Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

if , and i belive its a bigish IF , you can strip out of morlity all the historic , cultrual and religious and political bagage that it carries .. then yes at a basic level moral is about "lets play fair" ,but rather that its goal being personal freedom .. to me it seems to be more about personal responcablity , and how one must agree to limit ones personal freedom so as to accomadate the rest of the world .morality is our constuct on how to interact with each other in such away to avoid unsetting other people , and to work with in agreed boundiers.it also provides shorthand signals to others of our intent to be a good neighbour .....

i am aware of , but i admit only as a layman , of behavioral genetics , but how do you think this effects my statements ?
The origin of a moral code , the origin of the content of that code are differnet matters , how we deal with our traits and insticnts is this matter .. you can not be claiming we have no power over our insticts ? ?it is reconising them and dealing with them that makes us what we really are ....beyond the reasons why whe have a moral code , its is what we do with the code that defines us , as much as any of our traits and instincts , all are part of the whole that is I .personal i belive its nature ,nuture and personal sheer bloody mindedness that make each person what they are , the amounts vary , some being more affected by one aspect than the others ....the ability to , and the oppertunity to selfassess further shapes us as we learn to understand how each aspect .you might what to look at the tread on moral relativisum and see how that lays with the idea of morals with a behavioral genetics origin ...

FYI i know but im at work and we cant customise ,im stuck with basic IE ,i think we crossed wires my meaning was ...The origin of a moral code and the origin of the content of that code , are a different question to how we make use of the code ,assuming we are reasoning creatures ...the code may well be a product of genetics ,and i am ok with your evidence for nature over nurture ..
but my point is those only give us the code , what we do with it once we have it is what make us humans .. we can see what the code really means in the real world of today and can realise our own predilictions and try to work beyond them ..it goes ...i think therfore i am , now why to i think that way , what other ways to think are there , and how can i find the value of these ways ?as to presupposing history, culture and politics are piled on a Blank Slate .. well they are , its a question of what effect they have ,how much effect, what effect we allow them to have , and how we reconise those effects ..if ,as you belive ,we are that tied to nature that much you end up with problems of etremmes.. is there a gene set for amoral action ??further you are approaching the area of moral absolutes , that opens another can of worms .I am not a nurture boy , neither am i a nature one , i belive.. i really hope we can realise and move beyond such limits ....to be really blunt the origins of the moral code the contents of the code are irrelavent .. what matters is the code of any value , and how do you determine that ,in a reasoned way ,what use it should be put to ...why be moral if it is merely a genetic disposition ... people colour hair why not change our morals ......
to reduce morality to which gene set you pick up gives it as much value as eye colour .Stiles OP asks a really important question .. what is the goal of morality is it Freedom ... to say morality is inbuild by our
genes and we cannot resaon beyond that is a major limit to any idea of freedom Edited by ikabod, : rewording

no this is not to smear or devalue Prof Pinker and his work but i was looking up our pal Steve , as i have not read his book , seems hes not loved in some quatershttp://www.homestead.com/flowstate/pinkersucks.html,and from Biology vs. the Blank Slatehe seems to be bit of a celebrity scientist ... so please do forgive if i question this as a sole pointer to reality ....

err no .. are you saying a new born is not exposed to history, culture and politics ..reguardless of blank state or not .. even if we agree that the degree in which those factors effect the person are small they are still there ...i agree blank state is not relavent to this thread ....please do not try to define my views , my "fear of nihilism" (as Steven so eloquently put it) ...is hmmm pretty low , near non exsistant .. you see i am able to resason ... )...by the way how could Seven make a coment on me with out meeting me .. or do he work evidence-Lite ...(yes ive been reading some of his stuff ) So , but that does not answer my question .. do you have a answer to the question ..."why be moral if it is merely a genetic disposition ?"people can live with out arms , so why not morality ?? as i said we change things give out by our genetics , i mean i shave each day , i see people with coloured hair .. well gosh .. he must be so bright .. and we are so dim
please ...this is s recycled junk
, and makes my point.. how can any fear or like be secular or religious UNLESS they effect us , oh but those are from nurture and so cant have an effect ...you cant have it both ways .. or is secular and religoin genetic.. gosh i did not know the brain was orgasnised to give rise to a sentiant being .. well call the president and tell him at once ....now if good old Stevey babys could tell us HOW it is organised ,
what turns a lump of "ordinary matter" in to me thinking , then may be he might be doing something ....you clearly think the Prof is right , fine if that works for you go for it ..me i stick with questions ...and so back to the OP ... if morality is as you say genetic then it has no final goal .. yes or no .....Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

if we chose to use a moral system should we not use the one that does align with a perfect ideal ? perfection should be our benchmark ..i agree that spotting and dealing with our falls from morality is a very vital part of operating the system .Im not sure that you can get to as simple a statement as you seek about morality , without the danger of missing part of its shape ..you risk cutting to much in your search for the simple ...are we getting any closer to agreeing a comman goal for morality ? ?Edited by ikabod, : missed

i agree we where drifting off topic , lets keep to the OP ,
my question from my last post , reworded .
Question..
You have stated that morality is the product of our genetic make up , it comes inbuilt , do you therefore belive morality , on its own , has a goal , or is it part of our gene pools "goal" , with in the framework of evolution? ( im using goal in the broadest terms here )Further do you consider that we may have moved on from those basic inbuilt moral insticts and taken morality further ....

agreed up to a pointretinas do not allow us to interfer with its "funtion" ...
can the same be said to be true with morality ... are we able to over ride the trait of morality , to change its usage , to take it and add to it with concepts and ideas that change it from a instinct into a tool ...?

yes ok ..)..
but the retina is still doing the same "job"
is morality ?......

arrh but its not insane if you have a moral stand point , that you consider absolute ..you would 1 never comit the moral crime , and 2 you would always oppose anyone that tried to make you as imoral as them ,
.the question becoems .. will you scarfice you own life( or the life you consider worth living ) AND commit the crime .. .
it the choice betwwen "me" and the rest of the world ..and it can be take further .."thinks"... what would the world be like if i did the crime and saved it if is now a place of moral corruption .. cos if i can be perverted so can the rest of the world , better it end now than be a world of "evil".want an example ...The whole cold war MAD policy was based on i will destroy the planet rather than let you win .......

Harry Truman choice was based uponn the fact that he was in the middle of a war , over the upcoming weeks there WAS going to be mass deaths .. he picked a route to keep the total number lower and save lives on his side .., and yes there where also other issues ..
often forgtten fact is the nuke bombs killed less people that the fire bombing raids .. Truman was already killing 10 of 1000s each night .FDR had war declared upon the USA by Japan ... he went to war with German and Italy as he had no choice once he was at war with Japan . Remember that Japan was a Axis ally ... and yes a ton of other issue as well ..War are never simple issues and morality plays little part in the reasoning ....A interesting one is .. why does the UN wait until a regional conflict reaches the level of death to qualifies as genocide before it demands troops go in to stop the conflict , ....is one or 10 or 100 death not enough must it reach a majic number to trigger a moral outrage ? ?