What are ethics?   Ethics are a subset of heuristics for desision making.  The subset consists of decisions that affect other sentient beings.  Many decisions don't (should I drink water now or later) but some do (should I steal this motorbike).

The moon has no ethics.  Algae probably has no ethics.  Mice have limited ethics, generally related to how their decisions affect fellow mice.

Ethics are mostly hardwired into you when your brain developed, and they were determined genetically. If we didn't have this hardwiring, the cost of thinking through a decision would be overwhelming (the game theory is incredibly deep) putting you at a huge survival disadvantage. But ethics can be learned from society (necessary adaptation!) and also consciously chosen. Although I'd argue that we have far less ability to consciously choose our ethics than we think we do.

Because ethics come in part from society, children have big wide openings in their underdeveloped ethical systems. Children will often believe that stealing, murdering, cheating, etc, might be the smartest move. It takes parents and/or life experience to discover this is almost always incorrect.  Some adults have "arrested development" and continue to operate with under-developed ethics. These people tend to be in and out of the prison system. We could argue about whether this is genetic or developmental or environmental or societal, but that would make this post far too long and more controversial than I was intending it to be.

The ethics that a Christian has and the ethics that an athiest has are different:

1. Athiests don't believe there is any ethics to praying, going to church, or paying tithe to the local minister, keeping the sabbath, not eating pork, or any other god-given rules from a god they don't believe exists, wherein the rule is esoteric and doesn't affect their fellow sentient beings.

2. Athiests feel it is unethical to disrespect the non-standard sexuality of a person, whether homosexual or transgender, whereas Christians appear to believe it is unethical to have non-standard sexuality in the first place.

3. When it comes to treating others with the "golden rule", the ethical systems are virtually identical, except:

4. Religious people have some carve outs for stealing and murdering (as evidenced by Israel).

If I have a choice of dealing with an atheist or a theist, I feel safer dealing with the atheist.

I've heard some Christians who believe the world would be much worse if it were not for Christians. That without Christianity, people would partake in all kinds of activities they feel are unethical:  stealing, cheating, murdering, etc.  But if it is only your religion that prevents you from doing those things, that frightens me. I would *hope* you were born with (and developed) ethics that prevent you from doing those things just because they feel very wrong. So for people who think they would benefit from harming others, please keep going to church!

I don't know any Palestinians. I don't think I even know any Arabs. And yet I feel great empathy towards Palestinian women and children and doctors and aid workers when they die. If atheist's ethics were only selfish, I wouldn't feel like this.


Yeah I agree ethics are hardwired for survival to be part of a group.  Yes I’d agree on the words “game theory” are a good way to frame it.

What do you think of Ayn Rand and Objectivism? With objective morality


I read Atlas Shrugged and came away with the distinct impression that she is confused. Very firm and certain in her confused beliefs.

Like she was 90% there I think, and the 10% she didn't understand was so fundamentally different from her line of thinking that she could find and fix it.... it was foundationally wrong.

This reply is my impression of my feelings on objectivism. I haven't thought about it in years, so it would be hard to explain how I think she was wrong.


I don't think morality is objective. I don't think it is absolute. Sam Harris does though. And argues for Israel killing Palestinians under his "my morals are absolute" rubrik, which would be funny if it wasn't so murderous.

There are three levels of moral relativism, so I need to be clear.

Descriptive: Of course this is true. People have different opinions about ethics. Nobody even argues this.
Meta-ethical: I believe this too. I don't believe in "right" and "wrong". I think those are high-level abstractions, outputs from the circuitry, not fundamental aspects of morality.
Normative: I don't believe this. Normative moral relativists believe that because different people have different ideas about what is right and wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of people with different moral systems.  I say nuts to that - fight for your own!


if i had to choose between adherent of Christianity or Woke-ism i would kill both of them.

Christianity basically says - maximize all suffering on earth and be rewarded for this in afterlife.

Woke-ism basically says - destroy all that is beautiful and good and be rewarded for this by the communist party and / or your Jewish professor.

there is no arguing with either group.  they should just all be killed.


Christians brag about how many children they raised, even though none of those children asked to be born, and every single one will die.

