In a hurry, a couple of direct responses to comments you made:
I didn’t present a false dichotomy of an “either/or” between “thin the herd” and “sanctity of life”. It was from one of your examples. I presented these “choices” precisely from your own example to demonstrate the point that there clearly is no fixed “moral” with respect to propagation of the human species. Your new “counterpoint” is merely restating my argument and beefing it up - there is no one evolutionary means of species propagation: different situations and different enviroments call for different means at different times. Thus, a group of humans in Borneo may not be undergoing a completely different evolutionary “judgment” by Natural Selection than people in Iowa.[/quote]
Page 13, 7th post from the top. This is where YOU proposed this example.
It is perhaps unfair to say that you do not understand natural selection. I will rephrase that: you have presented multiple examples of assertions which you attribute to Darwin’s theory of natural selection that do not in fact conform to said theory.
Humor me. Explain how giraffes came to have such long necks.
Wrong. Many of the sharpest scientific minds of our time are in fact asking this question.[/quote]
Read what I wrote - I didn’t say people weren’t asking the question, I said Science itself doesn’t care nor does it have an inherent mission to prove or disprove the existence of a God (as many faux-scientist atheists believe).
Thus, Science isn’t “on the side” of atheists or “on the side” of deists. Science isn’t on anyone’s side. Learn to read.
The scientific method cannot prove the fact (or disprove it), but the point was something different - atheists start with a conclusion that they are…wait for it…already convinced of, and then attempt to use “science” to backfill the conclusion.
That ain’t Science.
Yeah, I’m not convinced of that.
You are pretty pleased with yourself, but all this is unnecessary, particularly since it is untrue.
Despite your age, you really do remind me of the “freshman psychology 101” type - that stereotypical adolescent who stumbles across an idea or theory that he really is impressed by and then, suddenly, he has “figured it all out!”, and, armed with just a little bit of knowledge, shouts it from the rooftops.
Sorry, but your constant (and unfounded) insistence that people who don’t agree with you “lack understanding” is a little off-putting.
Page 13, 7th post from the top. This is where YOU proposed this example. [/quote]
It doesn’t matter - well, it does to you, apparently - but I didn’t propose the “dichotomy”. You wrote:
[i]Let’s say we possess one of two not necessarily “hard-wired” behaviors but biological imperatives… instinctive urges that relate to this type of dilemma (I am obviously truncating the possible impulses at play for the sake of framing the discussion.) Here they are:
Remove weaker members from the herd.
Preserve all members of the herd. [/i]
I merely followed your framing for purposes of discussion.
Rather than being purposefully obstinate, explain how giraffes necks became so long using the theory of natural selection. [/quote]
No, I am not being “purposefully obstinate” - the “competition for food” theory has been challenged by a “sexual competition among males” theory. And no one quite knows which is the better theory based on available information. Thanks anyway.
Rather than being purposefully obstinate, explain how giraffes necks became so long using the theory of natural selection. [/quote]
No, I am not being “purposefully obstinate” - the “competition for food” theory has been challenged by a “sexual competition among males” theory. And no one quite knows which is the better theory based on available information. Thanks anyway.[/quote]
Okay, smart guy… then why don’t you take two or three minutes and lay out both theories.
Since you have essentially refused to give evidence that you understand the basic functions of natural selection, I will lay out here some statements that you have made that are inconsistent with natural selection:
The theory of natural selection does not require environmental catalysts to drive adaptation. It specifically calls for these adaptation to be the result of random mutations.
Assailing my position on the grounds that I can show no environmental catalyst that would provide causation for this shift away from the previous morality to the new morality among humans does not make sense in the context of natural selection.
Environment does not cause adaptation.
Mutations are effectively random and either succeed in the environment or they don’t.
There is nothing in the theory of natural selection provides for a “natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival?”
Incidentally, the description “unthinking animals driven by metacognitive urges” doesn’t make sense. Metacognitive = thinking about thinking, and metacognition is arguably a result of the evolution of our cerebral cortex.
I will take the time to respond to all nine of your points in my next post, but I would also like to go back to the one, initial challenge you made to the logic of my position:
This statement shows a misunderstanding of what my position is, and the same misunderstanding plays out repeatedly in your arguments. I have not characterized the drives to behave or reason in what we have termed a “moral” fashion as being related to self interest. In fact, I have related them to the more successful approach of being able to reason for the greater good of the species.
