Bull Ring Are morals absolute or relative

[ding]

The purpose of this debate is to discuss whether morals are relative or absolute.

forkup will debate the position that morals are relative.

ding will debate the position that morals are absolute and that it is the perception of morals that are relative.

I will ask the mods if they are interested in being judges.

forkup would you like to go first or would you like for me to go first.

 

[forkup]

The purpose of this debate is to discuss whether morals are relative or absolute.

forkup will debate the position that morals are relative.

ding will debate the position that morals are absolute and that it is the perception of morals that are relative.

I will ask the mods if they are interested in being judges.

forkup would you like to go first or would you like for me to go first.

You go first. I'm still at work and the phone doesn't lend itself to typing a decent position.

 

[ding]

ding's assertion #1: Morals are absolute.

Point #1: Not all behaviors have equal outcomes.

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Point #2: Morals are effectively standards.

Standards exist for reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will make itself known and be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. In other words, the reason why the standard exists will make itself known through outcomes.

Point #3: Standards exist independent of men.

The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest level of quality or attainment. This quality or attainment is independent of our perception of the standard. We can establish any standard we wish, but it is the outcomes that will determine whether or not it is the highest standard which exists.

 

[forkup]

I will first answer your posts and than give you my own position.
I will condense your points into a central assertion. If you feel I misstate your position feel free to correct me.

One can judge the morality of actions by judging the outcome.
This is demonstrably false since the same actions commonly have different outcomes. Say if I get awoken at night by someone breaking into my house. I go to the stairwell and I notify the burglar that the police has been notified. The person proceeds to go out of my house were he is subsequently picked up by the police. Morally I have done the right thing. Nobody got hurt and the thief goes to jail.
What though if the guy is unstable and instead he chooses to fire a gun at me out of frustration? Then instead of having made a right choice by yelling down, I'm dead.

If an action is immoral it will eventually fail.
Harder to disprove because eventually is vague. Just to put it into perspective. Slavery existed in a formalized form for millennia. I think we can agree that it was immoral?

Morality exist outside of man.
I don't think so. In my example the only thing that changed in the outcome was the reaction of the burglar.

 

[forkup]

Morality is relative:

Morality is a construct of man. It's the framework in which we judge our actions to be right or wrong. As such it is relative and subject to change
- It is relative within time. Slavery has been accepted for thousands of years. I think we can both agree that it is immoral. But I don't think the Roman's would agree with that opinion.
-It is relative within cultures. Quite a few countries reserve the right to kill criminals if that culture deems the crimes bad enough. I find it demeans the credibility of the state. Quite a few people disagree with that opinion and I'm not arrogant enough to find those opinions immoral.
-It's even relative within a single person. I don't like the death penalty. Yet, say I catch someone raping my wife. I would feel morally justified to use deadly force to protect her.

 

[ding]

ding's assertion #2: Man's perceptions of morals are relative.

Point #4: The consequences of violating moral laws are not immediate.

One of the reasons that moral laws are not obvious to everyone is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating moral laws are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Point #5: Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it.

You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth in morals.

Point #6: It is man's subjectivity that leads to his perception of morality.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

 

[ding]

Conclusion:

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Th definition of virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. Standards exists for reasons. Reasons for standards exist in and of themselves and are independent of man. Man is free to choose any standard he wishes but he will suffer the consequences for normalizing his deviance from the higher standard.

Moral laws are not obvious to everyone because the consequences for violating moral laws are probabilistic and because man is subjective and rationalizes that he didn't do wrong when he does. There is however, one time when moral laws are obvious to man; when someone violates the moral law against him. When that happens he has an expectation that it should be universally understood and known to everyone.

 

[ding]

One can judge the morality of actions by judging the outcome.
This is demonstrably false since the same actions commonly have different outcomes. Say if I get awoken at night by someone breaking into my house. I go to the stairwell and I notify the burglar that the police has been notified. The person proceeds to go out of my house were he is subsequently picked up by the police. Morally I have done the right thing. Nobody got hurt and the thief goes to jail.
What though if the guy is unstable and instead he chooses to fire a gun at me out of frustration? Then instead of having made a right choice by yelling down, I'm dead.

