This is a throughly naive idea based on the naive romanticism of Rousseau.

Rousseau had some excellent criticisms of the inevitable abuses of the suffocating institutional power structures of his time but, like it not, everyone really does have to be educated to live a truly moral life by the Wise Elders via a real process of testing and initiation.

Unfortunately our "culture" does not have any Wise Elders. Nor (with rare exception) does it have any institutional forms within which such a testing process can be accomplished.

All that we have is the one-dimensional youth "culture" as per the face-book phenomena wherein every adolescent (and sub-adolscent) idiot/fool is now an expert on everything.

Or the Barnum & Bailley cultic circus with its archaic urban legend myths--the "resurrection of christ", which never, and could not have happened, now being dramatised and SOLD via vast advertising/propaganda apparatus in Sydney.
Which is just an extension of the consumer "culture" altogether---the man in the clown costume being the star attraction.

A supposedly "infallible" star attraction who has to vet questions before they are asked. No embarassment allowed.

Show us your tits. Or in this case a tortured pain racked body nailed to a cross and celebrated as "good news".
Mortify the body to be "good".

You can even buy tacky souveneirs that go with the event. Be enthusiastic and buy the product. It is all so one dimensional and fake/phoney.

All the suckers being fleeced of their dollars for a hyped fairy-floss product---PT Barnum would have loved it.

If we are all so naturally good then how come so many children of all ages are such thorough-going bullies and that such bullying is such a huge problem in schools.

William Golding's novel The Lord of the Flies provides the necessary anti-dote to the myth of inherent goodnes. We are going to kill you.

The author left the best point right at the end -

"The transition period from a society that largely accepts religion as the source of morals to one that understands the true nature of moral behaviour will be slow and difficult but it is one that offers the possibility to a much more moral future."

Ho Hum

Children need guidance no matter which type of society they grow up in. Lord of the Flies and bullying at school all pertain to children and adolescents who, as jpw put it so well in another thread, "require calibration of their naturally inbuilt moral compass".

Basically, even children know right from wrong, but empathy and self-awareness, vital ingredients for ethical behaviour, is still developing in young people. That is why it is important to protect and guide our children.

Possibly with the odd biologically exception, no-one is born naturally evil or without empathy. Evil is borne of a particular set of conditions and conditioning or lack of care and guidance. This moral guidance should not be judgemental but gentle. I have found that the best 'morality' is by example not from preaching.

But wait...I thought atheists didn't believe this? Could it be there is no real agreement between atheists on morals because there is no real logical foundation for morals within the atheistic worldview....

I find the argument that forms of behaviour and response to the world is laid down in our genes convincing. The evolutionary psychologists have explained that the mind is like a Swiss army knife with different components doing dedicated jobs. This is why we recognise faces so easily and even see them in the clouds, why we are instinctively afraid of spiders and snakes but not of guns, why women automatically speak in a high pitched voice to infants or baby animals. It is also probably why we feel good when we do a good turn. And yes we are social animals and that is laid down in our genes as well.

However, all of these responses and actions are unconscious unless they are pointed out to us. That means that facial recognition etc. and responses to animals or children are automatic, the latter being affective. We know that some of them are working in a particular situation because we feel something.

So morals derived from genetics is not an intellectual system and requires an immediate stimulus to be triggered. This kind of response will not tell you how to vote or to care for a million starving people that you do not see. They may attract you to a handsome man or a pretty girl but they will not establish the firm basis for a lifelong partnership and the job of raising the next generation. For that we need intellectual, conscious, reasons to stay during the bad times.

Genetic modules in the mind are intrinsic to being human, we would never fall in love and have children, but if this were all there is then we would remain children, reacting to stimulus, acting automatically.

Peter Sellick

Peter,

Para One: Other cognitive science would agree with the evolutionary psychologists. Even someone like Freud felt his model of the Super Ego - Ego - Id, a metaphor which neurology would one day actually explain. Freud, did, his being right & wrong in Science, in a big way.

