[quote]Sloth wrote:
Isn’t that what our genome is supposed to have already told us?
[/quote]
What the hell is “best?”
Tirib, that is probably my favorite Rush song. I do, in fact, choose the path that’s clear - I choose free will. I also like the line in Tom Sawyer: My mind is not for rent to any god or government.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Viewed in this light, there is no need for any supernatural origin of morality.[/quote]
Right, because there’s no good or evil. Just different survival, resource gathering, and reproductive strategies. So, if morality doesn’t exist as a higher concept, since it doesn’t exist at all…true, no need for a supernatural origin
[quote] 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.[/quote]
Yep, a tool. Something to bend to our own survival, resource gathering, and reproductive strategies.
Isn’t that what our genome is supposed to have already told us?
[/quote]
No. Our genome would not necessarily have “already told us.” The scale of evolution definitely allows for the possibility that we are in the midst of what will be a non-persistent mutation in this manner or any other.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[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!). [/quote]
Somehow, the nature of this question just dawned on me… it’s one you tried to ask in a few different ways on the other thread. Allow me to paraphrase it in the way it is more commonly presented as a dilemma of evolution:
If entropy is the natural state of all things (laws of thermodynamics, etc…) then why is evolution progressive?
The short answer is; I don’t know.
The long answer is that we’re stepping into the realm of the nature of the universe, and recent developments in particle physics and astrophysics are holding the jury out on whether or not entropy is the natural or final state of things, or if it is a transitional phase. Don’t ask me to quote any sources. I would be pulling shit out of google sources that I’m not all that confident of. If we have nay astrophysicists on the forum, they might be able to keep me honest or clarify my thoughts… I’m a very shallow-level hobbyist in this stuff, and the deepest I’ve read is Paul Davies.
Nonetheless, the scale of evolution that supports my position is vast enough to not need a prime mover. I don’t rule out the possibility that there is or was one. I just don’t see the need for it in understanding ourselves and the world around us.
The first point I agree with 100%
it is entirely possible that there is a supernatural/metaphysical origin of morality. I posit that the likelihood is extremely low, but I wouldn’t be so intellectually dishonest as to rule it out.
Herein lies my primary beef with religion. Most (rational caveat there<) religions claim some form of absolute knowledge. To me this is the ultimate in ignorant arrogance.
To your second point, I propose that you cannot characterize evolutionary instincts as “almost always in opposition to moral imperatives.” Unless you know of a compendium of instinctive behaviors in all species which also weighs these instincts against commonly-held moral codes, then you are making a VERY broad assumption. Not only that, but again, natural selection is an imperfect device by its nature.
***edited to reflect the name of the author, Paul Davies, not Paul Daily… it was 2:30 in the morning, and I had just made a run to the drug store for some children’s tylenol… long f’ing night.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Tirib, that is probably my favorite Rush song. I do, in fact, choose the path that’s clear - I choose free will. I also like the line in Tom Sawyer: My mind is not for rent to any god or government.[/quote]Paul writing to the saints at Rome in 6:16-18 and then 22-23 NASB:
[quote]16-Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17-But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18-and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. <<<>>> 22=But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23-For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.[/quote]It’s gonna really break your heart when you find out just how un-free your will (and Peart’s) actually is. That could be a good thing, eternally good, and I pray that it is. I never knew what freedom was until He who works all things according to His own purpose and glory enslaved me to Himself.
That is one of my favorite pieces of music of all time. That break right there. Lead band. Wadda masterpiece. There’s some very cool time signatures in that tune too, every one different than every other one.
Tribulus brings up an important question:
Free Will;
Greatest rock song of all time, greatest song of all time… or just so fucking great that it defines “great?”
it’s not.
evolution is adaptative, not progressive.
complex life forms and increasingly complex life forms are an exception, not a rule.
unicellurar organisms own this world, and will probably own it forever.
this “evolution=progress” thing is not scientific, and most contemporary scientist won’t endorse it.
see Jay Gould on this topic, among others.
it’s just another ideological (ie “faith-based”) affirmation, one of the main tenets of western positivism.