Woke-ists brag about how many abortions they had, claiming that a fetus is "their body" and "their rules"

neither Christians nor Woke-ists are actually able to consider the suffering they are causing.  all they do is virtue signal.

sadly it is not physically possible for an ethical race to exist, because it would instantly go extinct.

a Woke-ist race will also go extinct, of course, despite being unethical ... but i am not sure that is a bad thing ...


Ethics has nothing to do with religion and everything with your upbringing.


You could argue that religion plays a role in the upbringing.


Then genetics barges in like the kool aid man, OH YEAH!


I've written papers on this topic. You are correct on both counts nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac .

Geographic and linear birth determine religiosity. Christianity has survived and thrived due to the medieval architecture that survived and the remnant priesthood that had to be maintained. Earlier religions did not have these reasons to continue.

If you were born in India you would grow up believing in Ganesh or another of the many gods. If you were born in Scandinavia you grew up with a belief in Odin, ect.


Followed.

I hope to hear more intelligent conversation like this from you Mike.


It’s insanely complex, yet simple. Appreciate the teachings of the masters: Jesus, Buddha, Laozi, Mohammad, etc. it’s all the same message, but govt (groupthink) creates a distortion. We’re all uno 🫂


AS was purely a fiction but I think Ayn did relate to Dagny Taggert in a personal way, but it was a misplaced relationship as she in no way resembled Dagny in real life.

As a work of fiction it was poorly written and yet still resonated.


Well, Jesus was a fictional creation of the Romans to pacify the Jewish uprisings in the time of the Maccabees; much of the Buddha story is fantasy as well as Mohammed (a known pedophile), but still you are on the right track of thinking for yourself.


I have no idea. They’re all dead and much time has passed. The value of the lessons learned is still alive.


The value and the horrid aftermath of their ideas real or imagined is still alive.

A bit of research into why Jesus was created by the Romans is a good start.


A huge amount of it is, indeed.  I'd argue their are probably genetic components, but I would never go so far as to indite people based on their race. I don't think any genetically coded ethics are "wrong" enough for that anyways. But nostr:npub1nshq4pcyzdmnewg4h8yu6tsuh5t72whzkz5x4wj7t0c0cy7yyrfqq2cgnl would probably take the other side of that argument.


How do you know?


Yes and then the Jesus story which pacified the Jews contained the element that the Jews plotted against and killed Christ, and so that story resulted in the murder of a hell of a lot of Jews by Christians in revenge during the first and second centuries (IIRC, it was a long time ago).


It is in the thousand page soliloquies that you get a sense for her morality. And much of it is very standard American Libertarian, which I mostly agree with. But then she attempted to take the ideas to a higher plane, to some unifying principles or something, and I think the attempt failed.

But I don't know for sure. I didn't read the fountainhead; I don't have her more direct statements on objectivity.


Start here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2BoKyy7yDs


Appreciate it my friend. It’s too complex to address in text feeds, but I enjoy the constructive conversation 🫂 💜


I identify with your perspective, however you conflate christian religion with christianity. Religion is what you get when grifters try to "save" people by collecting a tithe and form a government and law to "make them christian." The role of religion is to preserve and transmit the good news, but its also a snare for those that don't recieve the good news and instead make the promulgator into an idol.
Regardless, i don't think the golden rule is learned, instead i believe its a rationalization of the empathy instinct. This is what is meant by the Law is written in men's hearts.

Rom 2:14-15 KJV For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)


it isn't so much a matter of race as character.  my father is a Sadist and i am not.  we are the same race.

i do think that Asians are on average less ethical than Europeans and Africans on average less intelligent and more impulsive ...

but i would rather hang out with an average African or Mongol than my father and it's not even close.

it's the same as any other trait.  some races are taller than others and yet there are Chinese Giants and Icelandic Midgets.

once you know you're dealing with a sadist though do not kid yourself and think there is any right approach that can be found in dealing with them.

character trumps everything.

my sadist father ONLY smiles and laughs when he is hurting somebody or reminiscing how he hurt somebody.  he is visibly in pain whenever anybody is happy.  and he actually cried when i told him that he will soon not be able to hurt anybody anymore because he will have alienated everybody.

when i analyze people the first and last thing i ask myself is whether they enjoy the pain of others.


Wow I just learned so much about you there. Makes perfect sense.