Para Three: In professional Marketing pertaining to Branding and Retailing, there is a distinction between "brand recognition" [prompted by senses]& "brand recall" [unprompted]. There are explanatory neurological bases here too.

You, more than most people, given your job, would be aware the brain is a layered system and the communications between the systems usuall work well, but sometimes fail or are tricked/confabulate.

Broca's lobe in the Limbic System is stimulated by survival extincts [religion,after-life] and also "significant olfactory connections" [Gardner]: Have the ancient temples and contemporary Catholic church stumbled upon that special reinforcing enducement, "incense"? Just speculation, I admit.

Cheers,

Oly.

"Genetic modules in the mind are intrinsic to being human, we would never fall in love and have children,"

[1] Genetic-based

but if this were all there is then we would remain children, reacting to stimulus, acting automatically."

[2] These are called sensory tableaux[Piaget]and are present in humans and many other animals too. Higher mammals move-on from this stage. We learn.

[3] [2] is subject to the Nativist vs. Constructionist debate

John – you say: “Morals, then are essentially the elements of that code of behaviour that ensures the survival of the species and, in complex social animals such as humans, this requires certain considerations for the welfare of others.”

Of course, the obvious question in response is: “Who says so?” John Ness does, but who is John Ness? You sound like some secular “god” making pronouncements from on high that we ought to ensure the survival of the species and consider the welfare of others. Without wanting to be rude, why should anyone care what you say?

A fellow atheist could say that he/she does not care about ensuring the survival of the species and that they don’t want to consider the welfare of others. They just want to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die. And why shouldn’t they? Presumably you must think that they are sick in some way not to see things like you do, but why shouldn’t they regard you as the sick one?

I guess you will say more atheists think like you than like the others I have proposed. Maybe you are right but I wouldn’t bet on it. But even if you are, so what? Is there some cosmic rule that states that the majority are always right? Really, your position boils down to ‘might (in the form of greater numbers) makes right’, at least when you think that the majority support your favoured position.

No John, atheism logically leads to every man/woman for his/her self when it comes to morality.

Oliver,

Sometimes your posts are so abbreviated I don't have a clue as to what your on about. I suspect your last one might be in that category. To me you point [1] reads like "things that are genetically determined remain constant over the life of the organism". Obviously you didn't mean that. What did you really mean?

Also, you evidently know who John Ness is. A URL or short bio would be handy.

Grey: "Could it be there is no real agreement between atheists on morals because there is no real logical foundation for morals within the atheistic worldview...."

Probably not Grey. In fact I would go further. I suspect that if you put the "moral outlook" of atheists and theists to the test by say giving them real world scenarios and asking them what the right course of action would be, you would end up with very similar outcomes. In other words there is not a huge real world difference between the morals of a atheist and a theist, let alone two atheists.

That is not to say there aren't differences between atheists, just like there are differences between atheists. How does a nice lump of pig sound to you, or juicy piece of cow, or how feel about worshipping a buffalo and indeed do you agree with the prior pope that evolution is real? Absolute morals are a bit like standards really, the great thing about them is there are so many to choose from ... all different. Now that I think about it, its likely that if you plucked two random atheists form the world, their outlooks are likely to be more similar than those of two theists chosen the same way.

"In fact I plan on making many more contributions to this site."

Isn't this harrassment? Continuing a behaviour after you've been advised that it's unwanted?

I'd be prepared to make an official complaint against at least one of the postings this person has made today.

GP: "No John, atheism logically leads to every man/woman for his/her self when it comes to morality."

If give you one thing Graham, never an arrow flew a straighter course than you on this topic.

Here is something I think needs to be pointed out, even though I know your not interested. Logic has nothing to do with how the mind works. There is no rule that says the human mind must behave like some logical machine, and there is no reason for it to do so. So when you say "atheism logically leads" you are just plain wrong if you are implying the human mind forced to go down some logical path. The human mind isn't constrained by logic, and in fact I would of thought your very own faith in an entity whose existence can't be proved would have made that plainly obvious. But then again, human minds don't have to be logical, so perhaps not.

