Reddit reviews Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil

>Seriously, If you have to believe in something to make it true for you then it's called subjective.

Morality is not something you believe in. It's deeply ingrained in our nature. People experience morality in many ways and to varying degrees, but the subjective feeling of something being morally right or wrong is a distinct set of intuitions.

Just Babies by Paul Bloom

The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

>Is what elites do moral to people?

No, but why should I abandon my compassion?

>Is what people do moral to animals?

No, but why should I abandon my compassion?

>Is it possible for hypothetical aliens to justify human genocide within the boundaries of their own morality?

Yes, but why should I abandon my compassion?

>Do the alternatives include a sustainable civilization free from stupidities of egalitarianism and freedom? Sign me up.

Yes, though that society would undoubtedly include a set of moral intuitions as well, even if they aren't those of egalitarianism and freedom. I'm guessing collectivism and contribution.

>One more thing. Apathy is not sociopathy, Doc.

I mean, it kind of is. Specifically, apathy towards suffering.

I'm not calling you one. Based on what you've written, you don't sound like a sociopath. It sounds more like you've buried your moral intuitions and are denying yourself them to cope with how fucked up everything is. Rather than do that, I would stress compassion over empathy.

You don't have to put others above yourself, but that doesn't mean we should be happy-go-lucky about it. Millions upon millions of people will die as humanity collapses, but we should recognize that for what it is—a tragedy—and we should make efforts to mitigate the suffering if at all possible.

Ah, here's the quote I'm looking for:

> Families survive the Terrible Twos because toddlers aren't strong enough to kill with their hands and aren't capable of using lethal weapons. A 2-year-old with the physical capacities of an adult would be terrifying.

I believe it's this book.

> What is?

Owning your own property is voluntary, government is involuntary.

> What is ok? Morals are a social construct. They vary from society to society and person to person.

And are social constructs not inherent to the human condition?

> Yes but they vary!!

Absolutely, but there are morals inherent that exist prior to externalities taking effect. Religion, for example, is caused by external events in life.

> And I say you're wrong. So I guess we're at an impasse. It's my anatomy vs your anatomy.

Understanding that theft is wrong vs not.

> Yes. So figure it out! I'm not going to keep arguing with you until you figure out what you actually believe in!

I do know what I believe in. I just don't know the specifics. Recognizing the sun is yellow is observable. Not providing the exact specifics for why doesn't dismiss the observation.

> I'm observing in nature that almost every advanced country has socialized healthcare. That's an observation. Therefore it must be human nature. And you can't prove me wrong because this is literally your own logic.

\>nature

\>advanced country

It would be my logic if it actually led to a logical conclusion.

> Do you just think that all the socialists, communists, fascists, liberals, and theocrats are a genetic mutation or something? Because they vastly outnumber you. Maybe you're the one whose anatomy is fucked up and that made you libertarian. It all comes back to "who are you to force your will on others?"

Mostly a lazy insult than an argument, but I would refer back to my 3rd point on this response. I would add that they believe they're fulfilling these moral truths but in manners that are objectively immoral. Making them understand that is a battle in it's own.

> Because humans inherently caring about one another doesn't get you very far.

Caring is a thought. Morals are thoughts.

> Ok, great, we care about each other, so socialized healthcare is a right. I get it. Now where in our caring and social nature does it say that we should have property rights and the right to bear arms, etc.

Property rights and the right to bear arms come from the understanding of what I own is mine (such as your body and material items) and the right to defend your life, liberty and property.

> It's not. It stems from the concept that you are at the whim of whoever has a monopoly of violence over you. If everyone has equal firepower, then no one can overpower any other person, and so every person is individually a sovereign king. It just so happens that power is not evenly divided, and there's people with a lot of power and little power, and so people naturally organize where the powerful control the less powerful.

This doesn't deny the claim that humans don't have natural rights, it just reinforces that people violate those natural rights.

> You haven't told me shit.

Yes. I have. Multiple times. Look through this thread again.

>You've just asserted that it's inherent in our anatomy without saying how, or why, or giving me an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

> Well I'm saying fucking prove it. I don't believe you. Maybe this argument works with your minarchist friends who already agree with you, but as a skeptic, your reasoning is bunk.

Sorry, the insults don't do anything for your argument other than suggest you don't have one.

> Fine. Then cite one. Find me an article by a biologist who says what you're saying. Let me discuss it with someone who knows what they're talking about.

https://www.amazon.com/Just-Babies-Origins-Good-Evil/dp/0307886840

> Reminds me of when Christians say "how can you deny God? Just look at the birds, the trees!" Yeah, ok. Sure.

A denial of science doesn't make an observation false.

> I am not going to bother with a blog written by a journalist, and I fidn it kinda funny that you think it is convincing in some way.

Paul Bloom is a psychologist at Yale university and one of his research topics is moral development.

So, yeah, there's something funny but it's not what you think.