much he bluffs himself, he will impair his ability to function in normal society. He may just have fewer friends or he might end up in jail depending on the severity of his delusion.

But it isn't a delusion. He thinks well of himself and that was the basis you gave for directing how he should behave. You didn't mention 'societal opinion' or 'the number of friends' or 'the law'. None of these things change the 'reality' that his self-image is just fine. It seems to me that you are repeatedly assuming that 'good' is what you happen to think it is and that this is the behaviour that will be 'approved' by society. I have already given you an example of a society that approves a behaviour that you do not think is good. That the 'bullying' of a young girl to death was in fact seen as 'good' by the society. In their case, a father may have been able to live better with himself by not stoning his daughter to death but the 'reality' of the society he was living in, forced him to do it. It seems that you need to choose between 'self-image' and 'societal image'. These are not the same things and will result in significantly different behaviours as being 'good'.

Yes it is. Society doesn't like bullies. The whole point of a self-image is to predict other people's responses. If the bully is unable to predict society's responses then this self-image is unrealistic and he is deluded.

The murder of the young girl may have been seen as justified by the community in which she lived but it was still condemned by society in general

Functioning effectively in the real world requires a realistic self-image. Moral behaviour is a side-effect of having a self-image that is realistic enough to function effectively.

1. You continue to assume a particular definition of 'good' without giving any reasons why this should be so. Anyone that disagrees with this, you describe as having a 'warped' view of reality without giving any reasons why it should be thought of as warped.
2. You assume that society will approve of this 'good' and hence any person behaving according the societal norm will be thought well of by the society. If they then think the same of themselves, their self-image is 'real'. If not, it is 'warped'. But we have seen that whole societies that function based on entirely different behavioural norms that you do not think of as good and individuals that have positive self-images even when society thinks that they shouldn't.

I don't think you have given a convincing explanation either of what 'good' is, or why we should behave that way.

OK I will break down my argument into points to try and determine what the main assumptions are:

- In a human society certain types of behaviour will be more effective than others.
- Evolution has equipped us with the ability to create models of ourselves in order to predict which types of behaviour will be more effective.
- These models are based on how we observe and interpret reality.
- The more realistic this model, the more accurate predictions based on it will be.
- We each have our own personal concept of good based on our own needs and desires.
- We use this concept to judge the behaviour of both ourselves and others.
- Behaviour which is more frequently judged as good will thus be more effective.
- Individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those with less realistic ones.
- Societies comprised of individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those comprised of individuals with less realistic ones.
- These individuals and the societies they are part of will tend to behave more morally and more generally be considered good.

[RaspK]

- In a human society certain types of behaviour will be more effective than others.
- Evolution has equipped us with the ability to create models of ourselves in order to predict which types of behaviour will be more effective.
- These models are based on how we observe and interpret reality.
- The more realistic this model, the more accurate predictions based on it will be.
- We each have our own personal concept of good based on our own needs and desires.
- We use this concept to judge the behaviour of both ourselves and others.
- Behaviour which is more frequently judged as good will thus be more effective.
- Individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those with less realistic ones.
- Societies comprised of individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those comprised of individuals with less realistic ones.
- These individuals and the societies they are part of will tend to behave more morally and more generally be considered good.

1. Agreed, with some difference in their success depending on the circumstances, e.g. what can be afforded.
2. Indeed, that seems to be the case, as an extension of the ability to judge the possibility of success.
3. Quite so, though it should be pointed out that subjectivity skews our perception.
4. Of course.
5. That is correct; Machiavelli is a good example of this aspect of mentality, as are Malthusian economics.
6. Most assuredly.
7. Not necessarily: if subjective criteria creep in, there may be some false reading.
8. Generally speaking, of course.
9. Indeed.
10. I think that may be so, but I can always be shown to be incorrect.

A matter of some import is that an otherwise realistic society can be fatally unrealistic in some aspect, e.g. be too pacifistic in a world rife with the drums of war.

[Peter Grant]

Not necessarily: if subjective criteria creep in, there may be some false reading.

Thanks RaspK I was worried about something but I wasn't able to pin it down exactly.

I forgot to take into account the selective pressure there could also be for behaviours that are generally judged as neutral, neither good nor bad. Instead of:

- Behaviour which is more frequently judged as good will thus be more effective.

It should read:

- Behaviour which is less frequently judged as bad will thus be more effective.

Does this take care of the subjectivity? I mean if you look at it like this then the subjective good can be seen as an environmental variable that evolution would take into account when selecting model building brains.

