Morality without god

Not necessarily instinctual, as I would argue Altruism is inherent and arose gentically as a survival mechanism.This logically follows from the mathematical Game Theory Proofs that won Nash the Noble Prize.To put it simply, the strategy leading to the "best result for you" is frequently, if not always, a much lower probability than the strategy leading to the "best result for the group".And, mathematically, a cost benefit analysis leads to the combination of probability of success with perceived benefit as being highest with an appropriate group strategy rather than the purely individualistic one.Since this a fact, it suggests we have been civilized as one application of that genetic propensity.And, since we gather together in civilization, we have survived remarkably well, considering that we are not only the dominate species but the one now 6.66 Billion in number while a mass extinction of all other species has been in progress for the last century: Its interesting to note that these other species are largely not cooperative nor social animals and by comparison are disappearing as civilization increases.
Not to ignore a reason for the growing extinction is civilization.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

I am the sum of my parts and nothing more. What 'more' are you talking about? Do you mean your personal history and experience? You are saying that my clone is not the same person as me. I agree because my clone is not the same person as me. As a thought experiment, if you ran my genetic recipe twice by going back in time so that everything was identical, don't you think that you would get the same results?So how much of me is me and how much of me is my selfish genes?

Selfish genes can, and do, result in individual gene carriers (aka persons) undertaking selfless acts.Because an individual act of self-sacrifice can facilitate the ongoing survival of genes in the wider social environment.I’m not sure why you persist in denying or quibbling this point?

I understand the point that the genes that lead to altruistic behaviour have become fixed in the population because they have proven beneficial.I don't understand why you make the separation between the genes and the gene carrier. Take, for example, my instinct to protect my children. Do I do that for my benefit or is it just for the benefit of my genes? What about my instinct to breath? Is that my genes manipulating me into serving their purposes or do I actually get something out of breathing? Or my instinct to breed. Is that just my genes making me do something that I don't really want to do?So how much of me is me and how much of me is my selfish genes? And how do you tell the two apart?

Because 2 individual persons can carry the same genes (e.g. twins or clones) whilst not being the same gene carrier (aka "person").And when talking about self-sacrifice we are talking about individual gene carriers (aka "persons") sacrificing themselves for the good of the genes in the wider social environment.So the distinction is rather essential How much of you and the clone of you I have made are the same person? Well the clone I have made of you is only a few days old and it's personality is yet to be shaped in many ways.Yet it carries the same genes as you do.......

The clone example is bogus for reasons previously stated. Let's stick with one individual and it's constituent genes.Say that my selfish genes are urging me to have an affair in an effort to further propagate themselves. Presumably a different bunch of genes is telling me that having an affair is actually a bad idea. Isn't the self just a product of that equation? The self doesn't exist without all of the specific inputs to the equation.

It makes the point that person-hood (i.e. that which can act selflessly) is distinct from genes alone. Because two people with the same genes are not the same person. Which includes the environment that shaped the person through experience. I have absolutely no idea what any of this has to do with the very simple point that selfish genes can lead to genuinely selfless acts by individual gene carriers (aka "persons").I still don't know why you persist in quibbling or denying this

It is the idea that people are capable of using their intelligence to override or "not follow" their instincts and make other decisions based upon alternative motivations.Do all people eat when they are hungry and food is available? Or can this instinct be overridden using our intelligence?
Do all heterosexual people attempt to have sex when they reach adult age and are able to procreate and someone of the opposite sex is within range? Or can this instinct be overridden using our intelligence?If you accept that our intelligence can override our instincts... then it is a logical conclusion that we are capable of performing selfless acts. That would simply be our intelligence overriding our instinct of a selfish act (which you seem to say is our basic instinct). That's a big question.
Sometimes there isn't an answer.
Some people go through their entire lives without even thinking about it.
Some people go through their entire lives without ever using their intelligence to override their instincts.
If you're talking about other people, it is very close to "impossible" to tell. We are unable to read other people's minds.
If you're talking about yourself, it is still sometimes confusing and difficult to tell (sometimes, even "impossible").
But, if you are able to make an honest reflection about your thoughts and motivation for certain actions... then you may be able to identify this sort of thing as selfish or unselfish for some particular actions.(I used quotes around "impossible" so as to imply currently or practically impossible. It may very well be possible... or become possible... to tell the difference with brain scans or some other future-type equipment that is not available yet).Just because an action could be explained through "selfish instincts" doesn't mean a person did not use their intelligence to override that instinct and motivate themselves to do to the action for some other reason... and that other reason may be selfless.But... if you do not think that we are capable of overriding our instincts with our intelligence, then I can understand why you would think it's impossible to commit a selfless action.Note: My definition of "selfless action" does not mean "nothing is gained by the one acting"... but more towards "anything gained by the one acting was not the motivation for the action... the motivation for the action was an attempt for other people to gain certain advantages." Or, in other words, "doing something for others instead of for yourself." It doesn't mean there's nothing in it for you... it just means that's not why you did it.