The racial trait I see that is most strongly genetic is 'drive'.  I bought a "high drive" german shepherd puppy. The breeder knew it was "high drive" and warned me. Other german shepherd lines are not high drive.  Clearly it is genetic in this line of dogs.  I see Ashkenazi as high drive and Jamacians as low drive, and I think that explains a ton of things. These Jews not only are wealthier and hard working, they are also never satisfied.  Whereas Jamacians can't even be bothered to build a proper house for themselves, but are always very satisfied with life, kicking back on the beach in the good weather and smoking the ganga.  Who is to say one is better than the other? They aren't better or worse. I feel sympathy for the Jews never able to be satisfied, but also for the Jamacians when the storms roll in. Hell, I even feel sympathy for the woke idiots who insist these two races have the same drive and I'm a racist asshole for pointing out the obvious, because they can never be happy either.


there is Instinct, Causality, Intelligence and what Noah Yuval Harari calls "stories" ( religion, morality, philosophy etc. )

Instinct and Causality are fixed.  We can't change the fact that men want to rape women or that everybody who is born also dies.  Intelligence varies from individual to individual and group to group.  Stories are altogether very different in different groups, yet some elements are common.

The two main stories that Israelis are based on are Holocaust and being God's chosen.  Both total BS.  But stories usually are.  the Christian story is about Jesus and Immaculate Conception and all that, and the Woke-ist story is about Polar Bears, Fauci, George Floyd and other BS.

So really all stories are BS and all instinct is Animalistic or Tribal at best.  Nothing special about religions - it's just one story.

Assuming the instinct isn't broken ( it's broken in Sadists and Sociopaths ) then it's just down to intelligence.  People of low intelligence will take Stories to absurd extremes whereas the intelligent will only use stories to blend into the society without taking them seriously.

Suffering is ultimately caused either by broken instinct or insufficient intelligence, whereas all stories are shit.


Yes, and so now the Khazar's who adopted Judaism have exacted their revenge (there are no Biblical Semitic Jews left in the world, they all interbred with Goy).  "Textual witnesses dating from the 9th and 10th centuries claim the Khazars adopted Judaism in the 8th century". This explains how the European Jews mostly had blond hair and blue eyes. Not a Semitic trait don't you know.


When I say "genetic component" keep in mind that 99.9% of our genetics are identically shared with every other human.  That was the part I was speaking to.  I wasn't making an argument for racism.


I tried to read Fountainhead a couple of times but couldn't do it..

If you re-read Atlas Shrugged and insert Satoshi's name for Hank Reardon and Bitcoin for the "Engine of the World", it makes a great deal of sense. She was a pre-cog.


The Stranger within my gate,
  He may be true or kind,
 But he does not talk my talk—
  I cannot feel his mind.
 I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
   But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock
  They may do ill or well,
 But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
  They are used to the lies I tell.
 And we do not need interpreters
  When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
   He may be evil or good,
 But I cannot tell what powers control—
  What reasons sway his mood;
 Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
  Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
   Bitter bad they may be,
 But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
  And see the things I see;
 And whatever I think of them and their likes
  They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
   And this is also mine:
 Let the corn be all one sheaf—
  And the grapes be all one vine,
 Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
  By bitter bread and wine.


As an atheist, I have to disagree. I think it is deeply unethical to pray, in fact I would say the abbhorence of subjugating yourself to faith when you have a brain and consciousness is the basis for the immorality of religion and the morality of atheism.


Buddha created the Sangha corporation, the first entity to cleverly honour usury while simultaneously separating itself from State via statues and other constructs. There’s a reason much is fantasy.. the truth stings sharply 2600 years later.


Fictional? Yikes


Here's a good vid that can explain what the Romans did...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2BoKyy7yDs


c'mon man. quit joking. "I care not if the sceptic says it is a tall story; I cannot see how so toppling a tower could stand so long without foundation. Still less can I see how it could become, as it has become, the home of man." chesterton. read 'everlasting man'


I agree with the whole first half of this. I'd quibble with the notion that poor behavior for theists is only restrained by their beliefs.

It comes back to your very astute point that reasoning about ethics in moment to moment situations is very difficult. As a result everyone, theist or atheist, is operating off neural lookup tables for daily operation.

What matters in the end is "right action." What drives that action is only important, insofar, as it has a greater or lesser likelihood of misdirecting right action.