[Peter Grant]

OK since there have been no further arguments, so far, I would like to expand the theory a little more:

We all have what I would call a moral ability. By this I mean that evolution has equipped us all with the ability to make moral decisions based on the accuracy of our internal models. This moral ability I will assume is universal or near universal. The accuracy of our internal models will be determined by two things. Firstly by the the individual's model making ability, and secondly by the quality of information he is provided with on which to base his model. The first could possibly be improved with special teaching methods, but it is the second on which I wish mainly to focus. If an individual is systematically provided with incorrect information on which to base his self-model then it is bound to be inaccurate. In programming terms: garbage in, garbage out. If you tell a child that he is special because God loves him, that he belongs to a superior race or tribe, or that scientists are wrong and the earth is only 6000 years old, then you are warping his self-image and not only impairing his ability perform as an effective member of society but also his ability to make moral judgements about his own and other's actions. I think that this is the worst moral wrong (or sin if you'd rather) that one can commit, especially if it is done knowingly.

I'd love to hear some of your thoughts, I see lots are reading but no responses.

Here is the basis for the whole argument again. I really want to be sure that I'm right about this, so please try your best to disprove the below:

- In a human society certain types of behaviour will be more effective than others.
- Evolution has equipped us with the ability to create models of ourselves in order to predict which types of behaviour will be more effective.
- These models are based on how we observe and interpret reality.
- The more realistic this model, the more accurate predictions based on it will be.
- We each have our own personal concept of good based on our own needs and desires.
- We use this concept to judge the behaviour of both ourselves and others.
- Behaviour which is less frequently judged as bad will thus be more effective.
- Individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those with less realistic ones.
- Societies comprised of individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those comprised of individuals with less realistic ones.
- These individuals and the societies they are part of will tend to behave more morally and more generally be considered good.

[Peter Grant]

Any other thoughts?

[biorays]

OK since there have been no further arguments, so far, I would like to expand the theory a little more:

We all have what I would call a moral ability. By this I mean that evolution has equipped us all with the ability to make moral decisions based on the accuracy of our internal models. This moral ability I will assume is universal or near universal. The accuracy of our internal models will be determined by two things. Firstly by the the individual's model making ability, and secondly by the quality of information he is provided with on which to base his model. The first could possibly be improved with special teaching methods, but it is the second on which I wish mainly to focus. If an individual is systematically provided with incorrect information on which to base his self-model then it is bound to be inaccurate. In programming terms: garbage in, garbage out. If you tell a child that he is special because God loves him, that he belongs to a superior race or tribe, or that scientists are wrong and the earth is only 6000 years old, then you are warping his self-image and not only impairing his ability perform as an effective member of society but also his ability to make moral judgements about his own and other's actions. I think that this is the worst moral wrong (or sin if you'd rather) that one can commit, especially if it is done knowingly.

I'd love to hear some of your thoughts, I see lots are reading but no responses.

Here is the basis for the whole argument again. I really want to be sure that I'm right about this, so please try your best to disprove the below:

- In a human society certain types of behaviour will be more effective than others.
- Evolution has equipped us with the ability to create models of ourselves in order to predict which types of behaviour will be more effective.
- These models are based on how we observe and interpret reality.
- The more realistic this model, the more accurate predictions based on it will be.
- We each have our own personal concept of good based on our own needs and desires.
- We use this concept to judge the behaviour of both ourselves and others.
- Behaviour which is less frequently judged as bad will thus be more effective.
- Individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those with less realistic ones.
- Societies comprised of individuals with more realistic self models will behave more effectively than those comprised of individuals with less realistic ones.
- These individuals and the societies they are part of will tend to behave more morally and more generally be considered good.

Whatever group or individual you are applying this logic to, there happen trials of character, most usually set up by humans as artificial moralities or tests of loyalty (educational/ family/social/tribal/religious/secret society levels). In acquiring kudos, one either sacrifices the rights of self in some way, or the rights of others, in aspiring to tribal promotions. So some moralities evolve, essentially, into criminal tests of ones own loyalties, as well as the virtuous - the extent to which one will go to gather kudos from the collective and so be relied upon to do its will. Ironically such is often true of not only criminal gangs but respected and legal collectives. We could refer to these promotions as egocentric rewards for egoic pursuits of the self or group. Morality soon devolves into just that - a self appraisal by the individual or group respecting behaviors they have come to deem most moral or essential to their lifestyle. Many are inherited. We may include religion in this - have to in fact. We have multigenerational ego. It imposes on others its irrationality. We have conflict. We have emergence and evolution of whatever is most prolific and reproducible. And I wonder to what extent this cycle has occurred before, which we remain ignorant of due its long time period, but which we are more aware of the detail of due our education, though reaching a convergence on potential catastrophe for the same reasons?

