There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants. in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired programs. codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing homogeneity for a single specie).
These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are the moral code. These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive. That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared. To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul. What happens a broad variety of moral behaviours are really the expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology "The adapted mind" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a "normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system. Thanks to the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that await a development of evolutionary morals 2012/8/30 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> > On 8/30/2012 11:01 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: > indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus > rational etc. The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we > can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or > more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective. An there is > such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in > particular universal values) where not social facts). > > > That some societies value the education of women and some value their > ignorance are both certainly facts. > > > > Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in > theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of modern > gnosticism, called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases, > that believes possible in a certain future a society with a > perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral > unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a > demiurgic creation of repressive social forces that hinder an era > of Wisdom and Peace.... > > But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian > traditions, but against the theorical basis of the progressive ideology: > the theory of evolution (natural selection). Men are social individuals and > therefore moral is deep in his hardwired (instintive) nature, as multilevel > selection theory can demonstrate. > > > All the above is an example of using 'moral' where 'ethics' would be more > accurate. Morals (standards of self-evaluations) are subjective even > though some of them are hardwired by evolution, ethics are intersubjective > (standards of public, social evaluation) even though some of them are > selected by cultural evolution. > > I would ask Alberto how he defines "morals" and "ethics". Are they > rules? feelings? opinions? what? > > The point is not to separate them, in the sense of eliminating overlap, > but to recognize that ethics and morals are not coextensive and it is often > useful to distinguish them. Many people believe it is immoral not to > worship God in church on Sunday - and as an evaluation of their own > behavoir that's fine. But that doesn't mean it is unethical to think > differently or that public policy should force or encourage church > attendance (as it did in earlier times). > > Brent > > > > So let´s call moral what is: moral. > > 2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> > >> >> On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: >> >> From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me >> recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what >> I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other >> people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself >> if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not >> the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be >> disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. >> >> >> I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. >> Disappointing, yes, but immoral? >> >> BTW: >> I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke >> pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot >> and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early >> morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who >> published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. >> >> As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been >> allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were >> using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. >> >> Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while >> the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, >> because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but >> irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I >> think. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >> Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we >> need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the >> others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in >> the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have >> about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral >> from the beginning.. >> >> 2012/8/29 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> >> >>> But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. >>> That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must >>> be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. >>> Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of >>> subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. >>> Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern >>> sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important >>> to learn to lie. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.