I enjoyed how your simplified explanation was simply a restating of your original point but with more words included...it actually confused the issue even more! Lol.Now, onto the points, if I can decipher what you are saying... I did state an absolute and objective morality that applies to all species, so I am not sure why you keep bringing up this point. I am not limiting my perception of the moral landscape to simply humanity (although, it is a slightly weighted scale toward humanity, it still applies to all creatures)Bad = Everything on in the Universe feels suffering...This is everything, every plant, animal, bacteria. BAD = Bad for everythingGood = That which causes benefit to all species...this is everything, every plant, animal, bacteria. Good = Good for everything.This is absolute and objective. It includes the animals that you keep claiming I am not including. Both of these absolute ideals are unattainable, such is the case when dealing with absolute morality. We can never alleviate all suffering. Yes, as I have stated multiple times, a morality must be relative! Thou shalt not kill does not mean that in any circumstance thou shalt not kill. Rather, there are certain circumstances where this rule does not apply because the benefit that can be gained is greater than the cost. To claim otherwise is to deny the shades of grey that exist in reality. IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!!!! Only Good and Bad are absolutes and also unattainable. However, this does not affect whether it can be actual or valid. Unattainable doesn't mean not actual, rather it means that we cannot reach it, but we can attempt to make our way upwards in the moral landscape closer to Good. Yep, it is relative and includes all species. However, we must realize that we are not perfect moral creatures. This is why we currently see the evolution of morality starting to incorporate all of humanity and many other species. Are we fully there yet? No, but we are on our way. I have already stated that if a human being sees a flounder on the beach and can release it into the water, the human should do so. This is because it lessens the suffering of a creature, without subtracting benefit from the human. The other species is involved.This is a newer adition to the human mindset of morality and is seen very much in how we treat the conservation of resources now. It is definitely not done evolving and should get to the point where animals are only killed when there is benefit for humanity through the death of the creatures that outweighs the suffering the animals feel. I did include other species.....many times, perhaps you missed the whole entire idea of a suffering-benefit ratio and determining the moral action by that which causes more benefit than the suffering that must be endured. Correct, it applies to my perspective. Yet, the benefit and the suffering do not require my perspective. Whether or not another human being suffers because of lack of food is an objective standard. Whether or not a chicken benefits from easy access to food for up to three years is objective, things like to eat and gain energy. Searching for food is more difficult than having it provided for you. It is tougher to see the suffering-benefit ratio when it comes to the time for the chicken's death, but it still exists. We have a hungry person and a chicken who has lived with all its concerns provided for. The chicken suffers through its death and the benefit is gained by alleviating hunger in the person or persons who eat the meat.If we use God's Absolute standard then we have "Thou Shalt not Kill". For this to be absolute, it means never kill. We could not eat at all since by procuring food we are killing. Whether it is plant or animal it must die so that others might live. Therefore, the absolute method of God falls apart and the relative method of studying suffering-benefit ratio and determining the action that will increase standing in the moral landscape makes more sense.As for why the chicken runs away... they're called chicken, Duh! Have you ever lived with chickens? I have and even when you do not kill them for food, they run away from you. We did not slaughter our chickens and these things would run from me for hours even though my only goal was to feed them.

