Comment on When people say the phrase "Don't hate the player, hate the game", it removes responsibility from the player

• intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  No, we don’t make our own norms and values. There’s no reason to believe that is any more flexible than our reliance on iron or potassium to survive.

  source

  • littlebluespark@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m sorry, but fucking what.

    source
  • hglman@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Have you any idea of the scope of existing human norms and values? Your statement is false based on the scope of people alive today.

    source
• novibe@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  But also, morality does fuck all to help you survive. Morality is absolutely useless for an individual, much to the contrary.

  source

  • someguy3@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You heard it here lemmy, this guy things morality is “absolutely useless”.

    source

    • novibe@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yup! Doing things because some moral authority decided it was “right” is dumb as fuck and I’ll die on that hill.

      What a lack of material analysis does to a mfer and all etc. etc.

      source

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So if you could get away with it, would you kill your granny?!

        Or is there something inside of you which make you feel uncomfortable about just the idea, even though in purelly logical terms the old lady is probably just a useless consumer of resources well past her breeding age?

        If there is that something inside of you (i.e. you’re neither a psychopath nor a sociopath) that too is Moral.

        I agree with your point about externally defined and imposed “Moral” (which is really Morality or Moralizing), it’s just that most people also have their own internal Right-Wrong Compass (I suspect derived from one’s empathy) and that too is Moral and it’s not under external control.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Morality is the basis for social cohesion, which is necessary for the survival of the individual. Try to survive without the help of any other person, including parents, teachers, employees, …

    source

    • novibe@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That has nothing to do with morality. You don’t help people because it’s right. We help each other because we literally evolved to be social animals. Our biology in many ways depends on others. We feel individually sad and bad if we are isolated. And we feel good when we help others and see that people around us are doing well.

      Morality has not been present throughout our evolutionary or even social history. Moralism only became an essential part of society after the Christianity and other religions like it took over.

      Things being “wrong” or “right” doesn’t help us really, materially. In fact, it’s mostly been used to control people and keep them in-line. After all, who decides what’s “moral”?

      source

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I consider morality to be a societal representation of our social nature.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think the point is that Morality can very simply be an evolved human trait due to the massive second and third order effects that derive from it or the lack of it.

        Let me put things this way: psychopathy is a condition people are born with, were they are unable to empathise with others so amongst other things they don’t feel the hurt of others and are thus capable of inflicting great hurt to others, lie and do all sorts of socially-reprehensible things without feeling a shred of guilt. In practice they will do what’s best for themselves with no consideration for others except for the purelly rational “can they punish me if I do this” (in simplifying all this a bit since psychopathy is actually a range rather than simply an Yes/No thing).

        Anyways, around 3% of people are born high in the psychopathy spectrum. Now, if psychopathy is “doing what’s best for yourself with no consideration for others, no guilt, no conscience to be weighted on”, which one would expect is the best possible survival and reproductive strategy there is, why hasn’t that trait not dominated and human evolution led to 100% of people being born psychopaths?

        My theory is that societies with too many psychopaths collapse, removing the psychopaths from the genetic pool.

        How would that be. Well, they’re pure takers - why tire oneself by making if you can get away more easilly with taking - and they’re not good at cooperation (mainly because when others spot their character, they don’t trust them and don’t want to cooperate with them), so any society with too many psychopaths is less productive, has less resources available (too many takers too few makers), it stops evolving, can’t properly organise a collective defense system and eventually gets overwhelmed by some other society without such problems.

        This last bit is just my theory for why, but certainly the part that only 3% of people are born like that is a pretty good indication that for some reason an amoral behaviour in humans is not a winning evolutionary strategy even though some might think at first sight that it would be.

        source

        • -> View More Comments