quote:
Have you ever seen two people quarreling? They say things like, "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?" or "That's my seat, I was there first" or "Give me some of your orange, I gave you
some of mine--Come on, you promised!"
Now what is useful about this illustration, is that the man making these statements is not appealing
to his own displeasure at having lost his seat. He is appealing to an external standard of conduct,
that the other fellow should know about. But it gets even stranger.
The other fellow doesn't say, "To h--- with your standard!" Usually, he tries to explain why what he
is doing does not really go against the standard. Or that if it does there is some special excuse. He
pretends there is a special reason why the other person who got up can't claim the chair anymore.
Or that the promised bit of orange shouldn't really count, because it was under extenuating
circumstances (if he's a verbose chap!).
I replied previoulsy, and somewhat flippantly, but the point I
think needs to be raised is that the above view of human conduct
is intensely niave.
One can only assume that the poster has led a somewhat sheltered
life.
In an argument over a seat, for example, it is unlikely that
the usurper would raise an objection based upon some standard
of behaviour ... more likely the reply would be something
uprintable. Where I come from we sometimes use the joking
euphemism 'Go forth and multiply' (if you see what I mean).
The behaviour of even supposedly civilised, westerners can be
extremely base ... suggesting that morality is externally imposed
by society rather than anything inherent in the human animal.
Morality stems from the need to control the masses, nothing more.
Moses brought down the ten commandments because he had an unruly
mob of ex-slaves to control ... and as an Egyptian educated
individual he would likely have known a lot about political
and religious manipulations. Church imposed moral notions
most likely have similar intent.
™ Version 4.2