What a cool thing to do; thanks for that! Bookmarked your site!

If we evolved from primates, why should I believe that my thoughts are coherent and true, thus why would I believe we evolved? — Georgios Bakalis

Darwin should have taken a physics class or two; and perhaps he'd have paid more attention to the causal nature of the environment, that requires the organism must be physiologically and behaviourally correct to reality to survive. Natural selection is not just about eat or be eaten. Causality is a huge selection pressure. That so, he has no good reason to look down on our primate ancestors - and on that basis doubt the general veracity of his inherited faculties. We have survived thus far.

lol, I have no idea what is happening in the mind of Trump, or his supporters, but whatever illogical process it is that enables them to decide what is true, and whatever 'representation of reality' they have if any at all, its beyond me, but they are winning

Chief Justice Thomas said last week he'd be 'open to hearing' arguments that Twitter violated rights to free speech by banning Trump. As its now a GOP majority in the supreme court, that means, without question, more Trump tweets by 2024. Fait accomplis. One could wonder how long ago Trump knew that would happen i guess, but its here now. More Trump tweets.

There's no rational explanation for this or any 'representation of reality' it fits in lol. Its insane. Sorry I have to go to bed. Good night ) — ernest meyer

I'm in the UK, so reluctant as I am to weigh into the midst of your politics, I have to say, the left worries me more than the right. Biden's about to spend $2 trillion on the wrong technology and the wrong approach to climate change - and by the time everyone knows he's wrong, it'll be too late. We need massively more energy, not less. Wind and solar cannot meet current energy demand, less yet - extract carbon, desalinate and irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle - all of which we need to do to secure the future. And like I said previous - if you're wrong, you're gone! Sweet dreams!!

That is a logician's assumption. For lower-order concepts there is obviously a need to distinguish between what is food and not food. Above basic, first-order concepts on the needs of life, it's not actually clear that the abstractions loigicians consider necessary truth actually are either necessary or true. From a logician's point of view they are. From Schopenhauer or Nietzsche's point of view, that's even naive. Human beings do not control themselves based on a logician's view of 'reality' and from what behavior ive observed in the USA during the Trump administration, doesn't care how many people it kills either, as long as those with power are having their desires satisifed. — ernest meyer

I don't know what you mean by saying "that's a logician's assumption." Thanks, I guess! I don't think you get my meaning either. From the structure of DNA, to the physiology of organisms, to the behaviours of animals, unto the knowledge bases of human actions - we have to be correct to a causal reality to survive. What's wrong is rendered extinct.

Nietzsche had a very poor understanding of evolution. He believed man to be an amoral brute - but he couldn't have been. He raised young, generation after generation, he shared food and looked after the tribe. Man is imbued with a moral sense - who then suffered the occurrence of intellectual intelligence, and sought to articulate that which he innately understood.

That's where the opportunity for error arises - not from man's sensory equipment - tested from the DNA upward by the function or die algorithm of evolution over millions of years, but from conscious intellectual understanding of his sensory experience. So Kant's got his distinction in the wrong place.

That's not actually true. Just because a biological mechanism exists to produce the representation does not mean that the abstractions are 'part of reality.' It means that the abstractions do exist, and therefore, higher functions of the mind must be supported by mechanical apparati which typically don't do a very good job at ensuring all members of the species are actually capable of handling higher-level abstractions without making fundamental errors. Some even dispute the process of reason is actually an advantage, calling it 'intellectual elitism' or some such, and they've had alot of success, so it's not even clear the ability to reason is a competitive advantage in the first place. False representations of reality go a long way these days. — ernest meyer

I agree there's a prevalence of false representations, but would add that there's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action within a causal reality. This explains why our current mode of existence is not sustainable. We'll die out if we are not correct to reality. It's for that same reason, sensory perception is necessarily accurate to reality.

Our ape ancestors swinging through the trees - looking out for ripe red fruit, seeing the next branch nearer or further away than it actually is, would plummet to their death, and we wouldn't be here. Understanding of sensory perception is where the disparity between experience and reality sets in. We may not understand what we experience, but what we experience is accurate to reality.

Kant understandably locates the problem between phenom and noumon - between subject and object, but that's wrong. The difference is between subconscious physical process and conscious understanding; a psychological problem.

One can dispense with the idea of the world as representation by accepting that the experiencing mind is part of the reality it experiences, and must necessarily do so accurately - to allow for the survival of the organism - evolving in relation to causality.