You need to take a broader view and look at diametrically opposed behaviors to understand what I am saying about standards and how outcomes reveal the higher standard.

Two loving people will always have a better relationship than two hateful people. To honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people. Two thankful people will always have a better relationship than two thankless people. Two humble people will always have a better relationship than two arrogant people. Two selfless people will always have a better relationship than two selfish people. Two people who practice fidelity will always have a better relationship than two people who practice infidelity. Two people who are kind to each other will always have a better relationship than people who are cruel to each other. Two forgiving people will always have a better relationship than two people who hold grudges. Two responsible people will always have a better relationship than two irresponsible people. Two accountable people will always have a better relationship than two people who make excuses and blames others for their failures.

Not some of the time. All of the time. These behaviors are independent of man. These behaviors exist in and of themselves. These behaviors are in effect standards of conduct.

Now to respond directly to your argument - which I believe is a fringe argument - each person must decide for themselves what they will do in situations like that. Their response has no bearing on the standard. We dropped two atom bombs on Japan. Was it the moral thing to do? No. It was the lesser of two evils in the eyes of Truman. His obligation was to his people. Did it please him to kill all of those Japanese? I hope not. The worst thing we can ever do is to rationalize an evil as a right. We do not move from good to evil is one fell swoop. We move from good to evil in incremental steps. Just look at WWII and what happened to the Jews. That was an incremental process and it was done through rationalizations. The worst thing you could do would be to shoot the guy and justify your actions as moral because that just makes it easier to take the next life. The moral position would be to admit you did wrong and feel remorse for doing it. In fact, I would think the first thing I would do if I shot and killed an intruder would be to throw up after the threat was neutralized. Why? Because inherently I would know it was wrong.

 

[ding]

If an action is immoral it will eventually fail.
Harder to disprove because eventually is vague. Just to put it into perspective. Slavery existed in a formalized form for millennia. I think we can agree that it was immoral?

That isn't really what I said. What I said was this, "Standards exist for reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will make itself known and be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. In other words, the reason why the standard exists will make itself known through outcomes.

What I am describing to you is something called normalization of deviance and it is a real thing. Standards, like truth are discovered when error fails. Error will eventually fail and reveal itself. The Challenger explosion is a perfect example of this. The O-ring gasket on the solid fuel rockets had a criticality 1 designation. Which means if they ever saw heat, the fleet would be grounded. When they discovered signs of damage from heat on the O-ring gasket, they performed tests to show that they would still hold if they were damaged. They literally normalized their deviance from the standard and the space shuttle exploded 51 seconds after launch. But not until they had gotten away with it for a few times. You can take the same concept and apply it to your life. You believe in being faithful to your spouse. Then you cheat on your spouse. What happens? You get away with it. At this point you have three options (unless you are a sociopath that is) you can confess, you can go crazy or you can rationalize that it was good for your marriage. Now let's say you do the latter one and keep on cheating. You are more than free to cheat on your wife, but predictable surprises (i.e consequences) will eventually show you why the standard of fidelity exists in the first place. Surely I do not need to explain the consequences of getting caught cheating, right? So if you compare the two outcomes; fidelity and no drama versus infidelity and drama, I would hope you would understand what I am trying to explain to you about how the reasons for standards reveal themselves through outcomes.

 

[ding]

Morality exist outside of man.
I don't think so. In my example the only thing that changed in the outcome was the reaction of the burglar.

Again, that isn't what I said. I said, "Standards exist independent of men. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest level of quality or attainment. This quality or attainment is independent of our perception of the standard. We can establish any standard we wish, but it is the outcomes that will determine whether or not it is the highest standard which exists."

As I explained before when I compared diametrically opposed behaviors (i.e. loving vs hateful, honest vs dishonest, thankful vs thankless, humility vs arrogance, selfless vs selfish, fidelity vs infidelity, kindness vs cruelty, forgiveness vs grudges, responsible vs irresponsible, accountable vs blame), these behaviors are standards of conduct. The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment. The definition of virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. Yes, they are human behaviors but they were not created by man. They were discovered by man. Moral laws, like physical laws and biological laws are not invented by man. These laws of nature exist in and of themselves and are discovered by man.