GP: “Who says so?”

No one says so, Graham. John Ness is just observing all humans have moral codes that display a certain consideration for the welfare of others. He is not saying anybody told them do to so - that is your assertion, not his. That we all behave in a similar way is hardly surprising, as we all belong to the same species.

GP: "why should anyone care what you say."

There is no reason for anybody to care deeply, and more to the point its unimportant whether they do. They behave they way they do because they are all human, not because John or anybody else told them to.

GP: "A fellow atheist could ... just want to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die."

Yes, they could Graham. The problem for you is they don't. John has given one explanation of why. Evidently you don't agree with it, so what is yours?

GP: "your position boils down to ‘might ... makes right’"

You imagining things, Graham. He offered a reasoned, if forceful, explanation of his position, and is hoping it might persuade you.

rstuart – I’m not sure what you are trying to say with your comments about logic. I agree that not all comments on these forums are logical but surely we must endeavour to be logical and believe it is possible or else it is all a waste of time.

If John Ness is simply making an observation about what people claim is moral behaviour and not making any assertion about what actually is moral behaviour then that is of no help at all. An accurate observation can be made that in some cultures most people regard female genital mutilation as being morally acceptable. That observation though tells us nothing as to whether or not they are correct.

And are you seriously suggesting that no atheists have the attitude of just eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die? Why wouldn’t they?

if 'morals' are the things we do to ensure the survival of the species :) then.. I better CULL a few of my enemies here....

aah..now there's a good thought....

*looks up 'user-list'*

Of course.. the clear thinking person immediately tweaks to the problem of not having a foundation for morality other than 'existence'....

But while some might say I'm overly optimistic to think that I don't need to say any more.. for it would sound like 'preaching'... never mind.. I have faith.... and am sure the bright ones among us can also work out the obvious.

This issue has raised the point about morality and who defines it. As GP stated in some cultures there are behaviours that we might not accept. Moral codes or ethics are subjective. I guess we can only talk in terms of our own cultural experience.

"And are you seriously suggesting that no atheists have the attitude of just eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die? Why wouldn’t they?"

Why would they? Do you really think human beings need the idea of an 'afterlife' or a 'vengeaful God' to be able to behave with integrity or within an ethical framework? There are other compelling influences; the natural desire to form a society that would protect our children and create a better world for the ensuing generations; to do good rather than harm or to lead a purposeful life.

I am not perfect but I am not a hedonist intent on my own pleasure at the expense of others.I was raised in a non-religious family (albeit both of them were raised as Catholics). My parents managed to raise all their children with a strong sense of right and altruism without religion.

There is no doubt that religion has played a part in establishing ethical and moral behaviours, but as we evolve I think those ethics can be passed on without the need for religious dogma.

Religious dogma has the disadvantage of being self-serving and overly focussed on 'religion' rather than the premise of religion which I am sure was to act as Jesus (he may have existed) intended. Religious dogma that overrides compassion and tolerance defeats the original man-made purpose of constructing religion to provide such an ethical framework.

Constructing a fake icon or deity to establish an ethical framework is bound to become a house of cards at risk of tumbling down. A more honest and transparent approach to providing this ethical framework based on a natural sense of altruism is no less valid. A false belief has no more validity to trigger the development of a moral code in children than one based on pragmatic and biological commonsense.

You have enemies here Polycarp? Gee that didn't take long.

To not really answer your question GP, but to tweak you to it, I guess not that many atheists are obsessed with their own mortality. They could be, but they aren't. Now the question is why is that?

Noone has yet mentioned empathy here, but I should hardly be surprised. Even dogs have empathy, and they also seem to be able to operate as social animals with 'rules' and cooperative behaviour without the need for torturous philosophy.