Therefore we have concentric circles of ego, based upon individual, group, species and multigenerational dimensions, which are all diffusing their increasing awarenesses, at a seemingly exclusively human consciousness level, into one another's circles of reproduction, whilst competing and absorbing with others surrounding systems. A kind or multi-egocentric evolutionary osmosis of morality - again exclusively respecting humans.

[Bling]

I'm not sure if I understand this right. By 'rational system' do you mean an external one? If I developed the system myself, would I be relinquishing responsibility?

It would be external. I'm mainly talking about a Kantian deontology, however, where 'reason' fills this gap. I'm not suggesting that this is the case for everyone - just the people who without any critical review lean towards one moral system. A moral conviction is a good term, methinks.

So, with a subjective system, based on my self-image, which is modeled from my interactions with others, I get to be moral and responsible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUjLiLiriA

If you have time this chap is worth a listen. He helps define what egoic experience may be defined as - no easy thing! He separates egos which seek desire from those which seek pain and suggests they are separate entities within each of us apart from the true self of who we all are - which he seems to suggest to be at one with all life and nature - another mind bending concept since many contradictions can arise around such a suggestion.

You may discover more questions than answers!

I eventually downloaded it, slow connection today. Can't say I'm overly impressed by the chap in the video. He twitches a lot and keeps on about things called pain bodies. I Googled the term and couldn't find anything that didn't also mention stuff like "cellular memory release" or "energy fields". Do you have a link to anything a bit less esoteric?

Pain bodies? What is that, is this person a psychologist? People don't necessarily watch stuff because it gives them pain, it also gives them pleasure as we all know. What is the basis? I found him really strange , in fact quite weird and nothing to do with the subject. Certainly not psychology.

[biorays]

Pain bodies? What is that, is this person a psychologist? People don't necessarily watch stuff because it gives them pain, it also gives them pleasure as we all know. What is the basis? I found him really strange , in fact quite weird and nothing to do with the subject. Certainly not psychology.

I think this guy is actually pretty advanced at some of his classifications of human thought.

Take the second you are in! Clear all thoughts! There is only ever the second you are in unless you allow the mind to wonder beyond this - future, anticipation, expectation etc OR pasts, regrets, inhibitions, memories good and bad etc.

If you have a pain body/bodies (Likely everyone) - it is that character of your consciousness that allocates thinking to its regrets and becomes dominant in consuming your thinking in controlling much of your future life.

Also we all have ego which likes to do similar things with our consciousness - dominate it - in order to gain kudos/or something it does not already possess.

So pain bodies and ego bodies are characters of our consciousness which are very powerful at controlling our thoughts above and beyond who we really are inside, at our core. Tolle is pretty good at helping with ways of not consciously fighting these 'thinking characters' (You will lose!!) , but becoming aware when they are controlling us. With time this awareness - concentric consciousness - will weaken their power over you.

That's a cryptic view of some of what Tolle is on about!

[Bling]

Pain bodies? What is that, is this person a psychologist? People don't necessarily watch stuff because it gives them pain, it also gives them pleasure as we all know. What is the basis? I found him really strange , in fact quite weird and nothing to do with the subject. Certainly not psychology.

I think this guy is actually pretty advanced at some of his classifications of human thought.

Take the second you are in! Clear all thoughts! There is only ever the second you are in unless you allow the mind to wonder beyond this - future, anticipation, expectation etc OR pasts, regrets, inhibitions, memories good and bad etc.

If you have a pain body/bodies (Likely everyone) - it is that character of your consciousness that allocates thinking to its regrets and becomes dominant in consuming your thinking in controlling much of your future life.

Also we all have ego which likes to do similar things with our consciousness - dominate it - in order to gain kudos/or something it does not already possess.

So pain bodies and ego bodies are characters of our consciousness which are very powerful at controlling our thoughts above and beyond who we really are inside, at our core. Tolle is pretty good at helping with ways of not consciously fighting these 'thinking characters' (You will lose!!) , but becoming aware when they are controlling us. With time this awareness - concentric consciousness - will weaken their power over you.

That's a cryptic view of some of what Tolle is on about!

Hmmm, I don't think he is that enlightening. I believe aspects of psychology, individual psychology, are different at different ages and times. You cannot lump 'psychology' into any sameness. Psychologists have been trying to do that forever and still are not agreed on practically anything.

I don't believe ego bears any relationship to morality or immorality. The egotist in many instances is quite immoral and vice versa.

