151. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110997 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 10:37 am

Child,

I am not going to repeat what I have already argued. Read through and if you still do not understand, just ask.

152. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110992 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 10:31 am

If you wish to end the debate as you cannot win, that is fine. But why hide that fact with 'straw man' allusions?

The point is simple: A moral cannot be proved correct, like a religion.

153. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110985 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 10:17 am

And now in English please–

154. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110980 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 10:11 am

Too simplistic Cartomancer:

Causing harm to others often leads to survival and prosperity. Thus, war.

It seems everyone here wants to avoid the fact that war and violence is a human norm which has shaped our evolution perhaps just as much as altruism.

155. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110973 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 9:58 am

PBUM,

Your lack of clarity betrays your misunderstandings. Have you read Ayer?

Another presupposition you have is that you think 'causing harm to others' is something to be avoided. That is another absolute moral with no basis.

156. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110969 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 9:53 am

Dickanu,

Go back to your computer games.

157. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110964 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 9:46 am

PBUM,

You write, "Who was arguing truth? Truth is irrelevant to my argument. Religion is a bad analogy because that does make truth claims about the world we live in that can't be backed up, such as the resurrection. Defining a moral code does no such thing."

Of course it does – e.g. "homosexuality is wrong." Like the resurrection, that is a truth claim that cannot be backed up.

158. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110958 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 9:39 am

Follow this:

What is helpful is not therefore necessarily true. That is a typical 'non sequitur'. For example, Aristotelian physics.

If you go down your line of thought, you may as well say that we should keep religion in most cases as it can be helpful.

Use is not truth.

159. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110953 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 9:30 am

('Permissible', I should have written.)

I am not against civilisation or law, etc. I'm just pointing out that they have to be based on illusions to work.

'Culture' novels – no, not familiar with those.

160. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110946 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 9:14 am

Zara,

you write, "Why would you even think about judging me for that any more than if I said I was "very blonde"?"

Because many, many self-confessed 'moralists' would judge you.

Without 'morals' we are free. If God is dead, everything is permissable.

(before I get the usual banal criticism: I am not a 'theist in disguise'!!! I mean every word I write.)

161. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110939 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 9:00 am

Everything changes but you.

You are self-admittedly very gay - I shall not judge you as I am amoral!

Can you FEEL the power of the dark side?

162. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110936 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 8:53 am

Corylus,

I do have time for Virtue Ethics actually as it's not prescriptive, though not so much MacIntyre's as Aristotle's (who, incidentally, remarks that his 'virtues' are contingent upon society and not absolute).

About Justice and Power. Do watch this link: a debate between Foucault and Chomsky on that very matter.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes


Justice is a form of power: it was just for a man not to have a slave stolen in the past. Justice merely upholds concomitant power relations.

163. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110933 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 8:49 am

Zara,

Now you're going all 'new age'.

That and the he Take That comment has lost you any credibility.

Victory is mine. There's another example of conquest within society (albeit not very bloody).

164. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110930 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 8:45 am

The Golden Rule serves the mediocre: you must treat me as your equal, even though I am not.

Even that is a power demand.

165. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110924 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 8:24 am

Peacebeuponme,

You write, "Also, I don't like the tactic of pinning the "white, middle class" label on someone as a means of diluting the power of their argument. I'm sure that wasn't your intention but I think terms like that need careful use. "

That wasn't my intention, it was a sociological observation. I probably fit into that category myself anyway.

The point is, 'political correctness' is what Marx & Engels would call a 'false ideology' which actually subconsciously serves the interest of the ruling elite by making their preferences seem universal, default. It's the best form of control. I refer you to Slavoj Zizek.

166. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110922 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 8:19 am

Zara,

You write, "Take That makes me happy" – I seriously hope that was sarcasm... Are you homosexual? If so, it actually further proves my point.

Did you read Freud on Buddhism? He argues that such Dharmic creeds simply try to avoid disappointment by stifling the instincts, ultimately lust. I.e. negative happiness (no pain).

Perhaps Buddhism does not believe in God as we understand it, but it certainly stupidly superstitious with its belief in reincarnation, the Buddha, etc.

What would you say to people who might say, "I want to return to a life full of war, adventure, battle, courage - rather than this safe life in civilisation"? You may say they were nuts, but you couldn't, strictly speaking, say they were 'wrong'

167. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110917 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 8:11 am

Corylus,

Long time no read!