But humans also have a temporal sense, such that we can imagine and often foresee the consequences of our actions before we take them. You may conjure any supernatural entity you like to explain it, but it is not illogical to posit that social behaviour can evolve to become as it has from a natural origin.

QUOTE 1
Morals, then are essentially the elements of that code of behaviour that ensures the survival of the species and, in complex social animals such as humans, this requires certain considerations for the welfare of others.

QUOTE 2
The decline of religion therefore actually opens up the possibility of a more moral society....

ADULT CHILD MARRIAGE How then.. do we decide on the morality or lack thereof on this issue?

According to Dr Bilal Philips.. the Prophet MOhammad by his life and example, established the parameters of marriage being that:
-A man in his 50s can marry a child of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-FY3f-YTKM

According to Dutch law:
http://www.pnvd.nl/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1160223395
Interesting discussion.
-According to Aboriginal Culture, Adult child marriage is valid.

ADULT CHILD SEXUAL RELATIONS.

-According to NAMBLA adult child homosexual relations can be 'positive' experiences.

-According to Various countries Adult child sexual relations outside of marriage are ok at certain ages.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
lists all the ages for countries around the world for
Male/Female Male/male and female/female

Some of them indicate the age difference.. and one example is Indonesia female 16 male 19

The problem for me is how 'genetics and survival' will manage the problem of VAST age difference?

To me.. it is common sense that any huge age gap between a male and a females age... should be guided for the best interests of the community and individuals.

In the case of a man of 60 and a female child of 9.. the following problems are self evident.

1/ Intellectual development/condition.
2/ Life span issues.. (He will die within perhaps 5-15 yrs)
3/ Maturity. (Her outlook is dolls..his is fences and sheds etc)
4/ Fairness. (having the most nubile part of her life, and giving the butt end of his... then leaving her with possibly children and a home to manage.. just seems grossly unfair)

In the absense of an abiding standard.. why not accept Nambla's claim?
I won't...but will you? why not?

Gawd - not only did it not take 'Boazycarp' very long to acquire "enemies" at OLO, but he has rapidly reverted to form.

His latest post not only returns to his overworn obsessions of Mohammed as paedophile and the dangers of NAMBLA, but also exhorts us to watch some idiotic YouTube piece that confirms his blather.

All we need is a few biblical quotations and capitalisations (e.g. "MIUAUG"), and Polycrap will have reverted completely to BOAZ_David. The only thing that is unclear is why he persists in pretending he's someone else.

I am in complete agreement CJ

And quite frankly, given that his arguments are precisely the same as they have always been, I am disinclined to engage with him until and unless he reverts to his former identity.

I presume that the reason he has taken on his new mantle is that he had managed to lose every single argument on Islam, Mohammed, Ein Volk, Ein Reich, NAMBLA, child-beating etc. until eventually he had nowhere to hide.

Add to this his propensity to first of all get his facts wrong, then bluff and bluster with a couple of red herrings before finally changing the subject entirely, and I simply refuse to start the whole process again as if Boaz had never existed.

This Polycrap stuff has gone on long enough, Boaz. 'Fess up, abandon the pretence and get back to where you belong.

Right now, you are in a position where you have bent the rules a tiny touch, given us all a chuckle as we quickly unmasked you in your new guise, and have done little damage to your reputation.

But deep down, you know that is is wrong. At one end of the spectrum we can call it harmless deception, but at the other it is borderline fraudulent.

Fraudulent, because it allows you to disavow any, all or just a chosen selection of your previous posts here. It indicates that you lack the courage of your convictions, and refuse to take responsibility for your past actions.

Forget fraud. That's actually cowardice.

Let's keep it at the harmless fun level shall we, and see you again in your proper spot, Boaz.

History and all.

*They just want to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die*

Yes some in society do that. Conversely some of the religious spend
a good part of their lives doing little but praying, or chanting
their religious mantras.

A point can be made that both are simply wasting their time,
when they could be doing more useful things.

