Caveman morality

[robinturner]

Having read much and written some on the subject of ethics, I am still brought back to my basic moral instincts, which are pretty Neanderthal:

1. Protect females and young.
2. Provide good things.
3. From 1. and 2., kill wild animals.
4. If any male invades your territory, pick up a rock and hit him with it.

This probably explains why I have such a strong emotional reaction against Operation Free Oil. When I see TV footage of Iraqi girls covered in bandages, I just get this urge to pick up a big rock. Call me a caveman if you like, but after trying to be the voice of reason all this time, I am now reduced to "Ug, aargh - Yankee hurt children. Yankee bad. Hit Yankee with rock."

Comments

[katminnaar.livejournal.com]

*LOL* Sorry... that's just kinda funny. :) Well, maybe sometimes caveman morality is a better, simpler choice, as long as it's egalitarian. I'm not sure we humans were really meant to live in groups any bigger than "village-sized" anyway. Larger than that seems to bring about all kinds of problems, and too much hierarchy.

Operation Free Oil.... ::chuckle:: I hear ya.

BAD Yankees. Bad.

I haven't seen this footage of Iraqi girls covered in bandages. Was it on BBC?

[solri.livejournal.com]

BBC, Euronews, Turkish TV - just about everywhere.

[solri.livejournal.com]

as long as it's egalitarian.

It's inherently egalitarian, because cavepeople were egalitarian. Unless I've got a bigger rock than you, of course.

BAD Yankees. Bad.

When I wrote that post, I was thinking about that episode of Buffy with the magic beer that reverses evolution. "Beer good. Buffy want beer."

[katminnaar.livejournal.com]

I meant 'caveman morality' as it might be played out today -- to be egalitarian as it apparently was way back when. I don't see it happening anytime soon, however.

Buffy is one show I don't watch anymore, but I do remember that episode. :)

[evan.livejournal.com]

Bush vs. woman, atop McD's.

[hfx-ben.livejournal.com]

I'm sure a good number of grads from reputable schools are on the State Department payroll working on the social psychology that leads to his reaction. My thesis is that the root dynamic underpinning fascism (do the etymology ... from the roman symbol of sticks bound together) is the in-group out-group phenomenon; if my fellow is brutal, he is strong and resolute; bla-bla-blah.
Reading the Rumsfeld Wolfowitz documents (see my Beyond Greed) makes it obvious that the grande strategy has everything to do with undermining the UN. (Are you familiar with the corporate financing that has been arranged for the UN? scary stuff)

yes, but . . .

[kesey.livejournal.com]

Yankee will *see* your ROCK and *raise you* one CRUISE MISSILE!

ouch :(

Current Music: System Of A Down - "Boom!"

Re: yes, but . . .

[(Anonymous)]

Fucking techno-savage !

[kristian.livejournal.com]

What if in order to protect women and children you had to harm some?

Well,

[ankh156.livejournal.com]

that's where you show your 'partiality'. Later you will be accused of racism, or something like it.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Well that's why people like you and me spend all this time studying ethics - caveman morality will only take you so far, and doesn't come near to answering "brain in a vat on a runaway train" questions ;-)

I read a good paper by John Bolander arguing that there is a two-tiered architecture for moral judgement. The first tier is pretty much hard-wired and encapsulated (i.e. only comes into play in certain specific situations). Things like "protect females and young", "don't screw your sister" and so on. The second tier is when our general cognitive processes get a look in.