Or you leave them for dead

Surely this individual liberty can't come at the expense of that of others, right?

Yes

But also surely, people should be allowed to compete under some conception of a meritocracy. That would result in the meritorious triumphing over not meritorious, at their expense.

However that would be a valid expense, yes?

not everyone can have the "liberty" to be the best

Yes

but some conceptions of competition do not benefit the group, and it is only a tyranny of the strong over the weak by some definition

so then what we really care about is what moral system, what moral principles we should compete under, that benefit the group

did I use any sleight of hand there?

or is it that individual rights and benefits must be balanced with the good of the collective?

what defines that balance?

well, that would be what I suggest as the basis for morality: principles that promote survival and reproduction within the group, that promote power and stability for competition with other groups

and against nature

a balance completely toward individualism would dissolve the group and turn individuals against each other in destructive way

as for a balance skewed completely toward collectivism, it's a bit harder to show why that is not a good idea

I need to introduce a few more things

but the point is... morality is affected by evolutionary forces that act on the survival and reproduction of the group, not necessarily just the individuals

the same morality that we use to make our moral judgements, ostensibly in defense of individual rights, is grounded in a balanced individualist/collectivist morality

and you can call that "individualism" but really this is a misnomer

at least for the principles that allow for moral intervention of children/incapacitated etc.

Yes I want the person/s in power to share my morals. What is good for everyone is their individual rights. Why limit ur thinking of a princepels with in a gentic group. You say reproducion but that does not pass down belifs, insted think about converting people too ur ideaology as that, not reproduction spreads ideals. Which can contain ideals to protect those also in ur group.

reproduction does in fact spread ideals, allow me to explain

first of all, many traits like personality and IQ are partially heritable

Islam spreads through breeding.

The yearly number of converts and apostates are pretty much the same.

secondly, those who get to breed are those at the top of social hierarchies

Yes IQ and Personality are partally heritable, but its not 100%.

third, the people at the top of social hierarchies are those that most embody the ideals of the group

those that embody those ideals have traits that allow for it

they get to breed

and pass on those traits

oh and those traits affect what one's principles are

I did not inhert my parents ideals, and those far from my gentic pool share my ideals.

so, the principles are then passed on

the ideals are then protected by them for the sake of retaining the position of themselves and their progeny in the social hierarchy

of course, these actually need to be effective principles or else the group perishes against nature

or other groups

But its better to pass it on orally insted of genticly. As gentics only passes ideals to a fraction (also only one chance, while you can talk to someone many times).

yes, without that it only passes them on insofar as personality and IQ traits are passed down. These traits would need to give rise to values all over again if nothing were passed down orally

however, as it is effective, passing down the principles, the tradition, becomes part of an effective culture

this causes the following feedback loop:

environment -> traits give rise to principles/culture -> cultural development affects environment -> repeat

If people holding one ideology outbreed other people, it can create bubbles, societal pressure to maintain the ideology.

yes. however it is also an effective aspect of a culture to allow for adaptation

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that ideologies are passed on through your genes?

not entirely

As far as I know, personalities can which then affect which idelogies your likly to pick

yes

I don't think genetics is involved. Bring 10 minions to this world, force them to be drones to your ideology, done it's spreading.

You do realise that you are not going to be able to selectively breed personalities right?

The way Islam spreads isn't through personalities.

this will then cause certain personalities to be favored and they will reach greater heights of the social hierarchy which will cause them to reproduce

It forces itself onto children.

And indoctrinates them.

over the less favore personalities

And also, why intervene in the natural mating process?

hm? that is the natural mating process. have good traits that are suited for the social group's ideals, reach high in the hierarchy, get laid

Not really.

Natural mating is not about reaching high in a hierarchy.

that's the way it's *intended* to work, let's say it like that

status helps you get good mates. following the group's ideals gets you status. having traits suitable for those ideals lets you follow those ideals

ultimately that's not how it does these days, but anyhow

You are thinking abotu status the wrong way around.

Both in natural society and in modern society status gives you access to mates. It's nothing to do with having the right personality.

I'd contest that, to an extent

Ok say you have a population A whose gene pool favors personality A that favors principles A, and population B geen pool does not favor peronality A, but they follow prinicples A. Would population B then independly developed gene pool that favors personality A. Therefore you don't need to be conserned of the gene's of the population and only the principles.

Personality can aid or hamper your attempts to gain status

status may be retained by some other means, but that must be attained at some point

Of course it fucking can @Smak64

Okay, so maybe I just misunderstood what you meant then

I'm just trying to understand why this matters?

What would you be aiming to accomplish?

A completely descriptive morality based on evolution

bypassing the is/ought problem

probably well out of my ballpark then, I'm gonna fuck off

and also reframing our idea of "individualism"

So you are trying to create a morality based on the evolutionary preferences of humans?

yeah basically

I wouldn't say "create" but yeah

Discover perhaps then

derive from evolutionary principles

theory, rather

@Apotheosis so what do you think would happen in the hypothetical I propose?

Well I would ask you two things:
1. Is it practicable? would this morality actually be able to hold sway against those created by society rather than theory?
2. Is it intended to be so? because its always interesting to muse on things but replacing the individual morality of all the people in society is nigh impossible. You can at best manipulate it.

I think it is "practicable" in the sense that it can provide a better perspective on moral issues especially to handle moral "relativism" between groups, to justify and work with our tribalistic tendencies

as for replacing people's morality... I think it may instead reframe and complete the moral conceptions of others

to understand our moral instincts and intuitions

Okay, I think I understand it a bit better now. Well I hope you're writing your thoughts down somewhere other than here, it might be something worth posting somewhere.

yeah I'm just bouncing ideas of off people

seeing what holds water

but a lot of this system is based on what Jordan Peterson says

I'm just not sure if he's truly followed through with the implications of what he says

he?

Jordan Peterson. I'd expect Sargon fans to be aware of him

Jordan Peterson uses our natural biological urges as a lense through which to see why people don't mesh with acting in the PC way.

I'm not sure he advocates biologicalism just points out that trying to socially engineer people to act a different way than is natural is a bad idea.

Well, I believe he does hold that IQ is partially heritable

and that social hierarchies are based on principles, that those who embody those ideals reach the top, and those near the top are more likely to reproduce and survive

I'm connecting some of the dots though