Intelligence itself is only a useful adaptation in that it gives the owner the ability to periodically update their lookup table when new conditions arise. Religion is not a restraint upon behavior, but rather a set of heuristics for updating behavioral responses.

Those heuristics are incredibly complicated because, as you noted, the game theory is incredibly deep. Thus instead of laying out an explicit logic, containing every possible branch, the truths evolve into stories that compress the information into a structure that is both easy to process and more importantly, easy to replicate between hosts.

This is super important, because social interaction is mind-bogglingly complex, lookup table updating can't just work for the smartest 1% or 50% it has to work for everyone. Story compression allows that to be accessible even to people baffled by basic logic. I'd argue that even the very smartest folks can't come close to processing the requiremed theory without extreme compression.

This is why I'd argue that theists are not necessarily better people, but a world with theists in it is infinity better than one without. It gives society a way to evolve and act cohesively.


The Yeshua seen in Churchisnity, yes.


I don't myself think poor behavior is only restrained by one's religious beliefs. But I've heard some religious people talk as if that was the case.


I don't doubt they exist, but I am skeptical that anyone who practices religious in the negative is actually restrained much by it. By that I mean the difference between

1. I accept the challenge of trying to be a better person as laid out by these helpful cheat codes
2. "I am afraid to violate these cheat codes for fear of wrath." Or "I do it for social or political gain" crowd.

1. Attempts to do better because they love the good.
2. Just want the appearance of virtue for others esteem. Due to the overhead of paying attention to one's own behavior I doubt their stated beliefs actually affect their actions much.


Funny how “god” only seemed to reveal himself to the same bloodline. Must be a coincidence. Atheists are bad. Believe in ancient books. Evidence isn’t necessary. Starve yourself. Pray harder.
https://m.primal.net/IGIN.jpg


Let them know…


Respect 🫡


What are ethics?   Ethics are a subset of heuristics for desision making.  The subset consists of decisions that affect other sentient beings.  Many decisions don't (should I drink water now or later) but some do (should I steal this motorbike).

The moon has no ethics.  Algae probably has no ethics.  Mice have limited ethics, generally related to how their decisions affect fellow mice.

Ethics are mostly hardwired into you when your brain developed, and they were determined genetically. If we didn't have this hardwiring, the cost of thinking through a decision would be overwhelming (the game theory is incredibly deep) putting you at a huge survival disadvantage. But ethics can be learned from society (necessary adaptation!) and also consciously chosen. Although I'd argue that we have far less ability to consciously choose our ethics than we think we do.

Because ethics come in part from society, children have big wide openings in their underdeveloped ethical systems. Children will often believe that stealing, murdering, cheating, etc, might be the smartest move. It takes parents and/or life experience to discover this is almost always incorrect.  Some adults have "arrested development" and continue to operate with under-developed ethics. These people tend to be in and out of the prison system. We could argue about whether this is genetic or developmental or environmental or societal, but that would make this post far too long and more controversial than I was intending it to be.

The ethics that a Christian has and the ethics that an athiest has are different:

1. Athiests don't believe there is any ethics to praying, going to church, or paying tithe to the local minister, keeping the sabbath, not eating pork, or any other god-given rules from a god they don't believe exists, wherein the rule is esoteric and doesn't affect their fellow sentient beings.

2. Athiests feel it is unethical to disrespect the non-standard sexuality of a person, whether homosexual or transgender, whereas Christians appear to believe it is unethical to have non-standard sexuality in the first place.

3. When it comes to treating others with the "golden rule", the ethical systems are virtually identical, except:

4. Religious people have some carve outs for stealing and murdering (as evidenced by Israel).

If I have a choice of dealing with an atheist or a theist, I feel safer dealing with the atheist.

I've heard some Christians who believe the world would be much worse if it were not for Christians. That without Christianity, people would partake in all kinds of activities they feel are unethical:  stealing, cheating, murdering, etc.  But if it is only your religion that prevents you from doing those things, that frightens me. I would *hope* you were born with (and developed) ethics that prevent you from doing those things just because they feel very wrong. So for people who think they would benefit from harming others, please keep going to church!

I don't know any Palestinians. I don't think I even know any Arabs. And yet I feel great empathy towards Palestinian women and children and doctors and aid workers when they die. If atheist's ethics were only selfish, I wouldn't feel like this.


✊🏼REVOLTA.DIGNITY.RESPECT.✊🏼