Sloth, I guess we have different definitions of faith. If you want to call it faith when I say the sun will rise tomorrow, that’s fine. Typically though, religious faith is defined as the belief in something supernatural for which there is no indisputable supporting evidence.
To answer your question, I believe stealing is usually wrong, although that moral may be trumped by a higher moral, like the commitment to save the life of your child.
I didn’t say everyone would agree, only that strong logical arguments can be made for the overall personal and societal benefits of loving rather than hurting others.
[quote]forlife wrote:
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]
Yes! I knew there was a definition I was missing… metacognition.
Of course, you then have to ask yourself whether we are denying or overcoming our primal drives or just deluding ourselves into thinking so and actually fulfilling them. And, how would you determine this?
Also, come to think of it, how do you determine that other animals don’t think about thinking? Absent of somebody presenting better evidence than what I’ve recently read, I’m going to say that the jury is still out on this one.
An aside here: the reason I possess a flagrant disdain for religion is that in so many ways it seeks to blunt deep inquisitiveness. Different religions and factions do it to different degrees, but they all ultimately propose an absolutist theory of the universe and demand it be taken on faith… because none of them can prove it otherwise.
I guess it depends how you define primal drives, but I would argue that they are closer to the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid, while the more refined drives are closer to the top.
They are still drives though, and all are subject to the evolutionary forces you’ve been discussing in this thread.
There have been studies on the possibility of metacognition in animals, but to my knowledge none have found evidence for it which couldn’t be explained by extrinsic environmental factors. There’s another interesting line of research on whether animals can feel emotions. Cool stuff, and if evidence ever does eventuate, it would be a fly in the religious ointment for several faiths claiming that only humans have souls.
I completely agree on the risk of close-mindedness in religions that claim to already have all the answers. It’s humbling, frightening, and ultimately liberating to set aside absolutes and be truly willing to go wherever the evidence leads.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I didn’t say everyone would agree, only that strong logical arguments can be made for the overall personal and societal benefits of loving rather than hurting others. [/quote]
But, you recognize that his claim to having a universal moral standard is just as “true” as yours? His “moral” standard has no less a foundation than your own. He feels his way. He believes his way. If you recoginize this, than you can’t believe in a universal “moral” standard.
It isn’t all illogical for a man to accept personal risk in taking what he wants. Not in the slightest. It would be illogical if in his murdering, plundering, stealing, conning, lying, conquering, and/or raping he was truly shocked that someone might oppose him. THAT would be illogical. But, if his “good” is in taking what he wants, despite knowing the risks, than his actions are logical. It is not illogical to murder a man for his money by shooting him. It is illogical to attempt to shoot with a pear instead of gun. Or, to not expect his victims disagreement (he hands the would be victim his gun, and proceeds to tie his shoe).
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, I believe there’s more compelling evidence for the personal and societal benefits of loving rather than hurting others. Do you disagree?[/quote]
No, I’ve accepted faith in the supernatural. I don’t believe in love in kindness because it can bring benefits (if you even value those benefits). I do, because regardless of my opinion, it is a moral law.
But someone else might give two craps about societal benefits, and might be willing to risk even his life for certain personal benefits at the expense of others. His universal moral standard? It isn’t. My outlook let’s me say that.
I can say that a great deal of kindness and love is moral. And that it’s not subject to any individual’s opinion. Or, to any change in form of government. Or, to any change in environment or survival circumstances. Or, to whatever aggresive, sexual, or deceitful proclivities your software and wetware dictates (if the “illusion of free will” organic robot thing is your bag).
[quote]forlife wrote:
I didn’t say everyone would agree, only that strong logical arguments can be made for the overall personal and societal benefits of loving rather than hurting others. [/quote]
But, you recognize that his claim to having a universal moral standard is just as “true” as yours? His “moral” standard has no less a foundation than your own. He feels his way. He believes his way. If you recoginize this, than you can’t believe in a universal “moral” standard.
It isn’t all illogical for a man to accept personal risk in taking what he wants. Not in the slightest. It would be illogical if in his murdering, plundering, stealing, conning, lying, conquering, and/or raping he was truly shocked that someone might oppose him. THAT would be illogical. But, if his “good” is in taking what he wants, despite knowing the risks, than his actions are logical. It is not illogical to murder a man for his money by shooting him. It is illogical to attempt to shoot with a pear instead of gun. Or, to not expect his victims disagreement (he hands the would be victim his gun, and proceeds to tie his shoe).[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess it depends how you define primal drives, but I would argue that they are closer to the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid, while the more refined drives are closer to the top.
They are still drives though, and all are subject to the evolutionary forces you’ve been discussing in this thread.
There have been studies on the possibility of metacognition in animals, but to my knowledge none have found evidence for it which couldn’t be explained by extrinsic environmental factors. There’s another interesting line of research on whether animals can feel emotions. Cool stuff, and if evidence ever does eventuate, it would be a fly in the religious ointment for several faiths claiming that only humans have souls.