 

[ding]

Morality is relative:

Morality is a construct of man. It's the framework in which we judge our actions to be right or wrong. As such it is relative and subject to change
- It is relative within time. Slavery has been accepted for thousands of years. I think we can both agree that it is immoral. But I don't think the Roman's would agree with that opinion.

No. Morality is not relative. Man's perception of morality is relative. It is relative because man is subjective. Man did not invent moral laws. The moral laws of nature exist independent of man. Man discovers the moral law much in the same way Einstein discovered special relativity. Einstein did not invent special relativity. Einstein discovered special relativity. Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors through outcomes. In part from comparing them to the outcomes of practicing failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures.

Forced slavery is a perfect example that standards, like truth, are discovered. The Greeks believed that forced slavery was justified because they were morally superior. The Romans believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but was justified on state supremacy. The Founding Fathers of America believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but knew not how to end it at the time of founding but did make plans for it to perish. Today we believe forced slavery is wrong. In effect, the standard was discovered. That standard always existed. It was man's perception of the standard that changed.

 

[ding]

-It is relative within cultures. Quite a few countries reserve the right to kill criminals if that culture deems the crimes bad enough. I find it demeans the credibility of the state. Quite a few people disagree with that opinion and I'm not arrogant enough to find those opinions immoral.
-It's even relative within a single person. I don't like the death penalty. Yet, say I catch someone raping my wife. I would feel morally justified to use deadly force to protect her.

The thing is though, these standards are not diametrically opposed to each other. None of these cultures have laws that allow innocent people to be murdered. Sure, innocent people are put to death by states, but that just proves my point that man is subjective and rationalizes that he is doing right when he is doing wrong.

In fact, it is this more than anything which tells us there is a moral law that man did not put there and can't get rid of. He could just as well say the hell with your moral law. I'm going to kill this innocent bastard because I don't like the color of his hair. But he doesn't. He rationalizes that what he is doing is moral and just. That's how strongly we all feel about right and wrong. We can't abandon the concept even when we violate it because it is hardwired into us.

 

[forkup]

You seem to have added more points when I don't think we even scratched the surface on the previous one but I'll try to oblige. Do try not to expand the argument to quickly though. It makes it hard to follow.

ding's assertion #2: Man's perceptions of morals are relative.

Sure they are. I just don't see how that helps you in any way to the conclusion that morals themself are absolute?

Point #4: The consequences of violating moral laws are not immediate.

Seems a convenient excuse in the context of argument. Whenever I give practical examples of people being immoral and getting away with it you can just point to this.

Point #5: Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it.

Does the action of rationalization not exclude knowing right from wrong. After all it is by definition self deception?

Point #6: It is man's subjectivity that leads to his perception of morality.

Again don't disagree, just don't see how it helps you?

 

[forkup]

I think your argument as I understand it can be summed up as follows. Actions have consequences. Good actions have good consequences. This allows someone to judge actions that have good consequences as moral absolutes. Does that sound about right?

I'm really not trying to set up a straw man, if I got it wrong, but you gave a lot of post and finding my way through so many different lines of reasoning doesn't make for the clearest of conversation so I try to somewhat condense it.

These are the problems with those assertions.
-Actions don't always have the same consequences
-Good actions don't necessarily have good consequences and bad actions don't necessarily have bad consequences.
- If that is both the case, that kind of destroys the central argument

 

[forkup]

I also have a problem with something else you asserted. That good actions are preferred in nature.
Quite often nature favors the cruel. Nature, human or otherwise, favors one thing and one thing only..... survival. If survival requires cooperation, cooperation will be the mode of conduct. If it requires violence, violence will occur. It has nothing to do with morals. Morals is what people invented (not discovered as some natural law), to regulate the highly complex civilizations we prefer. And as a direct result of those complexities morality will change, and be as relative as can be.

 

[ding]

You seem to have added more points when I don't think we even scratched the surface on the previous one but I'll try to oblige. Do try not to expand the argument to quickly though. It makes it hard to follow.

