unapologetic

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Sunday Book Club: The Goodness Paradox – The strange relationship between virtue and violence in human evolution.

This book looks pretty wacky from my point of view.  It follows all the wrong, implausible evolutionary hypotheses.

– the common ancestor of humans, chimps and bonobos may have had qualities of all th…[Read more]

@istvan, thanks for the lively debate.

I’ve used New Atheism, and the debate between Christians and atheists about morality, and the theories put forward by Richard Dawkins about genetics, as a springboard to discovering moral theory from an evolutionary ethics perspective.  I have a new website here (I’m trying to get it onto Google).  I’ve found loads of material in Sunday School t…[Read more]

@marulimarulaki – I take your points.  I think that your Epicurean individualism corresponds with my small-group interpersonal morality of egalitarianism, liberty, helping, and fairness.

My implication is that unconditional love is for someone who deserves it, and of course, it has to be given voluntarily, or rather, involuntarily.  But we can t…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
a “transactional” mindset

In contrast to the small-group situation of unconditional sharing with those in need, I believe that the transactional tit-for-tat mindset that we use for dealing with people we don’t know very well arose in the same large groups that gave birth to organised religion.  So it’s not surprising if reli…[Read more]

@marulimarulaki – it sounds like your partner has inherited a “transactional” mindset from his religious upbringing, where life is a series of + and – in the ethical or deserving column of an accounts book.  If I do something good, that earns me the right to do something bad.  That’s not how a healthy life should be.  Unconditional love should be…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I reject this theory.

Low-conscientiousness conservatives, but not low-conscientiousness liberals, are responsible for most spreading of misinformation.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/14/we-found-the-one-group-of-americans-who-are-most-likely-to-spread-fake-news-526973

@davis – toxic behaviour is never acceptable.

Well @autumn, that’s a good answer.  I’ve been in the counter culture all my life, and we do like to make a fuss about things that are wrong.

Autumn wrote:
People may not like it, but it makes its dent, albeit with a cost.

I think you’re in denial that this kind of thing is not worthwhile, that it’s counter-productive.  People can scream and shout all they like: toxic behaviour doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

jakelafort wrote:
The psychology of the witch hunt gives us another nugget.

Qanon has been compared to the centuries-long witch-craze in medieval Europe: an “eclipse of reason”.

You’re right that a preoccupation with sin just makes it more attractive: being “bad” is thrilling sometimes.

Autumn wrote:
What do you think ‘authoritarian’ means?

OK then, bullying is what it is.  People don’t respond well to it.  Any protest is met with “you don’t like it because you’re a bigot”.  This does not make the message look attractive.  There are legitimate ways to make a noisy fuss, and stupid annoying ways to make a noisy fuss, such as ad h…[Read more]

Davis wrote:
Ugh…again you have responded to Autumn’s well thought out reply with babble.

Always with the ad hominems.  It’s not civilised behaviour.  You’re supposed to be a moderator.  Can you find a way to make your points, without insulting people?  That would be better.

To be honest, it’s authoritarian to throw a paddy if someone disagre…[Read more]

This is interesting.  It reminds me of what I’ve read about the kitting circles.  What’s the “moral” of this story?  That it’s unhealthy to be feverishly obsessed with “sin”?  That human beings are routinely corrupt, especially corrupted by power?  I think their problem was they didn’t have secular ethics to remind them what is right and wron…[Read more]

It’s interesting you mention boycotting.  Here is a 30-minute BBC Radio 4 programme that was on yesterday, that talks about “cancel culture” in a number of historical episodes, including the original Mr Boycott.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0014g04

Autumn wrote:
Anecdotes mean little

Cancel culture is authoritarian.  The Right does it too, along with their delightful practice of doxxing.  Extremists are extremists.

Davis wrote:
Simon, your overgeneralisations are getting bloody tedious.

Only if you don’t like the Left being criticised.  Don’t cancel me now.

Simon Paynton wrote:
I’m talking about Puritans, whether religious or political.

I don’t include @autumn in that.  Far from all woke people are obnoxious.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I think your use of the word “woke” here is misplaced. You are talking about bullies and their behavior.

I’m talking about Puritans, whether religious or political.