Thread: The Khaotic Ambidextrous Path

I know you're discussing with Mirfalan, but I'll chip in because this is interesting.

Running on pure animal based instincts is a good way of putting it...what would your instincts be?...what would happen to your morals, your ethics?

Morals and ethics are intrinsically linked. An ethical standpoint is essentially the modal morality of a societal system. It hence changes with the societal system.

If the society tended towards anarchy selfish behaviour would be more rewarded than altruistic behaviour, hence why people would act that way.

To say we have a core of ethics and morality is a bit strange, because they're both social constructs. You're born with survival mechanisms, babies cry when they hear shouting because it's a loud noise - it's a conditioned response to an alarming stimulus.

These fundaments of our characters are just survival algorithms, the essence of us is just survival, and various strategies to ensure it. Stripping away societal constraints won't make us learn much about ourselves we were unaware of, besides the apparent shock of adaptation as your survivalist instincts opt out of your previous moral system.

Anarchy is not a void, it too applies a system of ethics to those people experiencing it.

This 'essence of self' thing is an attractive idea, but it doesn't seem very logically sound.

Originally Posted by S33k3R

When the **** goes down...how do you react?.
Do you step forward and take charge?
Are you a coward?
Would you sacrifice the weak by your inaction or would you risk your own existence to help them...how much risk would you take?
Would you kill another to ensure you're own survival?
Would you eat them if you had to?

How a person would react in this situation is still determined by his/her family situation, enviornmental influences, and current societal constructs. Let me say I am an altruist when the society is functioning "normally". But then, anarchy descends upon my nation, and I become a self-serving individual. Well, that selfishness was always there, hidden under a facade of altruism. And, said selfishness was still devopled by the socioenviornmental and family influences. As was the need for me to hide my selfish behavior under a philanthropic veil.

In this case, the void is thrust upon us in the form of anarchy...

As Plarkenstorf said, anarchy is not a void. It is a rather chaotic situation, but even chaos has its order. A void destroys everything. It renders all into nothing.

How a person would react in this situation is still determined by his/her family situation, enviornmental influences, and current societal constructs. Let me say I am an altruist when the society is functioning "normally". But then, anarchy descends upon my nation, and I become a self-serving individual. Well, that selfishness was always there, hidden under a facade of altruism. And, said selfishness was still devopled by the socioenviornmental and family influences. As was the need for me to hide my selfish behavior under a philanthropic veil.

That is applicable to you...and thats fine...but Its not applicable to other people. If you know how you'd react and are comfortable with it...then more
power to you. A lot of people have no idea how they would react, and some probably have a certain idea which might well turn out to be wrong.

You'll never really know until you've been put to the test.

It is a well documented fact that some people display altruistic behavior in situations that would seem absurd given the upbringing and background of the respective characters in question. This is apparently termed "extreme altruism" and cannot be explained by social conditioning alone.

Not saying that these acts specifically prove me right...its just that there seems to be more factors at work here. What makes it interesting is that in situations that happen very quickly, a large part of the brains circuitry is bypassed...we switch to survival mode...which has elements of logic to it but is not completely logical. Panic is an example of this, it stems from instinct...but people have burned to death trying to push open a door that had "PULL" in big red letters. It appears that parts of the circuitry bypassed in very stressful situations has to do with social conditioning.

To say we have a core of ethics and morality is a bit strange, because they're both social constructs. You're born with survival mechanisms, babies cry when they hear shouting because it's a loud noise - it's a conditioned response to an alarming stimulus.

Babies crying is true but not applicable...we don't operate on the same level as infants in times of stress. If we did, WW1 might have had a slightly lower body count.

These fundaments of our characters are just survival algorithms, the essence of us is just survival, and various strategies to ensure it. Stripping away societal constraints won't make us learn much about ourselves we were unaware of, besides the apparent shock of adaptation as your survivalist instincts opt out of your previous moral system.

Thats just my point...in a lot of cases, they don't opt out.

Why?

Originally Posted by S33k3R

That is applicable to you...and thats fine...

That was just an example and not how I would react. I am not altruistic in the slightest.

It is a well documented fact that some people display altruistic behavior in situations that would seem absurd given the upbringing and background of the respective characters in question. This is apparently termed "extreme altruism" and cannot be explained by social conditioning alone.

If it is a well-documented fact, where are the documents? Altruism is a product of societal conditioning. In fact, altruism would never occur in an insecure, non-peaceful society. Humans as animals are concerned with one thing: survival. Perhaps helping out a fellow human will ensure survival, but perhaps not. He or she could grow stronger than the altruist and stab him or her in the back. Extreme altruism is fundamentally opposed to biological instincts as an animal cannot survive if it is constantly concerned with the welfare of others. "Here, everyone, eat this animal I scavenged" will not lead to survival of that individual. If altruism is not a product of biological instincts, then it can only be a product of societal influences.

Panic is an example of this, it stems from instinct...but people have burned to death trying to push open a door that had "PULL" in big red letters. It appears that parts of the circuitry bypassed in very stressful situations has to do with social conditioning.

Yes the fight or flight instinctive mechanism. Strip all social conditioning and people with either fight or run in an intense situation. However, what a specific person does will depend on how influenced s/he are by society. A person who has spent all his or her life struggling will probably fight during a tense event. Regardless, if you strip all social conditioning away from humans, they become nothing more than animals. Your example of people being unable to push open a door because they were pulling it is an example. But, even how a person reacts in such a situation is conditioned by society. A person that spends a great deal more time pulling than pushing doors will most likely pull a door in a situation that reduces a person to instincts.

So you see, strip away all social, environment, and family/friend influences, from people and you will be left with animals that have instinctive differences so minuscule that they are hardly worth reporting. And even if they were worth reporting, they would still be the result of external influences.

Thats just my point...in a lot of cases, they don't opt out. Why?

If people do not opt out of their moral structuring during difficult times, it is because they were so strongly effected by social parameters that their instinctive responses were annihilated. I have a feeling that such occurrences are rare.