Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#21  Postby Ironclad » Jul 04, 2012 4:34 am

Have you read The Code of Hammurabi, OP?
I imagine long ago we all kept reasonable morals & patterns of desirable behaviour, as greater groups gathered it may have been necessary to put chisel to marble, so to speak.
For Van Youngman - see you amongst the stardust, old buddy

"If there was no such thing as science, you'd be right " - Sean Lock

"God ....an inventive destroyer" - Broks
User avatar
Ironclad
RS Donator
 
Name: Nudge-Nudge
Posts: 23925
Age: 52
Male

Country: Wink-Wink
Indonesia (id)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#22  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 04, 2012 5:20 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:How about the idea that people will do whatever the hell they like, as long as they think they can get away with it, and it does not directly harm others.

I imagine that if one knew they could steal something and not get caught, they would do so.

So the rule of 'do not steal' just means, 'do not steal if you think you will get caught'

agree?



Is that how it works for you? Or do you not instead have something like the Silver Rule in your head - don't do unto others what you would not have done to you
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#23  Postby Kenneth-Kaunda » Jul 04, 2012 6:41 am

The ego can always find a reason to justify breaking the Silver Rule though.

for example: how about low pay rates in sweat shops - I'm sure the owner wouldn't happily work for $1/day but he justifies it by saying that 'he provides jobs and looks after his family'
User avatar
Kenneth-Kaunda
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 186

Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#24  Postby I'm With Stupid » Jul 04, 2012 7:06 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:So the rule of 'do not steal' just means, 'do not steal if you think you will get caught'

agree?

No. But obviously it relies on what concept of property you have and what you consider stealing. Is finding something on the floor and taking it for yourself stealing? In modern society, we'd be expected to bring it to the police, but to a caveman, it would just be finding something, hence why people have less of a moral problem with that than snatching a handbag. The difference is that cavemen would generally share stuff, whereas we have this idea that everything (including thoughts written down) is property.
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9632
Age: 36
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#25  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 04, 2012 7:27 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:The ego can always find a reason to justify breaking the Silver Rule though.


I don't think that's true of people who actually consider their actions.


Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:for example: how about low pay rates in sweat shops - I'm sure the owner wouldn't happily work for $1/day but he justifies it by saying that 'he provides jobs and looks after his family'


If he were poor enough to need a job paying $1 a day, I expect he would. I don't think that an exploitative economic situation is an example of breaking the silver rule.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#26  Postby tuco » Jul 04, 2012 7:52 am

To say anything useful about morality of a cavewoman one would need to see one first. Fortunately, there are the so-called primitive tribes we can observe and while I am not familiar with their morality they surely do not bother me.
tuco
 
Posts: 15550

Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#27  Postby Kenneth-Kaunda » Jul 04, 2012 8:55 am

Spearthrower wrote:
If he were poor enough to need a job paying $1 a day, I expect he would.


are you sure about that - I've done some low paid work when I was younger and was far from happy with it.
I don't think that an exploitative economic situation is an example of breaking the silver rule.


why, for heavens not.....what's the difference?

or is the ego sneaking in here............
User avatar
Kenneth-Kaunda
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 186

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#28  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 04, 2012 9:16 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
If he were poor enough to need a job paying $1 a day, I expect he would.


are you sure about that - I've done some low paid work when I was younger and was far from happy with it.


Would you have been happier not earning any money at all? If so, then why did you actually work?


Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I don't think that an exploitative economic situation is an example of breaking the silver rule.


why, for heavens not.....what's the difference?

or is the ego sneaking in here............



What a useful way to detract from people criticising your opinions here.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#29  Postby trubble76 » Jul 04, 2012 9:49 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:How about the idea that people will do whatever the hell they like, as long as they think they can get away with it, and it does not directly harm others.

I imagine that if one knew they could steal something and not get caught, they would do so.

So the rule of 'do not steal' just means, 'do not steal if you think you will get caught'

agree?