Honestly, I can accept if you disagree with my theory. I don’t expect that everyone will agree with me. But, to call it not plausible just doesn’t hold water.
I didn’t present a false dichotomy of an “either/or” between “thin the herd” and “sanctity of life”. It was from one of your examples. I presented these “choices” precisely from your own example to demonstrate the point that there clearly is no fixed “moral” with respect to propagation of the human species. Your new “counterpoint” is merely restating my argument and beefing it up - there is no one evolutionary means of species propagation: different situations and different enviroments call for different means at different times. Thus, a group of humans in Borneo may not be undergoing a completely different evolutionary “judgment” by Natural Selection than people in Iowa.[/quote]
I will refer again to page 13, 7th post from the top. You clearly laid out this false dichotomy. If you didn’t like my subsequent framing of it, you perhaps should have said something earlier.
Additionally, I have not claimed that there is any 'fixed" moral with respect to propagation of the species. This is a straw man argument.
Explain to me, then, where there is a “pure evolutionary strategy of survival” in the theory of natural selection?
These are your words. Make them conform… I’m all ears.
Made it up? What the hell are you talking about? Which part have I made up?
It’s a pretty common theory in the field of evolutionary biology that one of the underpinning factors in the success of the human species is our instinct to preserve life. Piaget and a number of other psychologist have done an enormous amount of work to show that these drives are not learned but that they are innate.
Furthermore, I’ve qualified this line of reasoning numerous times to the effect that what seems successful now may actually be our downfall in the long run… Either way, these innate cognitive tools conform logically to my model.
And… and this may very well be one of the most important points of this post… I have certainly not attempted to prove that morality is the sole result of biological evolution. I’ve also pointed to epigenetic regulation in the way of environmental stressors, metacognition, and cultural memes.
Here again, you are putting up a straw man.
I have not asserted that our drive to preserve life vs. a more cold-hearted strategy is evidence of our success. I have asserted that it is a tool of our success.
And, here you are taking words out of context to create an entirely different argument… an even more elaborate straw man.
When I used the term “progressive,” it was in response to you characterizing the mechanism of natural selection as one in which adaptations are the result of environmental catalysts. I responded that this was an incorrect description of the process of natural selection as progressive.
[quote] 5. You say “So, if you want to know why humans adhere to a moral standard of behavior even when it conflicts with a natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival; the answer is that they don’t” - but this is incorrect. Natural Selection dictates that evolution has no “aim”, yet that is precisely how Humans’ development of morality has been cast - a trajectory by which mandates that Humans lose the savagery and become caring toward his fellow man.
This has problems for a number of reasons. First, it is pure guess - you can’t point to a single environmental catalyst that would provide causation for this shift away from the previous morality to the new morality among Humans. Merely saying “hey, as Humans evolved, this was part of their evolution” is a non-answer; it again assumes the question we are considering.[/quote]
To elaborate on my previous post; What you describe as a non-answer is actually a pretty solid answer in the context of natural selection… considering that mutations are random.
[quote]It also stands in contradiction to the idea that this new morality developed in contravention to Natural Selection. Humans, for example, have no evolutionary need to build institutions to protect the weak, the sick, the barren, the elderly and the diseased - even under the most generous interpretation of altruism toward fellow man as a means to help propagate the species, there is no good “metacognitive” or subconcious urge demanding that we provide assistance to these folks who can’t possibly contribute to the propagation of the species. So, more questions remain.
Darwin himself discussed this kind of problem in his Descent of Man. His answers were unsatisfactory. [/quote]
and again… adaptations in natural selection do not occur in response to needs. That’s not how it works.
Metacognition and the epigenetic regulation of cultural memes, etc… certainly do work in this manner.
You say this^
[quote]But to your statement “there is no such thing as a “natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival” inherent in the theory of natural selection” is incorrect as well - why? Humans aren’t unthinking animals driven by “metacognitive” urges that they can’t so “yes” or “no” to. And, they haven’t been in millenia. They are biological beings with the ability to reason and choose, and so, yes, in addition to the natural events that shape the lives of Man, Man also influences his own survival. [/quote}
But then you say this ^
Again, good luck showing where the theory of natural selection makes these assertions.
