nemorathwald (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nemorathwald) wrote2007-06-19 08:22 am
nemorathwald) wrote2007-06-19 08:22 am
Entry tags:
The Alpha Male Monkey
I mentioned this essay on The Sci Phi Show and said that I'd put it back at the top of the site when the episode aired so the listeners could see the illustration, so here it is.
Imagine if transportation was defined as a device that uses horses or sails-- automobile drivers would be accused of denying the existence of transportation.
We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:
Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"
Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."
Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"
Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."
Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:
It looks like this:
We're all equally at the top."
Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."
Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."
Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."
Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."
Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"
Me: *facepalm*
As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.
Imagine if transportation was defined as a device that uses horses or sails-- automobile drivers would be accused of denying the existence of transportation.
We're genetically programmed to see an Alpha Male in our primate pack as the source of truth and moral law. This explains the difficulty I have in communicating alternative models of truth and moral law to bible believers. It's not that they reject the model I present, it's that they literally don't know what I'm saying. It's a mental block. We take away the concept of the Alpha Male Monkey in the sky, and they think we've declared truth and morality to be nonexistent, because to them, "right" is defined as: "whatever the Alpha Male Monkey says." By definition. The discussion goes like this:
Bible Believer: "So... where is the Alpha Male Monkey in your model? Is it you? Why should I have to do what you say?"
Me: "No no, there isn't one. Right and wrong are based on the suffering of the victim, not obedience to laws."
Bible Believer: "Um. So we're abolishing laws? There's no law against, for instance, rape?"
Me: "No, if somebody says 'don't rape me', it's wrong."
Bible Believer: "So, she's the Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "THERE IS NO ALPHA MALE MONKEY. Morality doesn't look like this:
It looks like this:
We're all equally at the top."
Bible Believer: "We're all Alpha Male Monkeys? I can't believe you're arrogant enough to think you have omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence."
Me: "We're all equally at the top, but the top is a lot lower than perfection. We don't need that; it still works just fine."
Bible Believer: "So what if it works? You don't have a replacement Alpha Male Monkey to obey, so why should I care? I define 'morality' as 'obedience' as you depicted in the first chart. Therefore you have no basis for morality."
Me: "But it works! If you want to be moral, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you!"
Bible Believer: "There you go trying to command me again. Who died and made you Alpha Male Monkey?"
Me: "I didn't command you. I said 'if' you want to be moral. I'm pointing out to you how to accomplish something you said you wanted to accomplish, and how to measure how whether you've acheived it. If you don't want to be moral, I'll let you deal with the problems that come along with that."
Bible Believer: "Hold on a minute... I'm trying to find a command from an Alpha Male Monkey in that... where was he again?"
Me: *facepalm*
As the old tract goes, "only two choices on the shelf: live for God or live for self." It literally doesn't occur to them to see beyond that fase dichotomy. Notice that I didn't get around to defending my model because I literally couldn't get across what it was. Hopefully the concept of an Alpha Male Monkey will help to explain this in the future.
no subject
A while ago this topic discussion reminded me of a phrase from the founding fathers of America, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." That phrase says it all. Humanity has woken up looked around and watched themselves and noticed, "Hey when A happens B happens and it's not good." When someone is violated and harmed bad consequences happen and I'm not talking about the harm of someone being insulted by a bad word or disgusted at someone's unusual sex life I'm talking about serious physical and/or emotional pain.
Regarding children: It is universally accepted that children can not make informed decisions. They are granted a little bit of decision making power in their late teens but not much and certainly not like 200 years ago when they would be parents themselves at that age more often than not. Our modern society has worked hard to keep their children as dependant as possible psychologically perhaps because the life span is so much longer now and don't have to encounter that much responsibility so soon. Therefore any ideas about a child making an informed sexual choice or to let themselves be physically harmed is beyond ridiculous and of course it would be harmful to them and their developing psyche.
It takes finesse and hard work to get along with each other in the day to day span and sometimes people simply must avoid each other and that's just the way it's going to be. But everyone has a rule of "Do not intentionally harm me!" and yes that includes someone who likes to feel physical pain; even they have their limits.
I think it would be less confusing if we used something other than "morals" to describe this regulating process. The word "morals" has so much history and connotation of being attached to a select few authority figures. Call it self-preservation perhaps. The "self" being all humanity.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-06-26 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)But on this point, I'd disagree. We most certainly do not agree on the larger, harmful points. Take an absolutely huge example: Murder. In some places, it is deemed reasonable (as we've recently seen) to stone someone to death for violating the accepted societal rules. In others, it's merely okay to kill folks in a more "humane" manner. In still others, murder is murder is murder; and there are no mitigating factors. These aren't tiny nuances, but huge big issues. Morality only seems absolute to an individual.
I'll agree with you, conditionally. What is a child? In some cultures, a "child" of 12 can wed a full grown "adult" and have sex. In other cultures, adulthood in women is marked by the menarche. In still others, by some arbitrary date (like the 18th, 17th, 16th, or 14th birthday, in the US).
no subject
no subject
Some groups of humanity do choose to be self-destructive usually when following after a charismatic leader or leaders out of desparation and/or tradition.
Essentially I'm promoting the law of florishing. Does an action promote a person to florish and grow and produce in their community or does it cut down, harm or burden them? The less florishing people the worse for their community and their world. This is extremely vague but that is what it all comes down to. The bare minimum that I base good v bad in my mind.
I'm curious what those cultures you mentioned would be like if the people had the florishing attitude as opposed to following teachings because of tradition and what is said in a holy book. Of course it would take a very very long time to even begin to change attitudes. People have to want to change after all.
It all comes down to life v death in the end. Funny that. I'm all about the life, baby. Non-florishing people means less life and less good things in the world.
The children cut-off issue is complex as it mostly deals individually with each child's mind and body capabilities. The person must be able to make a fully formed choice with complete knowledge of all possible consequences and must not be causing themselves physical harm as in some 12,13 and 14 year olds could die in childbirth because they are too small. The age limit is different in cultures but to play it safe, cultures probably should stick with their own usual age group that is of course unless the culture is endangering girls whose wombs are too small.