You write, "Henri. Are you willing to make a distinction between 'morality' as a set of rules for behaviour and 'ethics' as a cultivation of traits of character?"

- One could do, if you prefer that definition (i.e. prescription vs description).

You continue, "These traits can lead people to make decisions that (although varying in differing environments) lead to actions that are 'desirable' more often than not.

An ethical decision is; in that context; one that has nothing to do with the following of rules of not. As such societal repression does not come into the equation. It is a decision that is determined by character."

-The important word here is 'desirable'. Whoever decides what character traits are 'desireable' imposes their preference on others. This may be done through 'rules' or neglection, etc. Again, social control.

Again, morality is a form of power. Blatantly so.

168. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110913 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 8:02 am

Zara,

'Systems of Philosophy', eh? Which? Deontology (which Pinker alluded to with Kant)? Utilitarianism (Dawkins' favourite)? Natural Law? Which?

I ask because all of these and all other forms have been thoroughly repudiated by the likes of Nietzsche, Foucault, Bertrand Russell, A J Ayer, Wittgenstein, et al a hundred years ago. But none of these was an anarchist as a result.

169. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110910 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 7:50 am

Zara,

You write, "There are other ways to come up with prescriptive morality other than science or religion.".
Pray tell!

You write, "I am not an anarchist". That is not an argument. What I wrote does not lead to anarchism.

For society to work, certain illusions must be propagated. I.e. for the rulers to rule.

Ultimately, morality is immoral: it is will to power.

170. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110903 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 7:36 am

Zara,

a lot of our disagreement is semantic then.

However, as you then understand, science can never create prescriptive morality. Religion can. Thus I am an atheist and amoralist by necessity.

We must be honest and realise that morality as prescriptive truth is merely a form of control over others, just as religion is.

'realpolitik'

---

P.S. Sarcasm is the lowest form of ad hominem.

171. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110899 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 7:24 am

Zara,

Your text here made me laugh:
"What we are able to do is to extend our sense of those who we consider "like us" - those who we feel empathy for. We see this happening when individuals learn not to be racist, or not to feel a sense of "difference" with respect to gay people. I would hope that the moral development of humanity continues through the extending of our empathy ever more widely."


Do you not see how stuck you are within the current early-21st Century zeitgeist of 'morality' (or, 'political correctness')!? It's known as 'false consciousness' – you are subconsciously maintaining the power of a certain class (viz. white upper-middle class).

172. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110895 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 7:13 am

Zara,

1. You write, "If your ideas were correct, there would have been a pre-cultural stage of humanity that was purely selfish and extremely bloody. Not only is there no evidence of that, but we would not have survived it."

Two points:
- There was, civilisation has occupied no more than 2% of the duration of the species Man.
- Natural selection: It was precisely because of bloody, difficult, harsh conditions that we evolved into the present species (along with other forms of selection).

2. You write that conquest does not happen within societies. Two further points:
- Yes it does (Military police, crime, civil war, etc, etc.)
- Evolution is not limited to within society. Wars between nations/species draw evolutionary consequences (e.g. Neanderthal Man, holocausts, ethnic cleansing, etc etc.).

---

Beyond these points there is a more fundamental one: the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive morality.

You are talking about the former – i.e. we can *describe* 'moral' behaviour through evolutionary psychology, etc.

But, this does not make that behaviour 'correct' in any way. **It is culture that evaluates behaviour.**

I.e. one can never judge someone to be 'morally abhorent'. This is *prescriptive.*

Look up the 'is-ought fallacy' (description-prescription fallacy).

173. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110872 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 5:18 am

'Inner feelings' - are you American?

Excessive aggression does have survival value. Read about a topic called 'conquest'.

Regarding last comment, read the Icelandic sagas about the vikings where sons were often killed by fathers for their inadequacy.

Be historical.

Will continue later, must go–––

174. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110869 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

Zara,

You are also conflating behaviour with values.

Altruism no doubt has an inherited core; but so does aggression. We value the former today therefore not on genes but culture.

You write, "Not wanting to hurt others did not suddenly appear with culture." Read some history – the vikings, for example, only went to heaven (Valhalla) if they died in battle. The Christian cultural invasion changed that.

175. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110866 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 5:00 am

Fine, in the same sense that there is no such thing as 'objective religion' (as opposed to the existence of religion).

In other words, 'morality' exists as does 'religion'. Neither are factual; Pinker's mistake.

176. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110859 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 4:43 am

Funny words Zara,

'conscience' is related to culture, not immediately genetics. (superego, etc.)