I completely agree on the risk of close-mindedness in religions that claim to already have all the answers. It’s humbling, frightening, and ultimately liberating to set aside absolutes and be truly willing to go wherever the evidence leads. [/quote]
Check out Wild Minds by Marc Hauser… he does a good job of compiling and explaining a lot of this research without forcing a conclusion.
I didn’t ask why you believe in love, only if you believe love ultimately benefits society. Do you believe there is compelling evidence that love benefits society, or do you believe love doesn’t actually benefit society?
Thanks Swole, sounds like a good read. My mom is convinced that our family dog was capable of both metacognition and emotion…she saw him as more human than animal. Who knows, maybe she’s right?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I didn’t ask why you believe in love, only if you believe love ultimately benefits society. Do you believe there is compelling evidence that love benefits society, or do you believe love doesn’t actually benefit society?[/quote]
Which kind of society? You’re assuming there is a morally correct form of human living, and wrong form of human living. As if the universe has dictated it, regardless of human opinion.
Society encompasses slave society and non-slavery society. It includes tribal society(ies) and national. Racial, and multicultural. Religious and secular. Representative constitutionl republics and tyrannies. Peaceful and warlike. And, a pimp may love his mom, yet slap his whores around.
Regardless, you start off again as if there is a moral law that has to be accepted at all, “the benefit of society.” Or, “the survival of the species.” How about “The benefit of me, and yes, I’ll take those risks?”
Which kind of society? You’re assuming there is a morally correct form of human living, and wrong form of human living. As if the universe has dictated it, regardless of human opinion.
[/quote]
I’ve noticed that you do a lot of assuming about what other people are assuming.
Here, allow me to make this easier. Explain to me why “The benefit of me, and yes, I’ll take those risks,” is any less moral than your own foundation. After all, his morality is as grounded as your own, feelings and opinion. Don’t say “because the benefit of society…” That’s your starting point, not his.
Which kind of society? You’re assuming there is a morally correct form of human living, and wrong form of human living. As if the universe has dictated it, regardless of human opinion.
[/quote]
I’ve noticed that you do a lot of assuming about what other people are assuming.
Just an observation.
[/quote]
Please, feel free to correct me. Is the question not framed to assume a particular end is THE morally correct end? As if it was longer within the realm of personal feelings and opinion?
Which kind of society? You’re assuming there is a morally correct form of human living, and wrong form of human living. As if the universe has dictated it, regardless of human opinion.
[/quote]
I’ve noticed that you do a lot of assuming about what other people are assuming.
Just an observation.
[/quote]
Please, feel free to correct me. Is the question not framed to assume a particular end is THE morally correct end? As if it was longer within the realm of personal feelings and opinion? [/quote]
Here’s the original question:
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
An aside here: the reason I possess a flagrant disdain for religion is that in so many ways it seeks to blunt deep inquisitiveness. Different religions and factions do it to different degrees, but they all ultimately propose an absolutist theory of the universe and demand it be taken on faith… because none of them can prove it otherwise. [/quote]
omg.
Right, you haven’t been doing that at all with your correct-so-long-as-it-fits-into-my-preconceived-evolution-framework conjecturing up to this point, have you?
This has been my point over and over and over.
You have your religion and your absolutes and your stubborn refusal to accept anything that doesn’t fit your worldview just like we do.
And my religion has never discouraged me from healthy inquiry into absolutely anything.
I thought we had already established that swoleupinya’s position was basically utilitarian amoralism.
a biologic utilitarism rather than an economic one, but an utilitarism nonetheless.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I thought we had already established that swoleupinya’s position was basically utilitarian amoralism.
a biologic utilitarism rather than an economic one, but an utilitarism nonetheless. [/quote]
Utilitarianism… hmmm… I think that’s close. But isn’t utilitarianism more of an ethical paradigm than a moral theory?
I’m liking amoralism better, but I don’t think it was penned to describe my type of position.
An aside here: the reason I possess a flagrant disdain for religion is that in so many ways it seeks to blunt deep inquisitiveness. Different religions and factions do it to different degrees, but they all ultimately propose an absolutist theory of the universe and demand it be taken on faith… because none of them can prove it otherwise. [/quote]
omg.
Right, you haven’t been doing that at all with your correct-so-long-as-it-fits-into-my-preconceived-evolution-framework conjecturing up to this point, have you?
This has been my point over and over and over.
You have your religion and your absolutes and your stubborn refusal to accept anything that doesn’t fit your worldview just like we do.
And my religion has never discouraged me from healthy inquiry into absolutely anything.[/quote]
Which kind of society? You’re assuming there is a morally correct form of human living, and wrong form of human living. As if the universe has dictated it, regardless of human opinion.
[/quote]
I’ve noticed that you do a lot of assuming about what other people are assuming.
Just an observation.
[/quote]
Please, feel free to correct me. Is the question not framed to assume a particular end is THE morally correct end? As if it was longer within the realm of personal feelings and opinion? [/quote]
Here’s the original question:
And, to answer you, Sloth; No. The question does not assume a particular end is THE morally correct end. It assumes a particular end to be more beneficial to society than another.
[/quote]
WTF is benefit!!! How many times now?..
You need to quit smuggling morals into your premises before you reach the conclusion that there are morals.