I think the entire social dynamic which leads to social norms and influence is largely derived from biology in some sense - the fact that the tribe was fundamental to our evolution puts an inherent premium on us to function within our tribe/society.

Part of cooperating and forming groups means adopting social norms within said group. That's where the inclination for social norms and influence ultimately derives from. Because a group is hardly going to be truly cooperative and cohesive without a basic set of common rules group members are expected to abide by.

I'm not making any statement about how any societal norm is "justified" based on the biological pressures that drive it. That's called the naturalistic fallacy.

But it is complicated. If you accept that cultures are different and each develop their own norms based in their own set of circumstances mixed with chance... Then condemning a culture for their norms is basically ethnocentrism. I.E. you're holding them to the standards of your own norms and thus declaring those norms in some way superior. Which in a way I think is fine. As long as you know that's what you're doing.

Subjective yet utterly dependant on being treated as if it's something approaching objective in order for it to function properly.

E.G. if you believe killing innocent children and eating them is wrong, you are basically going to view it as wrong even when it happens in a society where that's normal. You might view them as ignorant/misguided and thus not judge them as harshly as someone in your own culture, but you will still view the act itself as something best avoided.

Nah, I view morality as what harms or helps.

that's derived from a particular form of secular humanism/utilitarianism which is culturally prevalent in parts of the modern west. It's not an objective standard.. it's just the one you embrace

I feel the same way about stoning adulterers

Seriously though.. going back to your comments on things not being "justified" by biology. By using that term you are basically imposing your own (admittedly subjective and culturally provincial) form of morality on all human behavior. Merely by suggesting there is something to be "justified." Justified by what standard?

That isn't an answer to my question

Sure, if you say so.

@ elph

Basically you agree that judging a particular social norm relies on you imposing your own social norms on someone who doesn't necessarily share them.

And you also see morality as subjective.

So by what standard do you actually condemn any cultural or social norm? By your own particular subjective (culturally and socially influenced) set of norms that you happen to abide by? So saying they "aren't justified" is just saying they don't share your particular rule book.

Got em!

@elph
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...PolOUUZXYyQCvB

^lol..

Seems like a disproportionate response so it'd be harmful.

It also stems from the idea that criminals need to be punished rather than rehabilitated which is also harmful.

Realizing what's actually harmful kind of pushes social norms other wise we'd still own slaves because we'd have never questioned it.

Well you did specifically say biology doesn't make it justified. Which I agree.. that's a fallacy. But the only thing that does or doesn't make it justified is your own provincial form of morality. Which as you noted is just one among many subjective standards.

people still own slaves.

Again, that's because you've never lived in a society that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment so people who do it once are prone to do it again.

I think that kind of dictatorship would be harmful to the mental health of the people.

Smoking and not wearing a seat belt are your prerogative. Letting you maintain control of what you do with your body even if it's self harm is less harm than taking your freedom which would have a huge negative impact on your mental health.

to be fair you're not figuring in the suffering said policy would cause

Not in the United States.

So our morality is more evolved?

Yeah, where are you lost?

Even then, lets say we have a problem with drunk drivers. Is it more helpful to just kill them all or is it more helpful to provide better resources to prevent drunk driving?

Other than the 'Live Free or Die' state, seat belts are the law in the US. Too many people flying through windshields raises my health care costs and auto insurance rates.

**** those people's 'self harm' instincts.

In context of our history, yes, but we still tend to use ****ty justifications and cultural norms to hide us from uncomfortable truths about our own morality in this country.

No, you're just presenting a false dichotomy to prove a point. My third option is exactly why your point is bull****.

So given that we've had the same amount of time to evolve

And as you say we naturally evolve towards promoting less suffering

Why are we more evolved? Why is stoning adulterers still prevalent? Burning witches? Genital mutilation? What is the purpose for these rules?

****ty example.

Let's say we had the option to kill a child to save a hundred people, is that better?

If we can't find a way to save all then it's the child. It's morally grey, because nothing in life is simple, but it still does more help than harm.

Well, depending on who the hundred people are.

Traditions, dictatorships, desperation, etc. Various reasons.

if I see a homeless person walking down the street who is clearly suffering, and he has no family or friends to speak of, is it not a good thing for me to kill him swiftly and painlessly as possible?

I would be ending a lot of suffering, and causing little if no new suffering. So is it the right thing to do?

so then there are other factors that influence morality beyond utilitarianism. So what exactly makes it the defining influence?

Nah, **** this idea that children are more valuable humans.

It'd most likely be a terrorist situation where we're given a choice. If it's naturally, then maybe that's different but you really should consider killing the kid. The argument is the kid doesn't get the chance to live while the people do. We don't know the age of the people and just because you're an adult doesn't mean you don't still have life to live. The kid won't know what he's missing and there's a high chance that he doesn't like his life when he finally gets to live it.

Then again, of course we need to consider the wants of those affected. Lets say majority of the 100 people would rather die to keep the kid alive. Then lets kill the 100 people. Vice versa as well.

Just because it's a social norm or it's a rule doesn't mean it's moral even if they use that word to describe it.

Postmodernism is a ****ty faux philosophy that nobody can even agree on as a thing.

Edit: And who ever said that we're evolving in every way? We're evolving in some ways, perhaps devolving in other ways. But realizing that we shouldn't enslave or dehumanize other people based on their race is definitely an evolution.

No, because you're assuming that he'll always be suffering. You're likely preventing any chance of him to feel something that isn't suffering. It's also a very very lazy way to end his suffering.

No, it's absolutely a faux philosophy. Meaning it's not really a philosophy it's a movement made up of several philosophies which is why nobody can agree on what postmodernism is which is actually the most postmodern thing ever.

Our fetish with childhood is kind of weird. I get that it's huge in impacting your life as an adult put pretending a happy childhood isn't as important as a happy adulthood is bizarre. It's such a small piece of our lives. For a lot of us it might even be the worst part of our lives.

So sticking that in my face is meaningless to me.

Who did that?

There's variables in everything. How ever you have no clue of the ages of any of the 100.

Or if the kid will even make it to adulthood even if you save him.

so your objection is that I can't accurately predict the suffering that will be caused/prevented

I would argue that is also true of most of the thought experiments meant to argue in favor of utilitarianism.

E.G. your example of killing one child to save 100 people. That 1 person you kill might end up doing more to alleviate suffering than the other 100 combined. Or they might be a monster. Or somewhere in between. There is no way of knowing.

Let's say for the sake of argument (since all of this is already based on unrealistic hypothetical situations) that you somehow know for a fact that if you kill him you will alleviate more suffering than you cause. Is it still wrong?

Was there even a train to wreck?

How is that an argument? That's something I was saying in the other experiments.

I acknowledged the differing variables already.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about the homeless person.

If the homeless person didn't want to die then it's going to be immoral. It's not your choice to make and thinking you have that authority is immoral. If the homeless person wants to endure their suffering let them. If the homeless person wants to end it I assume they have all the ability to do that them self.