Quote:
Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Something I'm reading right now...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846
From Publishers Weekly
Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Skeptic publisher and Scientific American contributor Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) argues that the sources of moral behavior can be traced scientifically to humanity's evolutionary origins. He contends that human morality evolved as first an individual and then a species-wide mechanism for survival. As society evolved, humans needed rules governing behavior-e.g., altruism, sympathy, reciprocity and community concern-in order to ensure survival. Shermer says that some form of the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"-provides the foundation of morality in human societies. Out of this, he develops the principles of what he calls a "provisional ethics" that "is neither absolute nor relative," that applies to most people most of the time, while allowing for "tolerance and diversity." According to the "ask-first" principle, for instance, the performer of an act simply asks its intended receiver whether the act is right or wrong. Other principles include the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind"), the liberty principle ("always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind") and the moderation principle ("when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice"). Shermer's provisional ethics might reflect the messy ways that human moral behavior developed, but his simplistic principles establish a utilitarian calculus that not everyone will find acceptable. 35 b&w illus.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
So do you ascribe to the ideas in the book, or are you just reading it for fun?
To everyone:
In a similar vein, I wonder how many people here (and I'm saying "here" because this is where I am) actually walk the walk of the talk they talk. It's easy to say, "I ascribe to this belief/This is how I see things," but I wonder what the discrepancy is between what you "believe" and how strictly you adhere to those beliefs for yourself. Lots of people say that "this is how things should be" but REALLY mean "This is how things should be, except for me, unless I choose to conveniently follow this belief so as to make some kind of point."
For instance, I'm going to use an example that I've found here: unfaithfulness. I wonder how many of the people who denounce unfaithfulness have actually ever BEEN unfaithful? If so, what's your excuse (or "justification" if you prefer)? I thought of this example because I've seen it here a bit, and the idea of " the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind") would have to do with something like that.
For instance, is cheating unacceptable behavior
UNLESS your spouse/SO is a bitch/asshole?
UNLESS you start thinking you made a mistake and want out, but don't want to have to be the one to do it?
UNLESS you start thinking, "hey, this marriage/dating thing is too much responsiblility, I can't take it"?
UNLESS you find someone you like better?
UNLESS you have problems in the relationship and, instead of dealing with them, you'd rather just bail because it's easier?
See what I mean? People who are vehemently against infidelity will use these excuses when they violate the beliefs they profess, because their situation is SPECIAL.
Any comments?