For example, homosexuals had a guilty conscience in England 100 years ago, not much today (not in London, anyway!).

There is no such thing as 'human morality'. 'Morality' constantly changes, like religion.

The morality of the viking or Spartans wasn't 'wrong', it was different.

177. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110855 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 4:08 am

Another thing: Pinker conflates morality with behavioural traits. Very stupid.

Aggression is also an evolved behavioural trait.

It is the legacy of Christianity that values altruism above aggression. Many cultures in history did not.

Ultimately Pinker is caught in the Christian trap, trying to objectify Christian morality (similar to Buddhist morality, etc).

He's a secular Christian.

178. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110853 by Henri Bergson on January 13, 2008 at 3:51 am

BAEOZ,

Hello again! I'm no cynic!

I agree that for society to work we need rules ('morals'), but that does not mean the morals are 'true'. One could also say that for some past societies to work, they needed religion (again, doesn't mean the religion was 'true').

The underlying assumption there is also that it is -good- for society to work. Most people in society today would agree, but that is merely subjective preference rather than objective fact.

If someone said, "I do not want a society", one could not say that he was 'wrong'/'immoral'.

I do not understand how people like Pinker can write such simplistic things after Nietzsche. I refer you to his, 'Genealogy of Morality'. Science needs history.

179. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110764 by Henri Bergson on January 12, 2008 at 10:41 am

Foolish words by Mr Pinker.

Morality is a delusion just as religion is: neither can be proved.

180. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #101858 by Henri Bergson on December 21, 2007 at 3:19 am

The obvious retort is that 'Come all ye faithFUL' is offensive and insensitive to the faithless.

181. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100129 by Henri Bergson on December 18, 2007 at 9:20 am

Someone slap that thick spastic interviewer hard in the face... We have not only evolved benevolence but also malevolence.

The only only mistake Dawkins makes is to suggest that 'evil' is a real thing. It's relative.

182. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99403 by Henri Bergson on December 16, 2007 at 3:01 pm

This must be stopped. This would represent the triumph of stupidity over intelligence... in England!

All investors must be shamed, complaints must be issued to the respective council and Government, protests should be televised, comedy/ridicule should be used against the perpetrators.

The mere proposal of this park signifies a slip back to the dark ages.

183. Mind your manners

Comment #88379 by Henri Bergson on November 16, 2007 at 10:48 am

NMcC,

If you think that cultural Marxism is the same as Marxism you're an uneducated fool.

Read a book and return.

184. Mind your manners

Comment #88217 by Henri Bergson on November 15, 2007 at 11:35 am

Thus in 1828 the Christian ideology lost a part of its power.

Today one is 'excommunicated' from public office or debate if one does not believe in the present ideology: cultural Marxism/political correctness/multi-nationalism.

In the future another ideology will take its place.

It's not a matter of truth or falsity, but only power.

185. Internet used to target extremism

Comment #83928 by Henri Bergson on October 31, 2007 at 5:02 pm

We should follow Sweden's lead and ban the teaching of religion as truth in ALL schools.

Ms Blear's £70m scheme will obviously turn out to be another stupid government disaster, and may even encourage the opposite of its purpose. We should not encourage 'muslim women role models'.

To kill a weed, you have to pull out the roots. I cannot believe the idiots who rule this country.

186. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #83178 by Henri Bergson on October 29, 2007 at 7:34 am

GSP,

Yes, the USSR.

187. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #83028 by Henri Bergson on October 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

GSP,

Capitalism uses multiculturalism to halt the chances of national economies emerging, economies which would limit the global market for multi-nationals.

I.e. by curbing nationalism and mixing races capitalism flourishes.

So you are in agreement with me without even being aware of it. Shows your intellect.

188. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #82970 by Henri Bergson on October 28, 2007 at 11:43 am

It's probably to do with the race mixing that is happening in the first world now, as James Watson implied recently to his peril.

It's also to do with the fact that the lower classes now all expect education; however, they do not have the intellectual capacity for it. Perhaps it's better that they stick to practical activities (as in the past), like sweeping the streets.

In other words, the white upper-middle classes are maintaining power by watering down the populace.

Secondly, with specific regard to Americans: they have always appeared dumb, and it's not just their accent.

189. God's honest truth?

Comment #79811 by Henri Bergson on October 18, 2007 at 3:24 pm

IanG,

But Sweden is also in the EU.