[biorays]

Pain bodies? What is that, is this person a psychologist? People don't necessarily watch stuff because it gives them pain, it also gives them pleasure as we all know. What is the basis? I found him really strange , in fact quite weird and nothing to do with the subject. Certainly not psychology.

I think this guy is actually pretty advanced at some of his classifications of human thought.

Take the second you are in! Clear all thoughts! There is only ever the second you are in unless you allow the mind to wonder beyond this - future, anticipation, expectation etc OR pasts, regrets, inhibitions, memories good and bad etc.

If you have a pain body/bodies (Likely everyone) - it is that character of your consciousness that allocates thinking to its regrets and becomes dominant in consuming your thinking in controlling much of your future life.

Also we all have ego which likes to do similar things with our consciousness - dominate it - in order to gain kudos/or something it does not already possess.

So pain bodies and ego bodies are characters of our consciousness which are very powerful at controlling our thoughts above and beyond who we really are inside, at our core. Tolle is pretty good at helping with ways of not consciously fighting these 'thinking characters' (You will lose!!) , but becoming aware when they are controlling us. With time this awareness - concentric consciousness - will weaken their power over you.

That's a cryptic view of some of what Tolle is on about!

Hmmm, I don't think he is that enlightening. I believe aspects of psychology, individual psychology, are different at different ages and times. You cannot lump 'psychology' into any sameness. Psychologists have been trying to do that forever and still are not agreed on practically anything.

I don't believe ego bears any relationship to morality or immorality. The egotist in many instances is quite immoral and vice versa.

I'm not contending what he is correct or not about, but that the notion of popularizing 'now' is in some ways the only hypothesis with the potential to eliminate vengeance of personal, national and historical contexts as well as much of the ancient thought processes feeding into each next moment and inhibiting how we each deal with it in the various ways we do - even helping preserve or enhance undesirable outcomes in many instances.

It's with this perspective I observe the potency of some of what he says. Whether or not it's reproducible is another matter altogether. Legal and religious systems harbor deep psychosis respecting 'penalty' OR rational vengeance - in many respects so subjective it is only rational to its followers. And whilst this consciousness prevails as a virtue/justice, there is unlikely ever to be any reduction in conflicts since many are reprisals from previous generations and so enslave the next generation to historical values and differences - including religion. Since litigation, justice and morality are so prevalent as foundations of most societies, and hence elevate 'moral vengeance', vengeance is reproducible and sanctionable at an alarming rate. It is this 'get your own back/ get what you deserve' consciousness which preserves the conflict it seeks to overthrow so that humans, whenever they are able to manufacture a new consciousness and subsequently a new morality, can then impose it on others through whatever means they deem most successful, whether criminal or legal. Whichever way we look at it, it is assisting conflict rather than reducing and dissolving its reproducability. Preserving crime by responding in kind, albeit in arguably more rational responses. I'm sure legal minds have mulled over such conundrums (how to reduce crime and what precipitates it) for millennia and so to them the power of NOW may seem a pleasant but unlikely force for the erasure of pain, conflict and vengeance. In fact its success will put lawyers out of work! And I don't expect them to panic any time soon.

[Bling]

Pain bodies? What is that, is this person a psychologist? People don't necessarily watch stuff because it gives them pain, it also gives them pleasure as we all know. What is the basis? I found him really strange , in fact quite weird and nothing to do with the subject. Certainly not psychology.

I think this guy is actually pretty advanced at some of his classifications of human thought.

Take the second you are in! Clear all thoughts! There is only ever the second you are in unless you allow the mind to wonder beyond this - future, anticipation, expectation etc OR pasts, regrets, inhibitions, memories good and bad etc.

If you have a pain body/bodies (Likely everyone) - it is that character of your consciousness that allocates thinking to its regrets and becomes dominant in consuming your thinking in controlling much of your future life.

Also we all have ego which likes to do similar things with our consciousness - dominate it - in order to gain kudos/or something it does not already possess.

So pain bodies and ego bodies are characters of our consciousness which are very powerful at controlling our thoughts above and beyond who we really are inside, at our core. Tolle is pretty good at helping with ways of not consciously fighting these 'thinking characters' (You will lose!!) , but becoming aware when they are controlling us. With time this awareness - concentric consciousness - will weaken their power over you.

That's a cryptic view of some of what Tolle is on about!

I sort of get what you are saying, not Tolle. Hmmmm I am thinking on it,

[Bling]

Are you are saying in a cryptic manner that when either vengeance and ego - or both - are satisfied, then that person feels they have "won" and feel morally right?

Hence, if this thought process were to be eliminated, we would have good people with high ideals ?