The distinction between phenomenal and noumenal then becomes a psychological difference between experience - as causal reaction to stimuli, and conscious understanding of experience.

It remains that:

it is logically possible that any given statement about the world is false. — philosophy

...but the falsity is not between the mind and reality per se; the falsehood arises from the mind's conscious experience of itself.

One can dispense with the idea of the world as representation by accepting that the experiencing mind is part of the reality it experiences, and must necessarily do so accurately - to allow for the survival of organism, evolving in relation to causality.

Cool. I'll keep my replies brief.

Did you actually read the OP? What is wrong with you people? Rather than address the actual arguments you just decide the arguer is a misanthrope. Er, I'm not. I just follow arguments where they lead and don't pathetically decide that what's true is what i want to be. Now stop the ad hominems and try - try - and engage with the arguments if you can. Sheesh. — Bartricks

Yes, I did, and no-one says something like:

This world is a prison, and if you try and procreate you are actively trying to bring an innocent person into the prison to join you - which is wicked. — Bartricks

...unless there's something wrong. Ernest went right to the head end, but I'm starting at the bottom. Eat some fruit for goodness sake, put a bit of fibre in your diet. You'll be happier for it. Your digestive transit (to use the approved euphemism taking a dump) will be much easier. And maybe then, you won't feel so ...locked up!

You're smart enough. That's not the problem. It's your impatience. You've got ideas, and leap at the keys to get them down. I know because I was the same way - until I disciplined myself to read the whole thing before I started writing. The ideas are still there after - and probably better formed for the effort. I don't want any bad feeling between us. I enjoy your posts, and would like to be able to discuss them with you.

I don't know if God exists or not, and furthermore, I know I don't know. In my philosophy it's important to acknowledge what can and cannot, reasonably be known. I'd have to have some very compelling reason to abandon the epistemological basis of my entire philosophy, for then - on what basis could I reason?

I suppose I could, like you seem to have done above, just spew misanthropic bile, but I have not found emotion a sound basis for reasoned argument, and I don't hate the world that much.

Sheldon makes a joke about why he knows he's not in the Matrix, because the food would be better, but I think to the contrary - food verges on the miraculous. I like to cook, and it astonishes me every time - that we are able to gather all these naturally occurring ingredients, and combine them, apply heat, to produce an endless variety of delicious meals. I'm guessing you eat a lot of burgers and pizza. Have a piece of fruit now and then!

I stand corrected. I misread your post, and sorry that I seem to have put you into a foul mood. — FlaccidDoor

No worries, I'm not in a foul mood, and for what it's worth, I see now that I didn't actually mention drilling for magma until the very last sentence. I've talked about it so much - what I believe is the solution to climate change, and key to a long and prosperous future for our species, that I thought I had mentioned it - and/or that I didn't need to explain what I meant by limitless clean energy. That said, I think if you were honest you'd acknowledge a tendency to take to the keyboard before having done the reading. I'm just telling you, it's very obvious to other people when you do that.

Here's where I'm guessing your lack of nuance on this issue (that of the OP) is connected with a naive belief in internal sensations (qualia). I suspect the two problems can be treated together. — bongo fury

It's not a lack of nuance - it's a view that's informed by the evolutionary development of the organism in relation to a causal reality with definite characteristics, where the organism has to be 'correct' to reality to survive. It's also based on consideration of things like art, discussion of art, traffic lights and colour coded electrical wires - all of which suggest that "red" is an objective reality, experienced similarly by physiologically similar individuals.

I may not use big words. I avoid hippy dippy terms like qualia - like the bubonic plague they are, but don't presume that, because I seek to express myself in the simplest possible terms, that I don't know what those terms mean, and haven't fed such considerations into my conclusions.

Thanks all :cool: bye for now — bongo fury

Run Forrest, run!

So, innate? — bongo fury

There is no necessary relationship between signifier and signified. The word for the thing, signifier, is not the thing itself, signified. Red is a thing; a particular wavelength of light that excites particular cone shaped nerve endings in the eye. We might have used another word for it, but that wouldn't make it a different thing. Experience of the thing that we call red, is the same for you and for me - unless you're colour blind, which about 10% of men are. Women, less so. In summary, I'm on the universalist side of the debate - and my 'cut the red wire' joke was intended to mock the Worfian cultural relativists.