---

It's time to kick out this malicious Arab dark age mythology from Europe.

190. God's honest truth?

Comment #79803 by Henri Bergson on October 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Proud to be Swedish once again. Quite astonishing really, considering the general extreme PCness of Sweden.

It must be the new conservative government that was elected in last year.

Now do this in England.

191. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78415 by Henri Bergson on October 12, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Spastic Retards.

Why do we bother?

192. How China Got Religion

Comment #78018 by Henri Bergson on October 11, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Excellent article; excellent thinker. I recommend his collection of essays, 'The Universal Exception'.

It's quite funny how he attacks capitalism by attacking liberals. In reality, Zizek is a hardcore Stalinist (he even has his portrait in his flat!).

It's the far-left attacking the centre-left who are actually now capitalists.

But 'respect' for other cultures ('multiculturalism') is simply a method of upper-middle class social control. Zizek makes this explicit.

193. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77102 by Henri Bergson on October 8, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Good point, well-made.

There is the problem that the weak who advocate against religion will end up creating a sheep-consoling 'group' (cult) of their own: "Atheism".

One of the main arguments against religion is that it is sheep-like, herding weak-minded people together, giving them consolation. Atheism should therefore avoid such groupings.

194. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69907 by Henri Bergson on September 13, 2007 at 6:29 am

Maynard,

I would agree that dominant political power structures have become possible through evolution, of course. I think Dawkins contrasts genes with 'memes'. So when I write civilisation can 'stifle' natural instincts, I mean that memes can control the natural tendency of gene machines. Maybe this is preferable at times (Dawkins: "The tyranny of the genes must be overcome" – The Selfish Gene).

But what makes something 'preferable'? – A set of memetic morals indicating thus.

So my point is that morals are memes. They are not 'real' or universal, even if they help us survive. Actually, some 'morals' probably hinder our evolution (e.g. the moralising against eugenics). They are perhaps necessary illusions for a certain type of civilisation to exist. But assuming a civilisation should exist is another moral.

---

Goldy,

That was quite an interesting article – thanks. Hard to substantiate though. I would also like to read the author's thoughts on why the working class (at least in Britain) has increased dramatically as a proportion of the population in industrialised times, which seems at odds with his theory.

Here's another interesting new article:
Martin Amis on Islam:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2424020.ece

195. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69387 by Henri Bergson on September 11, 2007 at 4:16 am

Good man – I truly hope he has a strong effect.

It's quite notable that he begins his campaign today, at the same time a mass demonstration today in Brussels against the Islamication of Europe has been banned by their mayor.

I suspect that many people from Europe will go anyway, so it may prove interesting to read the news from Brussels tonight.

196. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69374 by Henri Bergson on September 11, 2007 at 2:58 am

Maynard,

Hello again. I agree that we should be careful with the terms we use. There seem to be two aspects of morality that are often conflated: descriptive and prescriptive morality.

Descriptive morality ('meta-ethics')describes the morality in different cultures, and these could be explained in terms of evolutionary psychology or sociology. Behaviour, in other words.

Prescriptive morality ('normative ethics') actually states what is good or evil. It might state that murder is wrong, or that the 'Golden Rule' is good.

I.e. there's a vast chasm between behaviour and prescriptive morality. No amount of research into why people behave as they do (in terms of morals) can actually tell us what we ought to do. That is known as the 'is-ought fallacy' (Behaviour is the 'is': a fact; prescriptive morality is the 'ought').

So, back to your questions. I would agree that evolution of negative and positive experiences could lead, through natural selection, to a descriptive ethic (behaviour).

However, much natural behaviour is stifled by civilisation. We are controlled into not acting immediately on our instincts. Religion often imposes these controls.

Secondly I do not think that 'elitist power structures' are akin to naturally dominant animals. The latter act instinctively, physically to retain their domiance. The former usually act consciously and often metaphysically (saying there exist holy laws, rational laws of ethics, etc.). Often the weakest form of humanity has been the elite as they are the majority.

But the major point here is one most atheists today do not want to hear. Science can explain descriptive morality, but only religion can issue prescriptive morality ("thou shalt").

(So-called rational prescriptive ethics like utilitarianism or deontology are actually founded on religion when you examine them carefully. E.g. Why should we aim for the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of people in utilitarianism? A question neither Bentham, Mill nor Singer can answer. There is the Christian basis of utilitarianism: all are equal under the eyes of God... This is another subject!)

