[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
At the risk of spreading this discussion across two threads, I’m going to offer an option for forlife to consider in defining his position on morals. It will obviously also be a statement of mine and a challenge in many ways to the dominant theory presented in this thread that morality MUST be supernatural in origin.
There is a significant body of evidence of animals (primates, birds, bats, elephants, etc…) displaying behaviors consistent with what are the prevailing modern human moral codes. Bats, for instance display altruism in the offering of blood to other starving bats without any evidence of expectation of repayment. They also display a system of justice in that bats who deny the request to share blood are often left to starve when they are in need.
Now, nobody (that I am aware of) seriously makes the claim that animals apply the same reasoning that humans do to these behaviors, rationalizing esoteric concepts such as “right” and “wrong,” etc… In fact, extensive studies have been pursued to this effect with the consistent result being that even the higher primates cannot place themselves in the context of their societies in this manner.
Nonetheless, it stands to reason that much like the overwhelming majority of our genome, the behaviors that are consistent with moral codes are tools born of evolution, biological imperatives that have persisted natural selection. It also stands to reason that the concept of morality is no more than a cognitive reverse engineering of these behaviors… an attempt to define them and attach meaning to them that makes them more palatable to our cognitive faculties, our highly advanced cerebral cortex.
Viewed in this light, there is no need for any supernatural origin of morality. Indeed, there is no more merit to moral relativism than there is to moral absolutism, because both depend on an external immutable force of judgement for their validity.
Morality then becomes a tool rather than a goal.
The question then arises; Which morality is the best tool?
A note here about the definition of moral relativism:
I think that the label of relativism is often misused and ignores the practical application aspect of ethics. As I understand it, moral relativism is the position that for any given situation there is a right and a wrong conclusion or decision. This does not change if the actor(s) in the situation changes. It does change if the scale or nature of the situation changes.
As kamui brought to light in the other thread, this definition shares some similarities with casuistry which as I understand it is an ethical practice, not a moral theory. It can be applied in either relativism or absolutism. Casuistry is essentially the practice of weighing the value of possible “right” decision in ethical quandaries.
This leads to another few things that should be defined here:
Morality = right vs. wrong
Ethics = right vs. right
I most often see moral relativism defined in the pejorative as an “anything goes” type of philosophy. A solipsistic view of morality. I’m not certain that this is necessarily what it is.
[/quote]
You still have yet to address the core issue:
Your evolutionary model of morality assumes right and wrong. You said so yourself in the atheism thread, using the word “better,” meaning conducive to the survival of the species. However,
-
You have yet to explain why advancing the survival of the species is essentially “better.” In other words, you are explaining the origin of morality by smuggling morality into your premises. That’s as circular a reasoning as saying, well, God exists because He’s teh God, duh!).
-
You have continually set up your arguments in a fashion that assumes their factuality, while refusing to concede that your core argument is based upon an idea you openly despise: FAITH. You can come up with all the behavioral observances you want to, but they still do nothing more than provide a springboard for further anthropomorphic conjecture. They aren’t much better than man’s early attempt to explain the workings of the Sun in its revolution about the Earth. You can ONLY assume anything, no matter what kinds of behaviors select animals display. Your examples also leave out the many many instances of amorality in the animal world (ie the actions of wolves and other animals in culling themselves).
I understand it must provide you great comfort to have the argument set up so that it confirms your preconceived notions no matter what. But you, of all people, should know that this is no way to reach a reliable conclusion. You find an example you like (bats and babies) and say, “Well see there now, that’s morality at work, isn’t it.” I provide examples of humans in massive, perverse violation of any idea, relative or otherwise, of what anyone would ever conclude as moral (Aztecs, Hitler, Stalin, etc.), and your answer, “Well, that’s nothing more than an aberration,” as if you were the arbiter of what is and is not. The truth is, you have invested enough of your self into this (as we all do) that you are now at the point of justifying ridiculous scenarios to avoid cognitive dissonance.
On top of everything else, the evidence you have provided thus far doesn’t even refute the possibility of a supernatural/metaphysical origin of morality. As, even if evolution does provide us with a framework for moving toward moral societies (despite the fact, again, that evolutionary instincts, at their core, are almost always in complete opposition to moral imperatives), it does not logically follow that there is nothing else at work.