You also didn't mention a blip of it in this thread so forgive my ignorance. — FlaccidDoor

No.

it's possible to drill for magma energy, and use that energy to avoid the impending catastrophe of our existence. — counterpunch

I didn't think I was confused until now. Limitless clean energy does suggest windmills and solar panels unless it refers to nuclear energy. — FlaccidDoor

I mentioned harnessing magma heat energy using drilling technology. I've mentioned it often enough, and we've spoken often enough - you should know that. If you'd read my post before replying, you'd know that - but you never do. It's not the first time I've read your response - and it's clear you haven't read the post you're responding to.

Cut the red wire!

Is my red your red?!

Boom!

The scenario is an artificial one designed to create confusion. Have some answers instead. Don't kill people. Not even when it is very convenient to do so. Don't blow them up even if they are right in the way and you urgently need to be somewhere. It's murder, even if you save some lives on the side.

While we're at it, don't torture people either, even if they have the magic life saving information and won't give it to you. — unenlightened

Gee, you think there wasn't really a fat man stuck in a cave? I've been deceived!

I do generally try to avoid killing people. If there were a way to avoid killing the hypothetical fat man, and save myself and others from drowning - I would expend enormous efforts to achieve both objectives. It is not about convenience. It's only if there were absolutely no other way - I would kill him rather than let myself and 4 others die. And it's not utilitarianism either, because if it were just me or him, I'd light that candle and stick it between his giant arse cheeks just the same. Why? Because existence is a necessary pre-requisite to values!

Probably this happens because humans tend to think and use a ideas or knowledge to improve our reality. It is true that praxis and action take advantage of the important issues. Nevertheless, one of the unique aspects inside us is the ability of questioning everything. Like we both are doing here about dilemmas. I guess this was the important step when we evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens. — javi2541997

I'm delighted to be able to agree completely. People acting from a moral sense - define morality. Debates about if it was or wasn't moral, or in what way it was moral - come after, and are - as you observed, endless.

True! But another interesting fact is that the people argument different answers when they check the dilemma, even they end up creating another dilemma inside the original one. Previously, I randomly named this dilemma as spiral because it can led us in an infinite situation of debates. I would sound strange but this is the part I like the most about dilemmas — javi2541997

It does seem strange to me; I like answers, and I've found I've been quite successful in discovering them - but no-one wants to know. They're like you - in it for the debate; which, with centuries to kill - is probably a good strategy. But our time is short. We need answers now, and what we have instead is confusion.

Asking "what did they do?" is a rhetorical question. It doesn't require an answer. Asking the question 'what did they do?' is to suggest that whatever they did - is what's moral (assuming that is, they perceived the moral dilemma and intended to act for the moral good.)

Why? Because morality is a fundamentally sense - that can be expressed in various ways, like those listed above. Personally, I would kill the fat man and save myself and four others, and be perfectly able to justify that with reference to utilitarianism.

Had I decided however, that I ought not kill the fat man, and had chosen to drown instead, I'd be able to justify that morally also - because morality is a sense, beyond definitive definition. In short, there is no right answer. That's what makes it a dilemma.

David,

If you highlight a passage within my post - as I will do with yours now, and then click the little curly arrow bottom left, next to where it says 2 hours ago, it will transfer the highlighted passage to the text box. Thus:

I hope you'll forgive me for ducking questions of art here. However, when it comes to science, I'm a realist and a monistic physicalist, but not a materialist: — David Pearce

Also, I will get a notification of your reply.

The fact that we each run a phenomenal world-simulation rather than perceive extracranial reality doesn't entail that our world-simulations are unreal - any more than the mind-dependence of our world-simulations entails that extracranial reality is unreal. It's often socially convenient to ignore the distinction and pretend we share common access to a public macroscopic world. But shared access is still a fiction. — David Pearce

That so, explain art - and not only creating art, but meaningful discussions about art. Explain what the artist thinks they are doing when painting a picture of a bridge in the fog. And how it can possibly be, that I come along, a hundred years later and say, "Hey - cool foggy bridge, dude!"

The way I see it our sensory apparatus evolved in relation to a causal reality over millions of years, and while limited, is necessarily accurate to reality - as it really exists, to allow for survival. We could not have survived if perception were subjectively constructed.

Since the 1634 trial of Galileo there's been a philosophical conspiracy to down-play science as a means to establish objective truth; starting with Descartes' subjectivism. Methodologically, Mediations on First Philosophy is a weak, sceptical argument compounding a misdirected search for certainty consistent with Church dogma - that argues, what if I'm being deceived by a powerful demon, and all the world is an illusion?