[quote]kamui wrote:
it’s not.
evolution is adaptative, not progressive.
complex life forms and increasingly complex life forms are an exception, not a rule.
unicellurar organisms own this world, and will probably own it forever.
this “evolution=progress” thing is not scientific, and most contemporary scientist won’t endorse it.
see Jay Gould on this topic, among others.
it’s just another ideological (ie “faith-based”) affirmation, one of the main tenets of western positivism.
[/quote]
I actually woke up this morning and realized I had described that incorrectly… then I forgot about it.
Thank you for the correction.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Words matter, and “universal” means, well, “universal”. And in an atheistic moral framework - a contradiction in terms - there simply is nothing universal about any moral standard. Any.[/quote]
Words do matter, and so does context. You keep ignoring that universal means something different, depending on the context.
If I believe everyone in the universe should love others, my belief is definitionally universal in scope.
If I believe everyone in the universe will ultimately be held accountable to my moral standard, my belief is definitionally universal in accountability.
If I believe everyone in the universe agrees with my moral standard, my belief is definitionally universal in consensus.
You believe there is a set of moral standards that exists independently of human opinion, and by which everyone will be judged. You’re limiting the definition of universal to accountability, while ignoring that people can still believe everyone should love, even though they won’t ultimately be held accountable for doing so.
[quote]My argument against the guy who doesn’t pay his taxes? He has to comply with the law, because his disagreement on the tax rate doesn’t amount to a breach of his Natural Rights.
And you, of course, have conceded something quite awful in presenting your hypothetical - that if you can get enough people to “man-make” a law exterminating Jews in concentration camps, there is nothing morally objectionable about it.
My rule in action? Nine out of ten men might vote to lynch a black man, but that will never, ever make the decision right.[/quote]
So you believe someone is accountable for following manmade laws, even when he disagrees with those laws? You’ve just established a universal law that is manmade, because you expect everyone to follow it. How is that any different from me expecting everyone to love others, even if they disagree with me? You can bellieve a law should apply to everyone, despite disagreements and despite guaranteed accountability.
Lynching the black man will never be right by my moral standard, either. I can disagree with the majority, and believe that everyone should be treated fairly, without admitting their moral standard is equal to my own. Obviously, it wouldn’t even be a moral standard if I didn’t believe it to be superior to other standards.
Swole, interesting discussion of the possibility that morality is the metacognitive explanation of evolutionary traits. What do you think about the possibility that there are other types of evolution besides biological evolution? Is it possible that the same evolutionary process applies to social structures, belief systems, and other domains besides biological survival? Moral systems and laws may themselves evolve, apart from any ultimate effects they have on human survival.
Cortes, you’re correct that the explanation of morality being derived through evolutionary forces doesn’t disprove the possibility of a supernatural role. However, parsimony gives the nod to the natural explanation. Lacking the need or any evidence for a supernatural role, why would anyone choose to believe in it, outside of social programming and the emotional comfort of being part of a divine plan?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lynching the black man will never be right by my moral standard, either. I can disagree with the majority, and believe that everyone should be treated fairly, without admitting their moral standard is equal to my own.[/quote]
Without admitting…Now that’s an interesting choice of words. You realize your “moral standard” is nothing more than an opinion, or even a ‘feeling.’ Derived from some feeling of yours about how the world should look. That being an opinion too, of course. So yes, you then have to withold the admission–lie to yourself–, that their standard isn’t equal to your own. Yet, you know thier actions are equally derived from feelings, an opinion of what the world should look like. And, that the cold universe doesn’t care either way. That planet earth doesn’t care either way. That humanity…well, depends on who you ask.
[quote] Obviously, it wouldn’t even be a moral standard if I didn’t believe it to be superior to other standards.
[/quote]
Believe…belief…hmmm.