Mr Hess has the genuine revelation - that there are in fact genes that code for instincts for care and concern, for emotions that help sociality!

Mr Hess knows we all know there are genes that code for instincts for self preservation, and procreation that may will be anti social in certain circumstances.

Mr Hess knows another instinct will adjudicate between these competing emotions.

Mr Hess knows another instinct will help adjudicate between this adjudicating instinct and a competing contender for the adjudicating instinct and so on infinitely.

Mr Hess has more to tell us; religious commitment is declining.

Mr Hess concludes traditional morality has had its day.

Mr Hess is clearly for progress, fairness, democracy, rationality, goodness for all humans. (Mr Hess is clearly very noble).

Mr Hess in his great Innovating wisdom has no need to reveal by what authority he keeps those various values drawn from the stock of traditional values while at the same time rejects traditional values.

Mr Hess the great Innovator can appeal to the standard and debunk the standard at the same time by magically locating the standard in a DNA sequence!

Mr Hess ought, oops, can I use the word ‘ought’ anymore Mr Hess? Perhaps Mr Hess should, oops, there I go again. Sorry Mr Hess.

Please Mr Hess show us how this sleight of hand works? How is it you can keep your own values in the background away from the debunking process?

Very clever Mr Hess

Okay, I erred in previous postings on related topics I had the wrong meaning of ethics. Dumb, sorry.
I seem to be an outsider because I don’t seem to be on the same page as many others. This article seems to be trying to give humans some special superior qualities over other animals. He also seems to be confusing genetic motivated behaviour with learned.

In past topics I offered the thought that animals share many base behavioural patterns with man. The two most pronounced are:
• Self preservation (fight or flee instinct).
• Preservation of the individuals’ genes.
It can be reasoned that these two primeval instincts amongst the Animal Kingdom are simply various expressions of evolution appropriate to the species. One only needs to read of wild studies of Bonobos to realize the similarities. Unlike the other species of Chimps the Bonobo has developed a collection of ‘learned’ social skills that make them more ‘peaceful’. Sex is a big part of this. Most of their social behaviours have resonance in humans. Yet they don’t have religion.

Much as Polycarp has some extremist inclinations he does make a valid point (sort of). That is any consistent behaviour (certainly Values) beyond those that can be explained by the above instincts) are indeed cultural (learned).

My experience in PNG confirm this. With every mountain top having a separate language/clans (800 separate languages) cultural (moral) similarities seem to have been based on location i.e. proximity to each other.
I say “have been” because the mixing of cultures and the culturecide of zealotic Christians have confused the situation.

Their taboos have evolved to meet practical needs over 20k years give or take. They address two basic needs:
• local food conservation/ medicine;
• and a need to explain the above and their environments often combing the two.
Certain areas of the jungle were inhabited by bad spirits who forbid hunting there during certain times of the year. Over the eons the animals/ bird have learned to breed there during those times.
The trick for us is to set/teach reasoned Values/morals. Comments?

examinator, my guess is that John Ness would heartily agree with everything you have said. At least I hope so. His argument is more to do with attributing morals to their proper source. If you believe that morals are derived from absolute authority, you aren't likely to very enthusiastic about changing them. On other other hand, if you believe, as you say, they are a rule book adapted to the current environment, then when faced with changes in the environment you are far more likely to change your morals to suit. Given our societies are probably changing faster than at any other time in history, the latter is probably the better way to go.

Our friend runner made this point rather well a little while ago, when he bemoaned not finding answers on how to respond to global warming in the bible. Someone else of the same bent was saying they wished the bible was more direct in declaring abortion abhorrent.

Ness is also saying we will move away from absolute morals to relative ones, because of this advantage. I think that is a far more dubious proposition. Perhaps that is what you are referring to.

GP: "I’m not sure what you are trying to say with your comments about logic."