So without a dictator God, issuing moral commands, we are free. Of course we will act on our evolved instincts, but those instincts are often aggressive and cruel as well as altruistic.

This is what Sartre meant by his statement, "we are condemned to be free". Or it's what Nietzsche meant by "God is dead" (the dictator is dead, we are free).

The irony is that many people do not want freedom as it makes life more dangerous. They would prefer the illusion of morality to keep them safe. Some people would, others would not. There's a typology involved here.



---

Goldy,

I'd say Western ideology was derived from Christianity, but of course that Christianity was informed by the ancient Greeks. However, Christianity was not formed exclusively from the Greeks at all. It mainly was formed from Judaism of course (Semitic not Greek).

Christianity chose those Greeks that were somewhat compatible with the bible. They ignored that wealth of Greeks that was not compatible. I mention again the Sophists who were the first known proper atheists and real philosophers who neither believed in morality as a real thing.

Augustine, Aquinas, et al chose the later Plato and Aristotle. Plato disliked the Sophists but believed in the immortal soul and an absurd notion of 'Forms'. That is why, even today, the word 'Sophistry' has negative connotations.

It kind of goes to show that what we consider to be important history is coloured by prevailing ideologies.

197. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69291 by Henri Bergson on September 10, 2007 at 10:59 am

Yorker,

I'm actually reading Zizek's 'The Universal Exception' now. It's really just a collection of essays. I've also been to a lecture and spoken with the guy once in the UK.

He's not simply a psychologist/philosopher but also a statesman in Slovenia.

My views... He's very interesting whether you agree with him or not. He uses a number of key thinkers as his basis, especially Lacan and Hegel – therefore also Freud, Marx, Engels, and even Trotsky.

In my opinion, his analyses of today's politics, art & culture (all interrelated) are spot on. However, his solutions are questionable: he's a Stalinist and wants to get rid of capitalism.

But I think it was fascinating to consider that 'multiculturalism' is a tool of power for capitalist multinational companies. I don't think it's the only cause of political correctness (I essentially think it's fundamentally Christian), but one factor, yes.

He even writes about the rock band Laibach (the 'prototype' Rammstein). What he writes is really excellent.

So he's essentially (to use old-fashioned terms) a strong lefty who severely criticizes mild lefties (he reveals their hypocrisies). But his criticisms are similar to those of right-wingers. I don't think these terms work much anymore, but it gives an indication.

The book is definitely worth reading. It's one of the best modern books I've read for years.

198. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69234 by Henri Bergson on September 10, 2007 at 5:47 am

Bitbutter,

It exists as a delusion; just as religion exists as a delusion.

199. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69229 by Henri Bergson on September 10, 2007 at 5:29 am

Goldy,

How are you doing?
'Wrong' being a delusion, as you ask...

I'll mention the English logical positivist A J Ayer here.

He writes that a statement is only meaningful if it can be verified true or false, at least in principle. (Or if it's true by definition/analytic: e.g. "a triangle has 3 sides.")

So the statement, "the moon is made of cheese" is meaningful as we can verify it to be false.

A statement like, "God is love" cannot even be verified as being false, and so it is meaningless, literally nonsense.

This also applies to prescriptive ethical statements.
The statement, "murder is wrong" cannot be verified as either true or false. It is neither true by definition. What evidence could ever show that murder was wrong? None. Of course you can show that it causes suffering, but again "suffering is wrong" is unverifiable. All we can properly say is that "suffering exists". It matters not whether it is useful or not for society, genes, etc.

The word "wrong" in "murder is wrong" simply expresses one's disgust at murder, or it acts as a power command to others. It adds no facts to the subject.

This is where Ayer links to Nietzsche, Marx and Engels. For them moral statements were power commands that maintained a certain type or class of person.

Today, political correctness maintains the power of the European upper middle classes. It is an ideology akin to communism or fascism.

The Slovenian thinker and statesman Slavoj Zizek wrote recently that the politically correct ideology actually maintains the capitalist class (although his solution is a form of Stalinism!). Because, he argues, multiculturalism aids international trade and removes potentially hazardous (to multinational organisations) nationalist economic policies.

My genuine concern is that these so-called 'new atheists' argue within the field of the prevailing ideology which essentially derives from Christianity in the west.

I would like them to be more historical and objective. But I understand that it is perhaps wiser to advance one step at a time.

200. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69134 by Henri Bergson on September 9, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Oxytocin,

Sorry if I sound arrogant. It's just that I'm right... ;-)

The leaves?