One more time, and probably not the last… there is no “automaton” in my model. I have presented repeatedly the geometrically expansive nature of cognition as an underpinning concept of my model.
[quote]Quick and dirty example? As well-studied Humans steeped in science, we know that diseases and plagues serve a natural purpose, as unpleasant as they might be. But, despite this “natural” event that certainly serves a “natural” purpose, we spend trillions trying to eliminate diseases. We know diseases are “normal”, are not evil, and serve biological purposes. Yet, we choose to essentially do everything in our power to get rid of them.
This Human agency - which includes reason, but is not limited to do it - overrides “natural” processes and have for centuries. Your “automaton” theory doesn’t properly account for it.
This is true, unless you are willing to argue that free will doesn’t exist.[/quote]
Well, actually… to this specific example, there exits a well-reasoned argument that in preserving more lives, we benefit the species with the exponential expansion of the available gene pool.
Nonetheless, you are again presenting the straw man argument that cognition has no place in my model. The evolution of our cerebral cortex which gave rise to our deep cognitive faculties is EXACTLY that to which I attribute the development of the idea of morals as a descriptor of certain of our innate urges.
Ad hominem. I have hardly been lazy in my reasoning or defense. I have continually responded to your challenges, in spite of these childish attacks on my level of knowledge.
I have specifically avoided defending the depth or source of my knowledge on the topic, because I expect my reasoning and logic to stand on its own.
I DID respond to the characterization of my writing as terrible, because frankly I take that very personally. Writing is my life’s work.
[quote] 9. In sum, the idea that Natural Selection has determined our morality is, as I have stated all along, insufficient and has problems. I have no interest in any theory as lazy as yours - more questions are required for better answers, and it is clear you are unprepared to ask them.
Not my problem to fix, but an interesting topic nonetheless for the rest of us.[/quote]
This experience has been quite interesting to me. You need not believe it, but just consider the possibility that the following is true:
The reason I engaged in this topic on this forum is because it has been a course of study and debate for me for the past few years, and I’ve only recently come to any sort of conclusion. (though, admittedly I am likely to continue challenging my reasoning) The people with whom I have been interacting offline on this topic range from someone who graduated at the top of her class from Columbia with a degree in scientific journalism and a man who went to one of the best seminary colleges in the country. This is the only place in which the logic of my theory has been challenged.
As I’ve said before; I am confident that the logic of my theory is sound. The model itself has many of the same limitations that natural selection does, but it is certainly logical.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Great. You’ve linked to an article.
Since you have essentially refused to give evidence that you understand the basic functions of natural selection, I will lay out here some statements that you have made that are inconsistent with natural selection:
The theory of natural selection does not require environmental catalysts to drive adaptation. It specifically calls for these adaptation to be the result of random mutations.[/quote]
Across a population? A mutation may bring forth a new trait in individuals. But, reproductive succes in an enviroment determines ‘adaption.’ Or, maladaption, for that matter. If the moth sports a new light coloring not seen among his dark colored moth pals, who happen to blend in better with the dark tree bark in the area, he’s probably not destined to compete for lady-moths for long. Though he’ll make a right tasty meal for some bird. A random mutation in of itself is no adaption. Sickle-cell could be considered an adaption in malaria-ridden regions, but everywhere else it’s a disease.
Note, he doesn’t say the enviroment birthed a new trait. He is referring to a shift in the distribution of a trait(s) in a population(s).
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Great. You’ve linked to an article.
Since you have essentially refused to give evidence that you understand the basic functions of natural selection, I will lay out here some statements that you have made that are inconsistent with natural selection:
The theory of natural selection does not require environmental catalysts to drive adaptation. It specifically calls for these adaptation to be the result of random mutations.[/quote]
Across a population? A mutation may bring forth a new trait in individuals. But, reproductive succes in an enviroment determines ‘adaption.’ Or, maladaption, for that matter. If the moth sports a new light coloring not seen among his dark colored moth pals, who happen to blend in better with the dark tree bark in the area, he’s probably not destined to compete for lady-moths for long. Though he’ll make a right tasty meal for some bird. A random mutation in of itself is no adaption. Sickle-cell could be considered an adaption in malaria-ridden regions, but everywhere else it’s a disease.