It's a view so distant from yours Graham that I doubt I will be able to express it clearly for you. Try this. I often see you saying something along the lines of "If you believe X, then logically you must do Y." Often when you say that, X does indeed follow from Y. But the brain is demonstrably not logical. Often when we believe X and know that Y is the best course of action, we then do something else entirely. Thus your argument "X logically follows from Y" simply does not apply to human behaviour.

For example, I strongly suspect you are not going to understand or agree with a word I am saying here. Yet still, I type them. Why? If its any consolation, I don't know the answer either.

"Genetic modules in the mind are intrinsic to being human, we would never fall in love and have children,"

[1] Genetic-based

but if this were all there is then we would remain children, reacting to stimulus, acting automatically."

[2] These are called sensory tableaux[Piaget]and are present in humans and many other animals too. Higher mammals move-on from this stage. We learn.

[3] [2] is subject to the Nativist vs. Constructionist debate

rstuart,

I am guilty as charged, sorry. The quotes in my post are from Sells and my response mainly, but, of course, not exclusively, directed to him.

In the first instance, I was simply saying that at the "modules" are not genetic at the macro-level, rather than simply, "genetic" based. At the level of neurons, perhaps, rather than amino acids.

Piaget was a development psychologist, who held that we are born with sensory tableaux; e.g., a child's response to a mother's breast. The sight-suck response is in innate. Super-added to this state, we, as higher mammals learn as acquire higher cognitions.

Bio., as requested. In my first career, I was a national product manager & a systems manager with a bank. I have worked with IBM on artifical intelligence. For the past fifteen years, I have been in an academic teaching at five unis across the world and the Academic Director at two. Many research interests. Currently, the effects of cross-cultural dimensions on knowledge discovery. Apart from the aforesaid, I shall remain annonymous.

And you?

Polycarp,

Boazy, as a student of North Indian clans, you might be aware that, historically, some clans would allow widows to initiate youths in sexcraft. Is that immoral, or, is moral relativity, in this instance?

- I suspect these actions, though alien to our society, had practical value to those involved.

"Genetic modules in the mind are intrinsic to being human, we would never fall in love and have children,"

We can actually learn a great deal from other species, about all this.

Pairbonding and feeding the offspring, is fairly common in a number
of species. An interesting example is the prairie vole. I read the
paper some years ago and it made for fascinating reading, undertaken
at a University in the US.

Tests were done with prairie voles, who are loyal little critters.
They tend to pairbond and that's it, they are loyal. Much as the
males were tempted, with other cute little females, they stuck
by their partners and did not fool around.

The Kansas vole on the other hand, showed no such loyalty and
given the chance of a fling, they would grab it.

The difference in the end came down to vasopressin acting on
certain parts of the limbic system, in other words, a genetic
difference.

To establish the results, radioactive substances were used, so
sadly the experiment can't be tested on humans.

So the question then arises, are men who are loyal and faithfull
husbands, as distinct from those who fool around, doing so because
they decide to, or because of a gene which they carry, which
compels them to act in certain ways? In my experience, some
people just can't help themselves, in behaving in one way or
another. Genetics clearly plays a role in all this, much as we
sometimes kid ourselves, that it is all so called "free will".

Interesting argument, Mr Ness. I'm not sure Dawkins (the selfish gene) would agree with some of your statements.
I'm interested in all the posts which refer to changing moralities, to suit changing times and situations.
The Golden Rule, "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you", has been around for thousands of years. It is mentioned somewhere in every major religion -although, as you rightly point out, this is not necessarily a ringing endorsement.
I find myself wondering, in what possible predicament would I deliberately allow my child -son or daughter- to be nailed to a cross and left to hang, hour after hour, until finally dead; all to prove I'm loving, caring and compassionate.
This concept of some bizarre nobility in sacrifice opens many doors; sacrificing -perhaps not your own- children to war for some higher -political- purpose...
I agree, morality and ethics should never be confused with religion.