It's a retrograde step, epistemically, when you consider that William of Ockham had long since established the principle of sound reason known as Occam's Razor, "it is vain to do with more that which can be done with fewer." Had Descartes put his hand in the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he'd soon have discovered something exists, both objectively, and prior to "cogito."

Because the simplest adequate explanation is the best - it follows that we evolved in relation to a causal reality, and our sensory equipment is essentially accurate to reality, and similar person to person, to allow for survival. How can it be any other way? Spotting predators, and prey, and ripe fruits in the forest canopy - require we perceive reality as it really is - and allows in the fullness of time, for the creation and appreciation of art.

Sex and philosophy?

I keep dropping my book!

Sensory perception is limited; but that does not imply that what we perceive is unreal.

I thought it more than moral, in a survival aspect. Somehow the masses will fight to survive. Doesn’t matter the sacrifice for the the fat man. I guess this is morality to them. It is interesting because we can clearly see how changeful the concept of morality could be — javi2541997

In the trolley problem, instinctively, I'd pull the lever, kill one and save five. In this case, instinctively, I'd kill the fat man and escape - but as a doctor I wouldn't therefore butcher a healthy individual for organs to save five. Logically, it's the same thing - but morally it's completely different, and in my view, this is because morality is an ingrained sense - like humour or aesthetics, from which moral rules are derived in different ways:

Utilitarianism: A Theory of Consequences. ...
Deontology: A Duty-Based Moral Philosophy. ...
Relativism: A Theory Based on Experiences. ...
Divine Command Theory: A Higher Power. ...
Virtue Ethics: Always Improve Yourself. ...

The first two approaches are particularly germane. The trolley problem and the fat man imply utilitarianism, but the medical dilemma - while logically identical, implies a deontological approach because of the doctors duty to individual patients to do them no harm. It would be unethical for the doctor to think in utilitarian terms with regard to the interests of an individual patient. The moral sense understands this instinctively - which is why I asked, "What did they do?"

Were the inferential realist account an argument based in evolution, that had already acknowledged that the organism evolves in relation to a causal reality; such that the essential accuracy of sensory perception is promoted by the function or die algorithm of evolution, then we can consider how perception works - and I would accept that we experience "an internal representation, a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world."

I don't begin with trying to understand the mechanisms of perception, but rather with the fact of perception. Art, traffic lights, colour coded electrical wires - all refute the idea that:

"representative realism, also known as epistemological dualism, is the philosophical position that our conscious experience is not of the real world itself but of an internal representation, a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

Without that grounding in evolutionary biology, the inferential realist account is just subjectivism with a fresh coat of paint, because the effect is essentially the same. Focusing on the mechanisms of perception, you soon lose sight of the art, traffic lights and colour coded electrical wires that prove enormous commonality of perception of an objectively existing reality, necessary to our survival as a species - both up to this point, and in future.

I wholly accept that:

transhumanists are as keen on a healthy environment and economic prosperity as you are — David Pearce

...but the question, surely - is how we get there from here. It won't be by ignoring the gas leak in the cellar to hang beautiful pictures in the hallway. There's not many people around know the first damn thing about science and technology - and clearly you do, but you're putting the roof on before we've dug the foundations.

They literally did this. — javi2541997

Then it's moral.

What should they do? — javi2541997

What did they do?

I'd kill the fat man and escape, and live with a troubled conscience.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and thank you for your secret support. But I can't fix it. I must let the chips fall where they may. I said what I said, and if the reader - like Bartricks, for instance - would strip a few words from a sentence, the sentence from the paragraph, and the paragraph from the overall argument, and seek to use those few words to beat me with - I'll just have to cope with it as part of the rough and tumble of philosophical debate.

I maintain that (....) morality is primarily subjective — counterpunch

I maintain that the sum of scientific knowledge is rightfully the objective order and morality is primarily subjective, but also inter-subjective, social, political - and so subject to social struggle to define. Our rightful place is the position Hume objects to; the bridge between the 'is' and the 'ought' - knowing what's objectively true, and feeling, and articulating what's morally right - on the basis of what's scientifically true. — counterpunch

I did say it - but would have phrased it differently with the benefit of hindsight.