Note, he doesn’t say the enviroment birthed a new trait. He is referring to a shift in the distribution of a trait(s) in a population(s).[/quote]
You are correct… good example of how natural selection works.
If that was Thunder’s point, though, he either ignored or misread the multiple instances in which I have addressed exactly the point of how a dominant moral code could distribute in a population. I’ve offered the epigenetic models of cognition and cultural memes. I’ve also offered the more traditional model in which populations that exhibit these characteristics simply persist better. This one he claimed was somehow circular in its logic… which just surprises the hell out of me.
I will take the time to respond to all nine of your points in my next post, but I would also like to go back to the one, initial challenge you made to the logic of my position:
This statement shows a misunderstanding of what my position is, and the same misunderstanding plays out repeatedly in your arguments. I have not characterized the drives to behave or reason in what we have termed a “moral” fashion as being related to self interest. In fact, I have related them to the more successful approach of being able to reason for the greater good of the species. [/quote]
Well, good, let’s start at the beginning. If I keep misunderstanding what your position is, further replies aren’t necessary until I truly understand your position. So, give it to me.
Where does Human Morality come from? What is its origin?
Just tell me. Clearly and cleanly. Don’t try to drown your posts in vernacular and asides. Don’t try and obfuscate by tut-tutting your “expertise”. Nothing outs a dilattante like a follish overreliance of vernacular to show “how smart they are” and foolish name-dropping (“Friends at Columbia!!”). Just say where you think it finds it origins. Plain English. Should be easy enough.
My position remains the same: I think Human Morality has requirements contrary to what nature would otherwise have Humans do, thus the idea that nature alone cannot explain the whole of Human Morality. What highlights the inconsistency between Human Morality and nature’s biological commands is that Human Morality requires that certain things are universally and permanently “wrong” and nature’s biological commands do not. Thus, any theory that provides that nature is the lone source of Human Morality is, at best, incomplete, and by extension implausible, because such a theory does not adequaetly account for these inconsistencies.
Now, don’t worry about my position for purposes of telling me yours. Just tell me yours.
I agree… a fresh start is a good idea, and I will respond to your request in my next post.
With that in mind, you would serve the discussion well to stop assailing my character. You should also stop attempting to portray me as any number of distasteful caricatures.
You don’t know me. You don’t know who I am, where I live, what my educational background is, what I’ve read, what I haven’t read, what my life and business experience is, etc…
Something similar to what I am about to say to you has been said to me in the past on this forum and others. We all go overboard with the bravado, sitting anonymously behind our computers, so we occasionally need a reminder to observe civility.
So… if you were sitting across a table from me, you wouldn’t dare presume to say some of the things that you have written here. Use your polite voice, or go fuck yourself.
As promised, another explanation of my theory on the evolution of morality, for anyone who is interested:
Every behavior associated with a precept of a moral code has a precedent or strong correlative in any number of animal species. In fact, it is a feature of success in increasingly complex organisms that they exhibit behaviors that are increasingly similar to adherence to our moral codes. To put it simply; the more amoral a species behaves, the less likely they are to persist.
It is safe to assume that animals, even the higher primates (as numerous studies and decades of testing have born out) do not reason out these behaviors to the same level of complexity that we do. In many instances, their behaviors are either the result of instinctive reactions to stimulus or learned from interacting and observing their peers. The ability to learn in this manner, incidentally, is a tool of the evolution of their brains. At a fundamental level, though, cooperative behaviors are built upon inherited instincts. This assertion comes form the results of decades of research and testing, and a good place to look for more detail on this topic is the book Wild Minds by Marc Hauser.
As a species, we humans evolved through many of the same mutations and adaptations that our cousins in the web of evolution did. We evolved possessing the same fundamental instincts. Where we differ form any other species is in having experienced the series of mutations that expanded the capacity and function of our cerebral cortex. One of the resultant tool of this series of mutations is metacognition, the ability to think about thinking… to be essentially philosophical and eventually to reason, analyze, etc…
With this highly advanced cognitive capacity, we began to consider the implications of many of the behaviors that are inherent to our success as a species. Out of this reasoning arose the concepts of morality and morals. We attached a value, a higher degree of significance on these instinctive behavioral traits and thus magnified their importance.
