Last time I saw this I think I opposed his argument. I assumed he had implied that because the world does not treat you better for being good that you should not be good. Now I think of it like this, that he is making someone aware that one should not do good simply for external reward. That one should do good for the sake of doing good.
I’d agree with that. Or I’d say that “bad” perpetuates “bad.” If we ask “why morality?” We have to think of “morality” as a survival directive. Humans as a species want to live- it’s why we are where we are. We figured out long ago that we do that better in groups. In order to have group cohesion we can’t just all be doing whatever benefits us as individuals. Even those who skew very strongly towards self interest, if they are very successful, know how to give other people enough to elicit and keep the others support even when working towards the goal of the self interested.
Morality is highly cultural- we see great differences in custom and even fundamental concepts based on both the necessities and realities of a society as well as the philosophy which they’ve adopted. Morality is a guide but not a law- most people can be put into a situation where their personal loss or their personal gain is great enough if they follow their own or social moral conventions that they will eschew the “moral” decision for the one that is more prudent to their survival or needs.
On the surface the answer is because society will fucking end you if you do not act moral. <---Trump has seriously made me question that.
From personal experience though, it just makes things so much easier. Dealing straight up and cutting out all the conniving bullshit leads to a sound mind, peaceful dreams and easy access to the most basic of needs.
A country like America for instance, with its vast frontiers of history, was a society where self reliance was emphasized as well as individualism. The fact that many folks lived for the most part in isolation or isolated communities, the types of challenges faced etc helped create a moral code. However even with its individualism and self reliance- “traditional” American values still put a heavy emphasis on a morality that fit those concepts in with a strong social component. Since people trust those most like them more readily- there was still a desire for conformity as a person finding another “strange” is unsure of what that person would do as they can’t simply ask “what would I do...?”
Because of relative isolation- American values put strong emphasis on a nuclear family with a patriarchal authority structure. The reality of frontier life meant families had to rely on each other to survive, each had rules to play in that survival, and the strong, heterosexual nuclear family was a successful model to build a society at that time. When we look at a country like China- which places family and society before self traditionally, the morality is often different. This is part of the “culture clash” between societies that didn’t develop with close histories and shared culture.
“So alone in the woods” so to speak- on ones own in a survival situation- most will instruct that save for maintaining moral psychologically where needed (mind set is the #1 component of survival,) morality and associated concepts like shame and dignity most often take a back seat to survival. In a group of other humans- practical matters still come first, but we see the inklings of shared morality derived from circumstance.
“But how dies helping the disabled for instance serve a need?” Well- we can argue a person not able of body or mind in a “pure survival brutality” is a liability who sucks resources. They MIGHT have some useful skill like knowledge but in general an “average” person who isn’t capable is a liability. Many cultures have in their history, or even their present depending on circumstance- moral codes that dictate it is better to allow or aid in the death of such a person- or an exile in some form.
But- how did we get to taking care of such folks as a moral directive? Two fold. Firstly is that social creatures tend to have some type of empathy. It allows us to better peacefully coexist and share goals and work. But by the same token- it’s self serving. If you kill or exile anyone who is disabled- if YOU find yourself in that situation YOU would be killed or exiled which would be bad for YOU.
Think of it as a primitive form of insurance, like health or car or home insurance. Most people won’t need it but pay in anyway because if you DO need it- it could be a literal life saver (especially in a brutal survival situation like our ancestors faced daily.) it’s in your best interest to give “alms to the poor” and provide “opportunity for the poor” because of YOU ever end up there YOU want to know you would have some type of safety.
This is part of why we see morality tend to evolve as societies develop and prosper or falter. When you have more surplus and less life threatening challenges and dangers- you have the luxury to provide more time and resources to thinking and long term planning. It’s easier to give someone $10 when you have $1,000 than $100, and when you only have $10 and no way to get more and need that to live- you’d fight to the death for what little you had.
So beyond any spirituality or philosophical reasoning- morality and acting morally are social acts meant to both serve society as a whole and form cohesion, while serving an individual indirectly or sometimes directly. If you are known to act “morally” then you will generally be trusted, and if you are known to act immorally in direct self interest more often than not or under given circumstances- you lose trust and social standing. People are less likely to collaborate with you to achieve their goals.
The exception being where they can trust your own self interest to align with theirs- thusly you can trust an immoral person to act immorally, and if that serves you- then you are more likely to support them. This is seen in politics where for instance- a candidate has a stance a person might not take directly in their own life. Eg: a candidate supports the suppression of rights for a group that doesn’t include you. This benefits you as it reduces competition and increases your odds of success.