It sounds like you disregard the idea of empathy-based morality in prehistoric man, if that's true, why?
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#30  Postby The_Metatron » Jul 04, 2012 10:13 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:How about the idea that people will do whatever the hell they like, as long as they think they can get away with it, and it does not directly harm others.

I imagine that if one knew they could steal something and not get caught, they would do so.

So the rule of 'do not steal' just means, 'do not steal if you think you will get caught'

agree?

I do not.

What are you looking for, really? Some sort of Law-Giver?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#31  Postby Scar » Jul 04, 2012 10:37 am

We are social animals, we work best in groups. Therefore, we evolved the ability to explicitely and implicitely make up rules that help us maintain these groups. These rules are what we call morality.

Not that hard, is it?
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#32  Postby Kenneth-Kaunda » Jul 05, 2012 2:40 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Would you have been happier not earning any money at all? If so, then why did you actually work?


That's just standard right wing cant though.

For sure, I would have needed the job, so accepted a low pay rate.

However, this is still a case of the Silver Rule being broken.

The employer would most certainly not have been happy for working at this rate (otherwise he would be doing so himself).

So we can see from this, that the Silver Rule can be broken whenever self-interest trumps it.

Therefore it is a shallow and ineffective rule.
User avatar
Kenneth-Kaunda
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 186

Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#33  Postby Warren Dew » Jul 05, 2012 4:07 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:How about the idea that people will do whatever the hell they like, as long as they think they can get away with it, and it does not directly harm others.

I imagine that if one knew they could steal something and not get caught, they would do so.

So the rule of 'do not steal' just means, 'do not steal if you think you will get caught'

agree?

Is that how it works for you? Or do you not instead have something like the Silver Rule in your head - don't do unto others what you would not have done to you

What I find weird is the idea that stealing "does not directly harm others". It almost always does.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 5550
Age: 61
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#34  Postby Kenneth-Kaunda » Jul 05, 2012 4:25 am

but people do it if they can justify it.

Look at the recent banking scandal and recession for a start.

how does that factor in?
User avatar
Kenneth-Kaunda
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 186

Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#35  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 05, 2012 6:09 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Would you have been happier not earning any money at all? If so, then why did you actually work?


That's just standard right wing cant though.


:lol:

I don't think I've ever been accused of that before! :cheers:



Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:For sure, I would have needed the job, so accepted a low pay rate.


Precisely. So you were happier taking the job than not taking the job.



Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:However, this is still a case of the Silver Rule being broken.


No, it's not as we've just established.


Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:The employer would most certainly not have been happy for working at this rate (otherwise he would be doing so himself).


Your logic does not follow. Were the employer in the same economic situation as the people he employs, he'd be relatively more happy getting shite pay than starving on the street.



Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:So we can see from this, that the Silver Rule can be broken whenever self-interest trumps it.


Again, this is a non-sequitur, and most assuredly does not follow from the rule itself.


Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:Therefore it is a shallow and ineffective rule.


Or an erroneous reading of it.


What you're effectively saying is that the employer has to pay a higher rate than the local market requires to be morally just in the manner in which he employs people. Were he to do so, his business would go bust, and all those people would stop earning $1 a day. That is until another person stepped in to reopen the business and reemploy those people for $1 a day.

Now, as I already said: this is clearly an exploitative economic scenario, but you are placing the onus on an individual and suggesting that it is the product of a moral failing. It's nowhere near as simple as that.

Let's run an anecdote:

A couple of years back, one of my friends here had to close her small business. Her single employee was left without a job. I offered to have that lady come and clean my house once a week. I did so partly to help out my friend who felt guilty in causing her employee to be out of work, and partly because help cleaning my house would be much appreciated.

The lady came to work at my house on Saturdays. I paid her B300 (around $10USD) for the few hours work she did here including paying for her travel.