Then let me help. Post #'s 3, 6 and 7 is my direct case that morals are absolute and that it is the perception of morals that are relative.

Post #'s 10 through 12 are my rebuttals of your rebuttals of my argument. Let me consolidate my main argument for you. I hope this will help. I look forward to you making your direct case. You are going to make a direct case for your beliefs, right? You don't believe arguing what you believe something isn't is the same thing as arguing what you believe something is, right?

Post #3

ding's assertion #1: Morals are absolute.

Point #1: Not all behaviors have equal outcomes.

Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work.

Point #2: Morals are effectively standards.

Standards exist for reasons. When we deviate from standards and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will make itself known and be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. In other words, the reason why the standard exists will make itself known through outcomes.

Point #3: Standards exist independent of men.

The definition of standard is a level of quality or attainment. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest level of quality or attainment. This quality or attainment is independent of our perception of the standard. We can establish any standard we wish, but it is the outcomes that will determine whether or not it is the highest standard which exists.

Post #6

ding's assertion #2: Man's perceptions of morals are relative.

Point #4: The consequences of violating moral laws are not immediate.

One of the reasons that moral laws are not obvious to everyone is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating moral laws are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Point #5: Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it.

You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth in morals.

Point #6: It is man's subjectivity that leads to his perception of morality.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Post #7

Conclusion:

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Th definition of virtue is behavior showing high moral standards. Standards exists for reasons. Reasons for standards exist in and of themselves and are independent of man. Man is free to choose any standard he wishes but he will suffer the consequences for normalizing his deviance from the higher standard.

Moral laws are not obvious to everyone because the consequences for violating moral laws are probabilistic and because man is subjective and rationalizes that he didn't do wrong when he does. There is however, one time when moral laws are obvious to man; when someone violates the moral law against him. When that happens he has an expectation that it should be universally understood and known to everyone.

 

[ding]

ding's assertion #2: Man's perceptions of morals are relative.

Sure they are. I just don't see how that helps you in any way to the conclusion that morals themself are absolute?

You agree with me that man's perceptions of morals are relative. Good, that's half the battle.

My belief that moral laws are absolute is based upon the fact that not all behaviors have equal outcomes, comparing diametrically opposed values and the fact that morals are discovered. I even provided an example using slavery and infidelity. What I find interesting is that you are addressing the assertion without addressing the underlying reasons for the assertion. For example, you don't address that not all behaviors have equal outcomes or that morals are effectively standards or that standards are discovered. You do agree that not all behaviors have equal outcomes, right? You do believe that morals are effectively standards, right? You do believe that standards exist for reasons, right? You don't believe we pick standards randomly, right?

Man did not invent moral laws. The moral laws of nature exist independent of man. Man discovers the moral law much in the same way Einstein discovered special relativity. Einstein did not invent special relativity. Einstein discovered special relativity. Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors. In part from comparing them to failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures. Do you believe that virtue naturally leads to success? Do you believe that man invented virtuous behaviors or do you believe that man discovered virtuous behaviors?

Point #4: The consequences of violating moral laws are not immediate.

Seems a convenient excuse in the context of argument. Whenever I give practical examples of people being immoral and getting away with it you can just point to this.

No, the only point here is that moral laws are probabilistic in nature and that is why some people have a hard time understanding that the standards of virtue and morality are indeed natural laws which exist in and of themselves.

Yes, people do get away with being immoral. But it is probabilistic. You won't get away with it forever. Eventually predictable surprises will catch up to you. If you don't believe me, start cheating on your wife. Eventually you will get caught and suffer the predictable consequences. It is almost like you are arguing against being virtuous. I am guessing that that isn't how you actually live your life. Why? Because you know that not all behaviors have equal outcomes, right? Virtuous behaviors naturally lead to order and harmony while behaviors devoid of virtue lead to chaos and disorder, right?

Point #5: Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it.

Does the action of rationalization not exclude knowing right from wrong. After all it is by definition self deception?

If you believed cheating on your wife was wrong and then did it and hid it from her and changed your belief, it actually shows you do know right from wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn't hide that behavior. More than anything else though, it tells us how strongly the law of right and wrong is ingrained in us. We didn't put it there and we can't get rid of it.