You may then support them so that in your personal life you can claim the benefits of being seen as a person who cares for that group while the politician does the “dirty work” you either do not want to be associated with or would not do yourself but want done on some level. You then reap the benefits of both.
This is in part where morality becomes contextual. Many debates in our society from abortion to guns to sexuality and gender are argued based on moral stances. One group says a thing is “right” for example because it includes more people in society and thus increases out potential production and commerce. Another group says it is wrong because there are other consequences they feel will offset any gains. Both believes the other to be immoral. Likewise we can arrive at the same course of action but for literally opposite moral reasons. It depends largely on how life and your ancestors lives have informed what they see as survival imperatives, and how secure one feels in their survival and thriving.
I'm throwing a book at you with this:
Okay you're on a basketball court, you're the pg, you are bringing the ball up after a basket. You are facing a soft amoeba defense.
I am now switching to my perspective.
I am going to purposefully dribble with my left hand until two steps beyond half-court. At this point I'm going to call a 5-1 screen (basically just get the biggest wall to set a pick on the wing) on the right wing. I switch dribbling hands at this point, but as the defender has been on my right side the entire time (left handed dribbling), I have to studder-step and switch dribble hands behind the back. The studder step serves a dual purpose, as the defender guarding the 2 in this situation has now moved towards the FT line as too shore up the defense. I jut forwards towards the screen; only for another behind the back; this time it's not changing the dribble. It's a pass. A bounce pass. The "jut" caused the defender on the left block to move further into the paint.... (1/?)
the pass goes between the 2 spot defender I pulled, bounces next to the 4 defender I pulled and winds up in my PF's (4 spot, w/e dude on left block) hands. Dudeman is so wide open he doesn't even have to jump to score... the thing is... the openness is quite shocking. This is the kicker.... If my 4 knows he can't make that layup due to pure shock, I also pulled that 2 defender off my SG, so my 4 has an outlet too my 2 for a wide open 3.
<_<>_>_<_>_> All that in less than 5 seconds. That's why I love basketball <_>_><_>_>
Oh, now that defense is in a conundrum and I can get my favorite shot of a 5-1 screen any time I want... or at least until they start doubling over the top of the screen, at which point it's just an easy dump down to my center for another layup. That's an ace up the sleeve though.
it's the terminology. The point is to drag the defense to one side and then subvert them with a behind the back bounce pass... and make them contemplate as the result of the ensuing scramble.
Oh and then of course setting myself up for later. The point is I'm building triangles while the defense is thinking about circles.
I wonder if that was the divide. Triangles vs Circles. When contemplating circles there's really only one outcome: infinity. In a finite universe that doesn't exactly work. You can still build curves and such with triangles, it just takes lots and lots of triangles.
Are pyramids really a mystery? <_< >_> On the next episode of "The Twilight Zone"....
Its subjective... There is so much room for debate with this but without overthinking it I feel what he says makes sense considering where I am in life and what I have personally been through. If you disagree with it then that's your opinion and that's cool. But I guess this just resonates with me. I personally don't believe there is a right or wrong opinion around the matter
From personal experience though, it just makes things so much easier. Dealing straight up and cutting out all the conniving bullshit leads to a sound mind, peaceful dreams and easy access to the most basic of needs.
Okay you're on a basketball court, you're the pg, you are bringing the ball up after a basket. You are facing a soft amoeba defense.
I am now switching to my perspective.
I am going to purposefully dribble with my left hand until two steps beyond half-court. At this point I'm going to call a 5-1 screen (basically just get the biggest wall to set a pick on the wing) on the right wing. I switch dribbling hands at this point, but as the defender has been on my right side the entire time (left handed dribbling), I have to studder-step and switch dribble hands behind the back. The studder step serves a dual purpose, as the defender guarding the 2 in this situation has now moved towards the FT line as too shore up the defense. I jut forwards towards the screen; only for another behind the back; this time it's not changing the dribble. It's a pass. A bounce pass. The "jut" caused the defender on the left block to move further into the paint.... (1/?)
<_<>_>_<_>_> All that in less than 5 seconds. That's why I love basketball <_>_><_>_>
I wonder if that was the divide. Triangles vs Circles. When contemplating circles there's really only one outcome: infinity. In a finite universe that doesn't exactly work. You can still build curves and such with triangles, it just takes lots and lots of triangles.
Are pyramids really a mystery? <_< >_> On the next episode of "The Twilight Zone"....