Its interesting looking at this stuff and saying that in my field of economics, we assume that people all act in what’s called “Rational Self Interest.” That means they always look to do the best for themselves. Funny thing is, is that it has nothing to do with absolute self interest, or what would get your best outcome of all your options.
Take morality, which could either help or hinder you. To the woman stealing from the great state of Florida, lack of morality in absolute terms hindered her, mainly cause jail isn’t fun. To Str8up’s example, a very strongly developed moral code might keep you away from nailing your FB’s best friend, with the base assumption that sex benefits you.
I see an interesting trend. That it happens more in women, they don’t have a finely developed sense of morality. When sex is determined in the womb, certain things grow, and others do not. Take the ****oris. Grow that out and it is a penis and you have a man. Don’t make it grow, it stays a ****oris and she becomes a woman.
Like the actions of anatomy, so goes the processing of information in the brain. The development of a moral code is innate, genetic device that grows in the male homo sapien. Such basal thing such as pack behaviour and bonding come out of the very basics of innate man’s moral code. Just as evolution has favored the development of a male moral code, it has seen fit to remove that trait from the female of the species. Instead in its place, we have a very strong mechanism to rationalize behaviour on an emotional basis. What arises is that the opposite of the strong moral code of man is the emotional rationalizations of women.
Simply stated:
* Morality is a predominantly male trait
* Emotion is a predominantly female trait.
There is a big divide here, in how we get from emotion to right and wrong. There is a significant tool that is used as justification to convert emotional positives to right and wrong. That is rationalization. The power of this rationalization is used to counteract morality. Since men have much stronger innate senses of morality, rationalizion is less likely to break above the moral code. In women, with less developed senses of morality, rationalizations are much easier to “win over” that person’s mind.
Above and beyond the innate moral code, we add on top of that framework learned moral codes. Things such as the 10 commandments, they are not innate. A prohibition on murder is not actually an innate morality. Those things are learned. This leads us to significant variations in individual moral codes. Take the example of the Turkish man. He is totally within his learned and innate moral code in honor killing his sister. While that might weigh against my personal morality, it is perfectly within his own bounds.
Men will rationalize. The Muscle Guy claims that he does not use his moral code when dealing with women. The difference is that he will still recognize when he is breaking his learned moral code. Thinking that these things are absolutes is a fallacy, as all men and women contain different levels of their morality and rationalizations.
Warrior brings an example of his chick turning in her friend. The emotional drive creates an incredible amount of satisfaction to follow it. Since the values are so high, emotion that strong is almost always followed, even to the absolute detriment of the person. Rational self interest says otherwise. The male side on the other hand, is much more grounded, away from emotion and much more plugged into reality.