Oliver and others
The other problem with discussions like this is that many think in absolutes “either or” scenario.
My some what eclectic life thus far has revealed that absolutes are few and far between (matters of opinion). Therefore I am often bothered by emphatic answers to abstract questions as though they know THE universal truth. Reality has as many faces as there are opinions.

Jesuit (nurturist) boast “Give me the child until puberty and I’ll give you the adult” is informative as it has some real scientific basis. The cultural made morals (like the VILIFICATION of paedophilia) have their limitations/modifiers that must be factored in. The question is then “How well and why?”

Genetics (nature) has a myriad of variations that influences the person’s ABILITY to adopt both initial and subsequent morals. This can range from a genetic miscopy, a bad gene, or conditions invitro etc or a combination.

I have noted that late conversions, “Born Again (anythings)” TEND to be the more intractably dogmatic and defensive about their chosen religion as to prove their bona fides while emotionally confirming the righteousness of their decision, a psychological/emotional conflict with previous beliefs. A factor well know to the Ottomans when recruiting their feared Janissaries.

It is at the emotional/psychological level that most conversions (excluding opportunistic ones) tend to take place. (In my case at 7ish I joined the Salvos at Boroko to gain the favour of a cute girl, Sandra… Alas it failed). Today I’m a Secular Humanist.
Much depends on the neural pathways set pre adolescent. (My cross cultural early upbringing I believe allows me to appreciate both sides).
I have seen two historically peaceful tribes (PNG) one Catholic influenced the other Adventist go to war over the day of worship. The added factors were the imperfect message imposed by biased preachers on to a culture that neither understood nor valued (Heathen principal). Clearly each tribe interpreted the word though their own existing cultural moral filter. As true Christians each believed they had to convert the other tribe to the truth. Clearly are formed by both Nature and Nature.

Oliver,

I was actually after John Ness's bio, as you seem to know of him. Just a link or something. But thank you for your reply, and in particular the clarification.

I don't fly at quite the same lofty heights as you, I am afraid. I was once a computer programmer, perhaps I might of been called a computer architect at one stage or engineering manager or some such at one stage - but I am not big on titles. I have now semi-retired into a system admin role. Semi-retired refers to the stress levels, not the hours. I still designing and writing software, but open source everything I do nowadays. I have always tried to stay away from big firms and big bureaucracies - such as IBM and Uni's. The politics gives me the willies. I didn't really like managing people for the same reason.

Like you I prefer to remain anonymous, at least I am at working. I don't want any illconsidered comment I might make here to attract unwanted attention to the firm I work for. Once I retire I will happily come out of the closet.

rsuart,

No, unfortunately, I don't know John Ness.

Agree. The bigger the organization, the more politics to avoid.

Sorry, I was vague. Some treatments, I have had lately have made me a little foggy minded.

Take care.

I think the nice respectful exchange between Oliver and RStuart in the last couple of posts says something about morality. Where does it come from, how is it determined? But I can recognise it when it happens. Good on you guys!

A fascinating article by John Ness. Though it was short, it was packed with intriguing informations.

Historically, the common theme of all beleif systems is the emphasis and the need for self-discipline. The ancients understood this, whatever myths they may have woven around this idea. The myths or stories may have been a way of transmitting a tradition among largely illiterate people. As the article states, the need for self-discipline was inherent among all humans. Along the way, this absolute need for self-discipline became better known as moral values.

There is only one disagreement with the article. At one stage it refers to humans as "complex social animals". Evolution may have been a slow and very gradual adaptation to the changing environment, but it has been punctuated by gigantic leaps. For whatever reasons, humans are different to what went before, not just quantitatively, but more importantly, qualitatively. For example, humans are the only ones capable of perceiving and communicating concepts that they cannot experience directly. (e.g. the Helio-centric view of our world.) Humans are the only ones capable of producing and controlling energy. (This is far more that just making tools!)

Instead of humans being "complex social animals" just leave out the word animal. Humans are complex social beings. Being social implies that characteristics that enhance the social value of an individual are advantageous in evolutionary terms.