Because it is like you are saying 'I am innocent because my finger pulled the trigger, it wasn't actually me that pulled the trigger.'I appreciate that we can identify a specific gene that is responsible for causing us to behave in a certain way. I don't understand how you can separate the gene from the carrier. Neither one functions without the other. The person requires all of it's genes to be that person. A gene in a petri dish is not capable of much at all.If my genes are selfish then I am selfish.

This is an important point which we need examine.90% of "you" is unknown to your Conscious mind.
We discovered in the last century that there is a whole spiritual (non-physical/mental) world of the Subconscious at work inside our head.
Those seven Freudian/Jungian archetypes actually instigate and rationalize our behavior, often when we consciously call upon them to "take over.'Like, our sex life is controlled by the Libido.
When a person gives vent to that Subconscious entity, one often is informed of one's own sexual proclivities which had there-to-fore been unknown to themselves, consciously.Consciousness seems logically to be a State-of-Mind which has evolved from the mechanism of Reaction to Fear.Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.During the moment of Fear, the mind is given the overt and clear permission to "think" and choose.I assume that this fear became so generalized in puny man that the State of Mind persisted 24/7.
It is what we now call the Conscious mind.It is really just that State of mind, during which we are gathering information and making decisions about future, i.e.; our reaction projected well ahead of any crisis.But having become so absorbed by this Reaction to Fear, we have given little attention to the whole Phylogenetic aspect of our deep Unconscious mind which, like a third eye, has quietly been observing our experience on earth, and even interjecting thoughts in dreams and more directly at time.
That is the "real" me.To see the immense importance of what I say here, I recommend reading Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior
by Leonard Mlodinow, the best-selling author of The Drunkard’s Walk and coauthor of The Grand Design, with Stephen Hawking. Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: [Rev 2:1], (the sevenfold spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego: [Gen. 28:12-13]): and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance, (this Collective Unconscious mind that reigns over all mankind), was as the sun (of rationality) shineth in his strength (of factual, experiential, previously accumulated, and even secular confirmed knowledge: [Dan 12:3-4]).

At first, it is difficult to get one's mind around this idea, that a person is NOT who the person we identify really is.The person is always one of three States-of-mind.
The person we have all come to recognize as a person is actually the State-of-Fear or Conscious person.It is my suggestion that we examine the self sacrificing Unconscious person that is really emotional and instinctually operating at a particular moment with the motivation found in the common ant, wherein the society of ants is dominant rather that this self center inner world of the moment.John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The real you is a person who makes things up to create an illusion that does not conform to the reality that is external to you.You just said a bunch of nonsense and made appeals to authorities that do not support what you just said. Like you have in other posts.There are no 7 Freudian/Jungian archetypes.Your summation of Libido was ignorant."Subliminal" does not support you.All in all, you are wasting your and everyone else's time pretending to be an intellectual.Why don't you take all this time you have to make poor graphics and to interject nonsense into the bible and actually educate yourself and BECOME a true intellectual rather than making shit up.You don't have to lie to make friends.

I haven't said that at all. What on Earth you talking about? In the context of morality that is way too simplistic. As I have repeatedly pointed out two individual gene carriers with identical genes are not the same person. So person-hood (aka the entity which is able to act selflessly) must be defined by more than genes alone.Are you really saying that person-hood and personal-genome are synonyms? And all of it's environment history. That is what makes each person unique. It is ultimately what makes clones/twins different persons despite having the same genes. Person = Genes + Environment. OK. Obviously. So what? Much much much too simplistic.Your selfish genes have evolved such that the individual gene carrier (aka 'you' in this instance) is perfectly capable of acting in ways which are personally detrimental and selfless because these behaviors facilitated the survival of genes in the wider gene pool in the ancestral environment.Furthermore you have the capacity to selflessly dive on a grenade to save the lives of unrelated children in the same way that you have the capacity to enjoy sexual intercourse whilst using contraceptives. Selfish genes have given you the psychological tools (compassion and lust in the above cases) but don't have to be deployed to meet the intended genetic aim.To deny that individuals can act selflessly because their genes are ultimately "selfish" is like saying you can't enjoy sex with contraception because you genes are ultimately seeking to reproduce themselves. It's silly.People can act selflessly. And at times demonstrably do so.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is a lie. That is also a lie.It is very easy to see when you are lying: you start using the number 7.