Sloth, again how is that any different from believing people should pay their taxes? It’s an ought, not an is, but you still believe it despite knowing it is entirely manmade.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, again how is that any different from believing people should pay their taxes? It’s an ought, not an is, but you still believe it despite knowing it is entirely manmade.[/quote]
But, I’m comfortable with putting faith in what ought to be (the “goodness” of forcing people to give up a part of their own wealth).
Let me approach it like this. Forlife, is stealing immoral?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Swole, interesting discussion of the possibility that morality is the metacognitive explanation of evolutionary traits. What do you think about the possibility that there are other types of evolution besides biological evolution? Is it possible that the same evolutionary process applies to social structures, belief systems, and other domains besides biological survival? Moral systems and laws may themselves evolve, apart from any ultimate effects they have on human survival. [/quote]
Well, I can’t point to the veracity of it with any strong level of knowledge, but I think that this is generally considered to be the case. I am very curious about the role of phenotype in trans-generational genomic regulation, but I haven’t gotten to studying it yet.
I did just finish The Making of Intelligence by Ken Richardson. In it, he makes a very good case for trans-generational adaptation of cognitive tools epigenetically. Sources of the stressors to these adaptations range from diet in the womb to cultural memes.
Ultimately, I think it all comes back to a discussion of the role of cognition.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Words do matter, and so does context. You keep ignoring that universal means something different, depending on the context. [/quote]
This is getting ludicrous - somewhat similar to your old “correlation says nothing about causation” nonsense some time ago. No, the context doesn’t matter.
No, it isn’t, because whether something is universal or not - note the word “is”, and in “truly exists” - is not dependent on your belief in it or not. Your belief is completely and utterly irrelevant as to whether something “is” universal.
So, if you believe “everyone should love others”, it doesn’t inform the debate, because that doesn’t tell us anything as to whether the moral of “everyone should love one another” actually exists or not, which would inform whether it is a universal moral standard.
No, it isn’t. See above. It’s only a consensus if an actual consensus actually exists.
No, I am limiting it to “existence” or not, which is the only thing that matters. “Accountability” is step two. “Universality” is established at step one.
Uh no, I don’t expect everyone to follow it universally - I expect them to follow it whilst they are under the jurisdiction of said man-made law.
This is meaningless - you can expect people to do whatever you want. It’s irrelevant. We are talking about the existing of universal moral laws or not.
It would ipso facto be an opinion of equal value to your own, whether you wanted to admit it or not. Of course you think it’s superior to other ideas - that is why it is a preference. But you have no logical basis to say it is inherently worse than your idea. You have no premise.
You can merely say “hey, it ought to be a different way” - but you can’t establish why it ought to be that way.
Enough with the pedantics. Move along.
Thunder, what do you mean when you say a moral “actually exists”? I’m not following. If the universe were completely devoid of life, would this moral still exist? If so, how does it exist and In what form?
On paying taxes, what if there was one world government and one universal set of tax laws? You’re arguing that everyone should pay taxes, but if someone disagrees with you, why is their opinion not of equal value to your own? What moral authority do you have to insist that you’re right, lacking a universal supernatural tax paying law?
There are many logical arguments supporting the personal and societal value of people loving rather than hating one another, independent of a supernatural scorecard. Are you disagreeing with this?
[quote]forlife wrote:
There are many logical arguments supporting the personal and societal value of people loving rather than hating one another, independent of a supernatural scorecard. Are you disagreeing with this?[/quote]
You always assume everyone envisions the same ends.
Swole, I agree…and more specifically it comes down to metacognition. Animals think, but humans are unique in our capacity to think about how we think. That capacity is what enables us to develop moral values, and hold ourselves accountable to those values, even in denial of our primal drives.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I like how Sloth (a religious goon) know exactly how atheists think, better than the atheists themselves.[/quote]
Says the non-American who constantly tries to lecture Americans on the “true meaning” of the US’ relationship between church and state?
[/quote]
What goes on in my head =/= documented evidence for the thoughts of your founding fathers.