This is the jumping off point of my theory, definitely not the conclusion. Our advanced cognitive faculties have given rise to a number of evolutionary mechanisms that fall outside of the bounds of natural selection. An example would be the way that language shapes the reasoning process… different cultures can have subtly different processes of reasoning, heavily influenced by the structure of their languages. Over the course of several generations of reinforcement of these traits, phenotypic expression can succeed in forcing a persistent genetic adaptation. The same would hold true for say… the instinct to preserve human life. Reinforcement of this value as a cultural meme could affect inter-generational persistence of this genome… essentially bolstering it.
An even simpler way of looking at this is that the idea of morals arose as a way of defining some basic, fundamental instincts. Concurrently and continuing from this point, we elaborated on our construction of these models, attaching increasing amounts of significance to morals… this advanced the idea of morals into the realm of memes, concepts that evolve and distribute through cultures. And, consequently, morals and moral codes evolved in relation to the degree to which we could reach consensus and codify them.
My theory also allows for instances in which cultures emerge with moral frameworks that will ultimately not be successful. In fact, this actually fits quite well with the theory of natural selection. Mutations will occur, and not all will persist. There are exponentially more levels of complexity when you examine the effects of cognition, but it still bares similarities to natural selection.
It is important to understand that cultural evolution does not in any way conflict with the theory of natural selection. Natural selection only takes us as far as the point of genetic mutation. Epigenetic regulation and cultural evolution build out from there. (with further interaction obviously, but this model works for the sake of simplicity.)
Another thing that my theory allows for is the possibility that our adherence to moral codes will ultimately be our downfall, or at least a component of it. It is difficult at best to make any predictions regarding the long-term success or failure of our species. That would easily take us into an entire of realm of discussion in which we hash out political issues, etc… The take-away point is that we could very well be following bad strategy.
If there is anything that is unclear in this, or any use of terminology that you need defined, feel free to ask. Compliant with my previous post, though, I am past the point of tolerating a stream of ad hominem attacks.
And, now to address a few of your points here… just in case you don’t find what you are looking for in my last post:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My position remains the same: I think Human Morality has requirements contrary to what nature would otherwise have Humans do, thus the idea that nature alone cannot explain the whole of Human Morality.[/quote]
There are a multitude of examples of animal species behaving in ways that are contrary to a fundamental goal of individual success, or even success of their genetic relatives. “Nature” as you put it certainly does provide precedents for more complex moral decisions.
This opens up the door to debate over the validity of different schools of morality. However, only the most strict moral absolutists can make the claim that certain things are universally and permanently “wrong”. Hell, even absolutism leaves room for the ethical practice of casuistry in which the values of different “rights” are weighed.
[quote]Thus, any theory that provides that nature is the lone source of Human Morality is, at best, incomplete, and by extension implausible, because such a theory does not adequaetly account for these inconsistencies.
[/quote]
Further to my point; the inconsistency that you raise here only exists if we all agree that moral absolutism is the only valid school of morality. My theory is in many ways a refutation of moral absolutism. Though, I contend that it operates at a different level than the conflict between moral relativism and moral absolutism. On this point I am not as confident as I am with the basic structure of my theory… it could very well be that what I am expressing in my model is a complex form of moral relativism. I would actually be very pleased to find a camp that I can fit my theory into, so that I can expand my understanding of it and how it relates to functioning within a society.
I digress, though…
The point I am trying to make is that for your inconsistencies to exist, we would all have to agree that your theory of morality is correct. My theory functions in many ways to try to prove that morality is not dependent upon any absolute nature to exist.
To put it more simply:
You are telling me that my theory is illogical and implausible for no other reason than that it does not conform with the core principle of yours. Try getting that tactic to work in a court of law.
This opens up the door to debate over the validity of different schools of morality. However, only the most strict moral absolutists can make the claim that certain things are universally and permanently “wrong”. Hell, even absolutism leaves room for the ethical practice of casuistry in which the values of different “rights” are weighed.