Recall I argue against the view that reality is subjectively constructed. But each of us runs a phenomenal world-simulation that masquerades as the external world. Mind-independent reality may be theoretically inferred; it's not perceptually given. — David Pearce

If objective reality exists, and we perceive it, surely the natural emphasis falls upon the validity of our understanding - and scientific method as a means to establish objective knowledge.

This then implies a far more systematic approach to the potential benefits of technology - whereas, it seems to me, your phenomenological approach makes no epistemic demands, and so justifies fantasising about technologically derived hedonism - while objectively, barrelling toward extinction.

If you'll pardon my bluntness - I don't mean to be rude, why don't you begin with solving climate change and securing a prosperous sustainable future, before proposing super-longevity, super-intelligence and utter well being?

For what it's worth, I think you're right - those things do hove into the realms of possibility, but only if we survive our technological infancy.

Dr Lindsay Carrol Thomas. Forensic Pathologist.
Death Investigations - holistic approach.

Enlarged photo of George Floyd's dead face, sealed in white envelope and handed out to all concerned. Making the jury look death right in the face. Good tactic. But is it justice? Clearly he couldn't breathe - and he died. Haven't we established that already?

How do you get from:

each of us runs an egocentric world-simulation. Phenomenal world-simulations differ primarily in the identity of their protagonist. — David Pearce

to:

However, as far as I can tell, the external world is inferred, not perceived. — David Pearce

Egoistic delusion about the significance of my own existence; putting aside the "sonder" of being just a passer-by in the experience of others, does not imply objective reality is subjectively constructed.

https://www.dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/

Drawing attention to your own post, everyone politely ignored - you now take exception to an honest opinion? This - is channelling my philosophy:

Law conforms to morality inasmuch as both are aides to preserve the tribe, and they promote behaviour that the tribe uses to successfully survive. The law changes according to how the tribe's needs change. — god must be atheist

I discuss our tribal ancestry - and survival. That's my bag. Of course, I don't own these ideas - but I do know when someone is shitting on my porch.

My first clue was that, not two minuets after I posted my serious, considered remarks - your attention begging post immediately knocked mine off the front page, and then - there's my ideas, set in the context of attacks on America, China, the ruling class - and bigging up Islam.

I'm not full of hatred. But I am upset, and I'm calling you out. If you've got something to say about me, say it to me.

However, as far as I can tell, the external world is inferred, not perceived. — David Pearce

Incorrect. How could we have evolved, swinging through the trees - looking to catch the next branch, running from lions, not falling over cliff edges, and so on and on - if our sensory equipment were not accurate to reality as it really exists? How could there be art or traffic lights, or colour coded electrical insulation if reality is subjectively constructed?

Subjectivism is wrong. An objective reality exists, independently of individuals, and we perceive it - as it really is, albeit with limited sensory apparatus.

Why do you not look more systematically to the potential benefits of science?

I wrote my post to explain the usefulness of truth, and you didn't read it before you replied. That's why you're confused - because you've made no effort to understand. Does the phrase "limitless clean energy" suggest windmills and solar panels? No, it does not. But thanks for the heads up on just how little impact my ideas have had.

Present, but incorrect.

I've thought about this a lot, and my conclusion is that truth is useful in a far more fundamental and long term sense - whereas the lie is short term, and implies costs when falsified. — counterpunch

Pardon me quoting myself for reference.

Logically yes, if the truthfulness is known but reality is rarely that way. We are presented with a barrage of information where we have to validate ourselves if they are truths or not. Aren't there believable lies and unbelievable truths? I guess my question is: can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths? — FlaccidDoor

*truthfulness is rarely known X
*lot of information / (nearest thing I got to a tick, weird right!)
*difficulty of validating information /
*credible lies /
*incredible truths /X - reality is incredible but truth has an appeal we recognise and gravitate toward.
*difficulty of validating information - again! no tick for you!
*misplaced piety /

Almost the whole gamut of epistemic implication. I'm impressed by the seemingly accidental concentration of philosophical themes - stuffed into such a short paragraph. I'm only disappointed you didn't also reach for the sceptical argument underlying utter epistemic relativism, and conclude by suggesting we can't actually KNOW anything!