So, was I breaking the Silver Rule as you've suggested above? Well, I certainly wouldn't go and spend my Saturdays cleaning someone's house for ten bucks.... but then, my economic situation is quite different. I wouldn't get out of bed for ten bucks. However, if I was on the bread line and desperately in need of cash, I'd have been very grateful for the opportunity and would most certainly have taken that job. The fact is that she worked less than half a day and earned the minimum daily wage for it (at the time it was 317 baht a day in Bangkok).

She had no obligation to work for me other than the demands of paying for her life. Had I not employed her, she would have been B300 a week poorer.

Was I exploiting her or was I providing an opportunity for her to earn money?

I don't think it's quite as simple as you make out, which is why I challenged it on those grounds from the beginning.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jul 05, 2012 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#36  Postby Kenneth-Kaunda » Jul 05, 2012 6:19 am

well we can at least see that subjective opinion has an affect on the interpretation of the rule.

Perhaps this is where God and the Bible comes in handy! ;) (joke)

but anyway, it seems that we can hide behind the rule according to our own personal agenda (like one can with the Bible)
User avatar
Kenneth-Kaunda
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 186

Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#37  Postby The_Metatron » Jul 05, 2012 7:01 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Would you have been happier not earning any money at all? If so, then why did you actually work?

That's just standard right wing cant though. For sure, I would have needed the job, so accepted a low pay rate. However, this is still a case of the Silver Rule being broken. The employer would most certainly not have been happy for working at this rate (otherwise he would be doing so himself). So we can see from this, that the Silver Rule can be broken whenever self-interest trumps it. Therefore it is a shallow and ineffective rule.

I don't know this silver rule to which you keep referring.

As for your low paying job, I call bullshit again. Whatever that job was, you were paid whatever that work was worth. If you didn't do it, someone else would have at that level of pay. You either chose your job poorly, or you lacked a skill set that commands a better wage.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#38  Postby The_Metatron » Jul 05, 2012 7:16 am

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:but people do it if they can justify it. Look at the recent banking scandal and recession for a start. How does that factor in?

Factor into what? Are you touting the example of the bankers who "got away with" whatever they could get away with as some sort of example representative of all humanity?

You know what you're really talking about? Criminals. People who are perfectly happy being immoral or unethical. There do exist two groups of that type of person: those who have been caught, and those who have not yet been caught. Of all the people I've known, the great majority who fit that profile have been religious types.

My guess why is that they have never bothered to actually learn to discriminate between ethical or unethical behavior, or moral and immoral behavior, if you like. They never had to do it. Their concept of morality was spoonfed to them based on some bent concepts from bronze age mythology. These sort of people are ones I do not want for neighbors. The only thing staying their hands from ciminal behavior is fear of supernatural retribution. And, once they figure out that that supernatural retribution is smoke and mirrors, all bets are off. Oh, great.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#39  Postby Warren Dew » Jul 05, 2012 7:25 am

The_Metatron wrote:You know what you're really talking about? Criminals. People who are perfectly happy being immoral or unethical. There do exist two groups of that type of person: those who have been caught, and those who have not yet been caught. Of all the people I've known, the great majority who fit that profile have been religious types.

My guess why is that they have never bothered to actually learn to discriminate between ethical or unethical behavior, or moral and immoral behavior, if you like. They never had to do it. Their concept of morality was spoonfed to them based on some bent concepts from bronze age mythology. These sort of people are ones I do not want for neighbors. The only thing staying their hands from ciminal behavior is fear of supernatural retribution. And, once they figure out that that supernatural retribution is smoke and mirrors, all bets are off. Oh, great.

I thought once they figured out supernatural retribution is smoke and mirrors, they became atheists.
User avatar
Warren Dew
 
Posts: 5550
Age: 61
Male

Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Print view this post

Re: Caveman morality v. Modern day morality - which is correct?

#40  Postby The_Metatron » Jul 05, 2012 8:06 am

You'd think so, wouldn't you?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest