What is morality?
We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.
Socrates, in Plato’s REPUBLIC (ca. 390 bc)
Morality to wield, or just to own?
Howard: I mean, morality for Eddie is like — what? — like — what? you know — it’s like some terribly worthy old urn, some terribly worthy old urn that’s wrapped up in some towels in his back closet. Well, it’s got a few chips in it, one has to admit, and it is rather ugly, really, if you bother to look at it, and it’s too heavy to lift, and in its style of course it’s totally out of keeping with everything else in the house, so, well, you know, it can’t be used — but ten times a day he has to exclaim, ‘Oh yes, that urn, it’s my great possession, my greatest treasure.’ I mean, it has no function in his own life — none at all — but he loves to have the feeling, ‘Oh yes, this is mine. I’m the sort of person who would own such a thing.’
Bazı ahlâkî yargılarımız biyolojik evrim ürünüdür.
The brain, like the rest of the body, takes time to grow, so I am not arguing that morality is present at birth. What I am proposing, though, is that certain moral foundations are not acquired through learning. They do not come from the mother’s knee, or from school or church; they are instead the products of biological evolution.
It is true that Kant insisted, following Rousseau, that a capacity for rational self-direction belonged to all men; that there could be no experts in moral matters, since morality was a matter not of specialised knowledge (as the Utilitarians and philosophes had maintained), but of the correct use of a universal human faculty; and consequently that what made men free was not acting in certain self-improving ways, which they could be coerced to do, but knowing why they ought to do so, which nobody could do for, or on behalf of, anyone else. But even Kant, when he came to deal with political issues, conceded that no law, provided that it was such that I should, if I were asked, approve it as a rational being, could possibly deprive me of any portion of my rational freedom. With this the door was opened wide to the rule of experts. I cannot consult all men about all enactments all the time. The government cannot be a continuous plebiscite.
The Seductive Process
Phase One: Separation—Stirring Interest and Desire
1-Choose the Right Victim:
Everything depends on the target of your seduction. Study your prey thoroughly, and choose only those who will prove susceptible to your charms. The right victims are those for whom you can fill a void, who see in you something exotic.
xiiiKitabı okudu
At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be morally wrong. These debates are uniquely human. There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finnish anthropologist Edward Westermarck, explained that moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation. They deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level. This is what sets human morality apart: a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment.