…
Further to my point; the inconsistency that you raise here only exists if we all agree that moral absolutism is the only valid school of morality. My theory is in many ways a refutation of moral absolutism. Though, I contend that it operates at a different level than the conflict between moral relativism and moral absolutism. On this point I am not as confident as I am with the basic structure of my theory… it could very well be that what I am expressing in my model is a complex form of moral relativism. I would actually be very pleased to find a camp that I can fit my theory into, so that I can expand my understanding of it and how it relates to functioning within a society.
…
The point I am trying to make is that for your inconsistencies to exist, we would all have to agree that your theory of morality is correct. My theory functions in many ways to try to prove that morality is not dependent upon any absolute nature to exist.[/quote]
This crystallizes the issue straightaway. Admittedly, your model flatly assumes moral relativism. As such, definitionally, your model isn’t attempting to find an explain Human Morality.
“Moral relativism” isn’t morality, and can’t be. It is the belief that morality, properly stated, doesn’t exist. So, your basic assumption for purposes of your model is that there is no such thing as Human Morality.
What your model is “studying”, then, is not morality, but rather behaviors that are based primarily in biological cost-benefit analysis. These behaviors are situationally determined by the different Ends a biological being wants (or needs) to achieve at a given time - as you flatly state yourself, they are a Means to some End, and indisputably, the Ends are going to differ (that is, after all, the point of your theory - to show that “morals” are “relative” to these situations and that therefore there are no “absolutes”).
But that isn’t what Morality means or entails - and it never has. Morality is not pure Means - because “rightness” would merely be a function of cost-benefit analysis to some End, no matter how you define that End - and you, of course, make an enormous assumption by starting there for purposes of your model. And this assumption negates the understanding of Morality. So you aren’t really considering Morality from the outset.
And, in addition to that, the great weakness in your theory is that you have no basis to demonstrate that your theory is “in many ways a refutation of moral absolutism” - the examples of what you describe under your assumption of “moral relativism” (different behaviors at different times relative to the circumstances) assumes that these behaviors are not immoral, they are just “relative” - moral, but just as “right” as the next moral that does something inconsistent with it. Your model merely demonstrates different behaviors in different circumstances and automatically - and fatally - assumes that these behaviors are all morally valid.
More simply stated, your model assumes exactly what we are otherwise trying to prove or otherwise validate. You have a basic assumption - that because these behaviors exist (and for that reason only), their existence alone is proof that they are valid morals (as opposed to behaviors that exist but are outside of morality…immoral behavior) damns your model. It’s circular.
Short version: you say “I have a theory that refutes the idea that Moral Absolutism exists, and my theory is predicated on an assumption that Moral Absolutism does not exist.” This is so for the reasons stated above. Bad theory.
Your model can demonstrate all kinds of behaviors, and many of them may very well be inconsistent with others. That’s fine. But it sheds no light on Human Morality, because the existence of the varied behaviors that you describe (and quantify) as “morals” is not ipso facto proof that they are automatically “right”. After all, from a moral perspective, they could be “wrong” even though biological organisms engage in them.
Again, your model (and theory generally) reduces every behavior to a moral, so long as that behavior is a means to some end - and when everything is a moral, nothing is.
As such, your model might come up with some interesting evidence about behaviors - but nothing terribly useful about Morality.
[quote]To put it more simply:
You are telling me that my theory is illogical and implausible for no other reason than that it does not conform with the core principle of yours. Try getting that tactic to work in a court of law. [/quote]
You can’t help yourself can you? In your haughtiness, you are now lecturing me on what passes for legal argument in addition to everything else you are an “expert” in?
Thunder, what is your opinion on Einstein’s theory of relativity? For example, Einstein showed that time is not uniform and absolute as everyone presumed, but in fact depends on the observer. If we can agree on the relativity of time, despite all intuition and common sense to the contrary, why is it impossible that morality is similarly relative to the observer?
The disagreement on time, or on morality, doesn’t make time or morality any less real to the observer.
I got about halfway through a point-by-point response to your last post.
Then, I realized what a colossal waste of time it was.
It is apparent to anyone with the ability to reason that you start from a position of absolute and immutable definitions of the origins and nature of morality. You start from this point and argue with incredibly clumsy straw men that do not conform to anything I have written.
You are arguing against amoralism. That’s a neat conversation, but it’s not the one I’m engaged in.