Re: Seeming, scheming
 

Well, one very good example is the tit-for-tat strategy.

There most likely is a spot where you are the chimpanzee that falls behind, and you would be happy to help the other chimp now and here in exchange for being helped in a situation just like this somewhere down the line.

I believe morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be.

Re: Seeming, scheming
 

"I believe morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be."

I have already explained that to be exactly the case a number of times. End of subject. Don't ask me why these high falootin philosophers continue to talk about it.

Re: Question for Non-Believers
 

Well, therein lies the rub doesn't it.

I could argue that everything that ever happened... including crimes... *should've* happened simply because it *did* happen. That the totality of all events starting with the smallest particles and working up led to that event.

On the other hand we have idea about "morality" (which I could argue also bubble up from particles that make up our brains) that seem to argue there are "shoulds and should nots".

Most folks agree on major crimes physical crimes like murder... but maybe not. Consider cannibals...

So it would seem most all moral systems are man made and relative.

So the solid answer to your question is... "you don't know... you just believe it for whatever external reasons".

Suppose you were raised by wolves... your view on chomping on someone as dinner would be different, no? Same as a cannibal.

Now I'd say most of us. Even the aethiests here are really living a Judeo-Christian morality, or some other major religious morality simply because our cultures are so entrenched in it. Look at a dollar... "In God We Trust".

Early U.S. Case Law even cites biblical things like "The Golden Rule".

So separation of Church and State is somewhat mythological, no?

So here's my approach. Which may be almost Quaker. Morality comes from within. I decide for myself. Based on what? Well, no doubt that which was drilled into my head as a child to young to reject it, and self examination as well. But I cannot say where the emotional content comes from (except that it's the grand some total of my particular brain chemistry + brain structure changes from learning etc. i.e all the physical phenomenon that make up "me".)

Now for the most part that really means I too have Judeo-Christian morality beliefs though I state "I have no religion and may even just believe in nature and natural laws."

And at times it puts me at odds with the prevailing systems.. for I believe any law I did not explicitly agree to has potential to be coercion. Same for economic systems I an trapped in.

Now that has it's plusses and minuses. Clearly a police force trying to stop robbers is good for me, even though I did not agree to it, nor did the robbers.

But on the other hand it often intrudes on my life too... like when Wall Street and the Fed decide how to gear the prevailing economy for the benefit of the rich or the legal bodies decide I have to do something lame like register my car or worse yet decide who has to go fight wars and compel folks to fight them.

Anyway, bottom line. With or without a God, you have no solid evidence that any bit of morality is correct in any absolute sense.

Bastille day
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have already explained that [morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma] ... a number of times. End of subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am guessing you refer to Marquis De Sade, who was indeed a prisoner for a significant period of time.

In prison, he penned various texts, from which springs his revolutionary (for the time) morality of atheism and absolute egoism.

But De Sade had no dilemmas at all! The Divine Marquis posited his answers to all questions about morality with extraordinary clarity of prose -- and quite lucid and robustly constructed arguments.

Perhaps we ought to so something with the Marquis, now that we run out of barbarians ?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ask me why these high falootin philosophers continue to talk about it.

[/ QUOTE ] Philosophy in the bedroom

Re: Bastille day
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have already explained that [morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma] ... a number of times. End of subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am guessing you refer to Marquis De Sade, who was indeed a prisoner for a significant period of time.

In prison, he penned various texts, from which springs his revolutionary (for the time) morality of atheism and absolute egoism.

But De Sade had no dilemmas at all! The Divine Marquis posited his answers to all questions about morality with extraordinary clarity of prose -- and quite lucid and robustly constructed arguments.

Perhaps we ought to so something with the Marquis, now that we run out of barbarians ?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ask me why these high falootin philosophers continue to talk about it.

[/ QUOTE ] Philosophy in the bedroom

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? Because Prisoner's Dilemma has nothing to do with Philosphy, and is something that most poker players should know more than the average segment of the population. It's a construct of game theory, which DS references many times in his books.

Google the Prisoner's Dilemma, now. For math types, this is the reason that one should be moral.

Re: Bastille day
 

The Golden Rule of Agnosticism:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.