Point #6: It is man's subjectivity that leads to his perception of morality.

Again don't disagree, just don't see how it helps you?

I addressed this in the top comment of this post. It doesn't prove that morals are absolute. Man did not invent the successful behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. Man discovered these successful behaviors. In part from comparing them to the failed behaviors like hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures. This - among other things - is what proves that morals are standards which exist independent of man. Unless of course you believe that all behaviors have equal outcomes. Do you believe that all behaviors have equal outcomes? I don't.

 

[ding]

I think your argument as I understand it can be summed up as follows. Actions have consequences. Good actions have good consequences. This allows someone to judge actions that have good consequences as moral absolutes. Does that sound about right?

I'm really not trying to set up a straw man, if I got it wrong, but you gave a lot of post and finding my way through so many different lines of reasoning doesn't make for the clearest of conversation so I try to somewhat condense it.

These are the problems with those assertions.
-Actions don't always have the same consequences
-Good actions don't necessarily have good consequences and bad actions don't necessarily have bad consequences.
- If that is both the case, that kind of destroys the central argument

Not exactly. There's a little more to it than

"actions have consequences. Good actions have good consequences. This allows someone to judge actions that have good consequences as moral absolutes."

Man also knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he did not violate it. The law of right and wrong is so strongly ingrained in us we can't seem to shake it. It is hardwired into us. Furthermore, it is man's quarreling which reveals he does believe in absolute morality because he has an expectation that his understanding of right and wrong should be universally understood. And lastly, man did not invent morals, man discovered them. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success because they are effectively the highest standards of conduct. They exist for a reason and that reason isn't because they are what man wants them to be, the reason successful behaviors lead to success is because these are laws of nature which naturally lead to success.

I could not have been any clearer in what I have been explaining to you. You are parsing my responses and you are ignoring the underlying reasons for why I believe what I believe.

 

[ding]

These are the problems with those assertions.
-Actions don't always have the same consequences
-Good actions don't necessarily have good consequences and bad actions don't necessarily have bad consequences.
- If that is both the case, that kind of destroys the central argument

And I have addressed each and every single one of them.

Yes, Actions don't always have the same consequences because moral laws are not like physical laws. One of the reasons that moral laws are not obvious to everyone is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating moral laws are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. This is actually my point #4.

Yes, Good actions don't necessarily have good consequences and bad actions don't necessarily have bad consequences. But do you really want to argue that as a rule the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability don't naturally lead to success? And do you really want to argue that as a rule the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures don't naturally lead to failure? Because I would argue you are attempting to make a fringe argument and define the rule through exception. Which set of behaviors do you lead your life by and why?

Considering that you have not even made an argument yet and that you most likely lead your life following moral standards that naturally lead to success, I like my argument a lot.

 

[ding]

I also have a problem with something else you asserted. That good actions are preferred in nature.
Quite often nature favors the cruel. Nature, human or otherwise, favors one thing and one thing only..... survival. If survival requires cooperation, cooperation will be the mode of conduct. If it requires violence, violence will occur. It has nothing to do with morals. Morals is what people invented (not discovered as some natural law), to regulate the highly complex civilizations we prefer. And as a direct result of those complexities morality will change, and be as relative as can be.

Yes, that is true, but it isn't the rule. If it were the rule then we would never cling to the concept of right and wrong. We would never argue for fairness.

It seems you want to make a natural selection argument. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage. The reason why the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability are our standards is because these behaviors do lead to order and harmony in a society. Nature has literally selected these behaviors to be transferred to future generations because they are successful behaviors.

Again, people did not invent the behaviors of love, honesty, thankfulness, humility, selflessness, fidelity, kindness, forgiveness, responsibility and accountability. They discovered that these behaviors naturally lead to harmony and order. In part because they discovered that the behaviors of hatred, dishonesty, thanklessness, arrogance, selfishness, infidelity, cruelty, grudges, irresponsibility and blaming others and making excuses for failures naturally lead to failure.

So again I will ask, which behaviors do you practice and why?