Morality without god

That's where we will disagree.Mainly due to what seems to be that you consider self material (those atoms that make up one's physical self), whereas I self self as an extention or abstraction of "I" to include an object permanence view.I am all that I experience. Everything within my ability to observe is a part of me.Where I see the biggest confusion on your part is that you seem to think that I limit "self" to one's own biological make-up, but it seems that is actually your position.

I do have a morality that is above and beyond myself, it's governed and taught by the society I live in and at its extreme is reinforced by laws. It changes over time and between societies.You know this to be a fact. You haven't explained it at all, the above is simply a bundle of words with no meaning. You have never given an example of what this absolute morality would look like or how it would be applied.As you believe in this super-morality, I want to know, in practical tangible terms, what it actually is and what behaviour it requires of us humans that we don't already do.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I see that altruistic behaviour persists because the individual benefits from its presence in others. The cost of that benefit is being prone to the behaviour yourself. As an organism, we behave like this because it helps the individual survive long enough to breed. (abe; not only to breed but long enough to care for the offspring.) The result is that the species thrives.You are presently the result of your genetic recipe exposed to the environment over time, I agree. That doesn't make you more than your recipe. It is just the result of your recipe running it's course. You have not shown, to my satisfaction, that the self is something more than the product of it's recipe.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

No sure what you mean here, but it seems reasonable to infer that the Self is also expressed collectively in the whole of Humanity.
The Self just like the Collective Unconscious exists metaphysyically if you insist, in the humanity in general, which is already awaiting us at our birth, and is immortal to the extent that it exists after we subtract from its sum and die.

Eli misses the point of brotherhood, as a general brotherly relationship with others in a sane and healthy social environment.If such a human characteristic did not exist, a general sense that we are all brothers, Martin Luther King's appeal to white America would have failed, and MalcomX would have been both the alternative and the the correct argument for changing the social climate in America.That a common sense of brotherhood exists might be seen in the death of 6 Jews in Phila Miss who confront the southern red necks and were buried in the own car.King spoke to America with the implicit idea that one brother would and might lay down his life for the other "brother."
And they did.

I understand brotherhood like anyone can.My brother is a part of me. He further completes me and is a reflection of things I strive to be. He is an extention of mySELF.As a youth, others associated his attributes (best and worst) with me and my best and worst attributes with him. We made decisions with the best consideration for each other.He derides me for my own improvement.I buy his breakfast.And we would both lay down our lives for each other, except for the fact that I have a wife and children and he doesn't.If something were to happen to me, he would do his best to fill many of my roles. That's a basic understanding between brothers.However, I happen to have more fitness than he does. I have a well paying job, I generally fit into society while he doesn't. I am smarter and have a better life plan.In short, my leadership over my children presents a better chance for their success than his leadership would.For that reason, if we were in a position that it was his life or mine, the success of the bloodline would be the deciding factor on who would live. It would be me.I would have to sacrifice me brother, essentially, a part of myself in order to increase the success of my children.If you don't understand that a brother is a part of you, an extention of self, then you have no business saying that its me that doesn't understand brotherhood, nitwit.

So basically you are advocating some sort of dualism whereby the "self" consists of some ethereal non-empirical component.Have you ever heard of the mind-body problem.....? Without our physicality (primarily brains) there is no "I".

Are you as an individual "self" present in me? We might share some genes but we don't share a "self" do we? It makes the self more than just genes. Shared or otherwise. Memories, skills acquired, neural pathways, synaptic arrangements etc. etc. etc.If you said that we (i.e. the "self") are our brains you would be a lot closer to the mark than this silly insistence that sharing copies of the same genes makes us in any way the same "self". You have not shown at all that sharing genes is the same as sharing a "self". It doesn't help the childless individual that selflessly sacrifices itself so that others may live at all. But in the ancestral environment there was a high likelihood that such a sacrifice would result in the ongoing survival of shared genes.So - I'll say it again - Selfish genes can result in individuals with the ability to act in ways which are genuinely personally selfless. No. Selfish genes will lie at the heart of the evolved behaviour. But that doesn't mean individuals are unable to act selflessly.

Without "thou" there is no "I."As far as I am concerned, there is no mind-body problem.

Why? The problem with dualists is that they can't see the problem they have created for themselves.....

Why?"I and Thou" Wiki article:"Buber's main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:
that of the "I" towards an "It", towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience;
and that of the "I" towards "Thou", in which we move into existence in a relationship without bounds.One of the major themes of the book is that human life finds its meaningfulness in relationships. All of our relationships, Buber contends, bring us ultimately into relationship with God, who is the Eternal Thou.Buber explains that humans are defined by two word pairs: "I-It" and "I-Thou".For "I-It," the "It" refers to the world of experience and sensation. I-It describes entities as discrete objects drawn from a defined set (e.g., he, she or any other objective entity defined by what makes it measurably different from other living entities). It can be said that "I" have as many distinct and different relationships with each "It" as there are "It"s in my life. Fundamentally, "It" refers to the world as we experience it.By contrast, the word pair "I-Thou" describes the world of relations. This is the "I" that does not objectify any "It" but rather acknowledges a living relationship."Whatever complaint you have with dualists fails to address the problem that you claim I have, however.Is there a problem? Doubtful, seeing that it affects me to the point I do not know it exists.Typically, problems have real world implications. The only problem I have is my own ego.That's an entendre, of sorts.

I am new to here, nice to see you!

That is all very interesting.But the question here is whether or not selfish genes can result in individuals capable of selfless acts.This has led us down the tangential rabbit hole of defining 'self'. Which has led you to some rather philosophical musings about the meaningfulness of human relationships.But my point is and remains very simple - Sharing copies of genes with others is not the same as sharing a 'self'. So sacrificing one's 'self' (e.g. sacrificing one's life) for others is quite accurately described as 'selfless'.That selfish genes ultimately explain this behaviour doesn't change this. Yes it is. The sacrifice of one's 'self' to save others is selfless practically by definition. Fascinating. But irrelevant.

So you are working on a presumption that there ARE selfish genes.I don't think we can continue until you identify which genes are, in fact, selfish.Again, this all goes back to identity and we need clarification on what contitutes "life."A person's "life" is made up of experiences and people. What you call "self" I call "unique perspective/experience."And, no, sacrificing one's unique experience is not selfless. Breaking up with a girlfriend, moving to a new city, ect. alters the course of one's experience. All actions come with an opportunity cost of all the other things you might have done had you not made a particular choice.Throwing yourself in front of a bullet carries certain assumptions, especially if you believe in an afterlife and believe in a reward/punishment system for selfish and selfless actions.There is some pre-conditioning in our culture that makes such an irrational choice to die for another become rational, and sometimes, preferable.btw, doing things under the assumption that it is the right things AND that that doing right things will be rewarded, by definition, is not selfless.

The ones that have evolved to successfully replicate themselves. Let's cut through this mish-mash of assumptions.Person A is not religious, doesn't believe in an afterlife, doesn't believe in God and expects no reward.Person B is unrelated to person A.Person A gives their life to save person B.In what sense is this anything other than a selfless act?
Are you denying that such acts can and do occur?