I don't accept truthfulness is rarely known. Rather, I think science now constitutes a highly valid and increasingly coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit - to which we ought pay attention if we'd rather continue inhabiting it. Emphasis on absolute certainty is a red herring. I would like to continue inhabiting earth. I'd like to belong to a species with a future, and faced with significant future challenges - I see an opportunity in the objective validity of science, to meet and overcome those challenges - and secure for our species a long and prosperous future. Should I not talk about it? I'm aware there are reasons that maybe I shouldn't; and that's why you haven't, and that's why we're almost certainly doomed.

It is a lot. Everything is. Reality is complex and entropic. That's why we need vast amounts of energy to spend, and we have it. It's there, and key to human survival. I've gone through a lot to reach that conclusion. Painfully aware of how difficult it is to get anything done, I've sought to identify the key log - and it is limitless clean energy. It's the most scientifically fundamental approach - and the greatest good for the least cost, with least disruption. I can imagine fossil fuel producers freaking out at the very idea, but I would argue more energy gives us more time and discretion in the short to mid term, and would be applied to create sustainable markets in the long term. Nothing in that argument is beyond the scope of our knowledge or the potential of our technology.

Validation! I'll do it myself if I have to. Just give me the money, and get out of the way. I'll hire the expertise and machinery and have at it. You might be better going with someone with a proven track record in project management; I'd certainly look to hire such a person. But give me the cash and in five years I'll give you a working prototype of a system that can be scaled all the way up to limitless clean electricity, that extracts atmospheric carbon and buries it by the megaton, and produces hydrogen fuel and fresh water in industrial amounts.

Credible lies. I'm not lying. Naively, I set out upon my philosophical journey wanting to know what's truly true, and I found something - I'm somewhat inadequate to describe. It could be likened to an old lever, overgrown and forgotten - that in face of impending challenges, and having considered the consequences - I eventually concluded I'm morally obligated to point out. I have asked myself if pointing out the existence of the lever is equivalent to pulling the lever myself, or being reckless as to whether the lever is pulled. I have asked myself if pointing out the existence of the lever might cause that which, I believe pulling the lever would prevent. I've asked myself if I might be wrong, and found I was, and backtracked and changed my mind - and thought about it all - all over again and again until, as far as I can tell I'm right. Why, in all that - would I lie?

Incredible truths is pretty much covered above.

Nil points for repeating yourself. In fact, one demerit.

And then there's misplaced piety. I don't doubt the piety of others, even if I believe it's misplaced, but rather, refine my proposal to one specific, scientifically fundamental key application of technology, necessary to a sustainable future - precisely to afford our ideological irrationalities. I presume too much to draw an analogy with Prometheus, but in parallel style - advocate bringing home the truth we can live with. I don't advocate truth with a capital T - but pulling the big truth lever in a pragmatic fashion. Science is a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality we can trust in, and in those terms - it's possible to drill for magma energy, and use that energy to avoid the impending catastrophe of our existence.

I must have said something in the middle of the first page that people here think it's incredibly stupid, or incredibly smart, because nobody referred it. Or maybe the perception is that it's incredibly ignorable. My view certainly does not lend itself to the learned arguments over philosophies of hifolutin' law practicing dudes, but I believe what I said was rock solid. — god must be atheist

Okay, I'll bite - but you may not like it.

Seems to me, upon perusal - you've attacked every form of government, except Islam, while taking a sideswipe at China. Insofar as philosophy literally translates as "love of wisdom" - perhaps you didn't get a reply because this is a philosophy forum and what you said is not wise.

With regard to the passage below; I'd like to know to what degree my ideas have influenced your "thinking" if at all - or if use of the word "tribe" is convergent evolution.

Law conforms to morality inasmuch as both are aides to preserve the tribe, and they promote behaviour that the tribe uses to successfully survive. The law changes according to how the tribe's needs change. By "tribe" I mean a society, small or big: a literal tribe, of five families or so, up to the Chinese People's Republic, with 1.5 billion and still counting. — god must be atheist

The first part of what you say here is not that stupid. It's an arguable implication of many of the concepts I discuss, but it's then set in the context of these crazy remarks - and I'd like to know if you're trying to damage me.

What say you to that, if anything? — Ciceronianus the White

I think morality should be left to politics, while for the sake of the functioning of legal systems, maintain a distinction between morality and law. It's not for the courts to do good, per se. It's for the courts to do right - by legal process, where the good is defined democratically - by government responsible to the people in making laws that promote the good. Then, if any particular law fails to promote the good, the government can change it - or the people can change the government that made it. But what do you do if you've made morality and law synonymous, and for whatever reason, you've crafted a bad law? Live with it?