Norge

K,

Just to note some inconsistencies in your last post:

First this one:

Absolutely not. This has nothing to do with an emotional appeal. What I wrote and what you quote from me exactly describes your position. You wholeheartedly reject "wrong and right" and have consistently affirmed simply likes and dislikes based on determined evolutionary development, so no, this isn't an emotional appeal, I am simply describing what you wrote and what you think. It is interesting that you state that you think I am appealing to emotion, though, because it indicates that such a position evokes an emotional response and you would find that that response is very often one of disbelief and revulsion among so many. That last part I just wrote is most certainly emotional, though!!!!!! Sorry, I have got to lighten this dialogue up now and then, or we will all end up very depressed.

I was interested in your comment here:

How interesting that you affirm relativism, which is a natural destination for determinists. I suppose what you mean by value, then, is simply whatever you consider to be valuable. I could, for example, use that word "value" and affirm something you found absolutely abhorrent and you could only watch and say, "hmmm, I don't like that. My values are different from his." We've been over this already, so I won't say more here. I believe in universals. I reject nominalism. I know you disagree with me. We can discuss that on another forum. No doubt it has been discussed many times here.

I have some questions about this section here, K.:

What does "socially beneficial manner" mean? Benefit to the individual or a group? Which group? How big is the group?

You wrote this as an example of behaving in a "socially beneficial manner."

"you don't kill to eliminate your competition." What happens when killing to eliminate the competition is clearly in line with my group's survival?

You wrote here, "Actions that tended to benefit group survival are generally labelled moral."

So, I suppose it's possible that one day we reach the point where disabled people, the sick and the weak, who don't really benefit the survival of our species, because they're a drain on society, may have to be eliminated. In fact, that was Hitler's view and was considered morally good in that society. I wonder how you could possibly object to that line of reasoning. He sees people who don't benefit the group, he eliminates them and it benefits the group. As a functioning society, Nazi Germany was remarkably successful. Its economy exploded from 1933 onwards and there was remarkable social cohesion. As a group, the nation prospered considerably. Clearly many of the things they did were to the benefit of the group, their nation. I imagine their classifying as "moral" of turning in Jews etc would gel nicely with your idea of ""Actions that tended to benefit group survival are generally labelled moral." Hmm, I can see that now. Now, I know you don't think they're moral,(particularly since you don't have any use for that word really) but you have no real basis for criticizing them. They acted quite in line with survival of the fittest. Their moral code, for what it's worth, was a success. It produced survival and domination. You don't label things as wrong, you simply dislike what they did, but that's as far as it goes.

Now, you should agree with me up to this point and again, I could appeal to your intuition here to suggest that this cannot be right, but I have already done this. What I will say is that your conclusions are utterly driven by an a priori commitment to evolution, even when the conclusions are counterintuitive. Evolution must be right, I know it's right and this is what comes out once I have made that commitment. In spite of the fact that it certainly does not square with what humans experience as "moral" behavior. I would suggest in fact that this idea that "moral" behavior can be explained by the evolutionary drive, is bogus. You can't even make it consistent K. At one point you state "Actions that tended to benefit group survival are generally labelled moral." But later you state:

"There are many actions I may object to that actually may benefit the survival of the group. However, I believe the motivation comes from instincts that originally developed which helped preserve groups." Your response to this is to appeal to the global economy as a reason why we see objectionable things that apparently "originally developed which helped preserve groups. What is going on here? Here we are now in a global economy. We act in a certain way. You dislike it, consider it immoral. You appeal to the past instinct to explain your dislike. Now, you will excuse me if I don't ask for further explanation on this, because this just sounds very confused. There is no consistency. Again, either our behavior is determined by our genes, our inputs and our conditioning, or not. Right? You can't simply add in something to explain your anomaly, such as "oh, well, there may be some responses that we experience, labeling things "immoral" because of those action are based on "the motivation (that) comes from instincts that originally developed which helped preserve groups."

First, that is impossible to prove with any degree of certainty. You're simply positing it, because you need something here to help you out. Second, you're positing observable behavior that now comes not from the inputs you originally appealed to but something buried from way back (I'm guessing that's what you mean - you will need to enlighten me here ) that explains a person's abhorrent behavior. Abhorrent to you, of course. This is why I think you have a weakness here.

You also have yet to run your evolutionary model for me. You still have to show in various societies through human history how their "moral systems" benefited their survival. I have done this for the Nazis, but that is just one nation. Can you list successful nations or groups and link them directly to their "moral values" so that there is a direct link between their "moral values" and their survival.

That will do for now.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I haven't written 'subjectivism is self-defeating' in a while.

Felt the need to state it here...

Keith.

K

Norge:

Of course it's an emotional appeal. You are using an emotionally charged issue like racism and my desire to condemn it to entice me to ignore the evidence supporting determinism.

I think racism is offensive and I condemn it - determinism or not. There is no need for an objective morality for me to condemn racism - or anything else for that matter.

Please don't tell me that you don't believe in relativism. Do you actually believe there is an absolute deliciousness against which all tastes are measured - regardless of the taster? How about an absolute fragrant? Or and absolute beautiful? Many (I would say all) values are determined by the valuer or valuers.

I'm not saying anything about an evaluation of the act on the group in order to determine it's morality. I'm saying there are some acts that are considered amoral (no moral content). There are other acts that are generally considered moral and others that are generally considered immoral. The acts that are considered moral tend to be acts that would have helped small groups (families or clans) of organisms band together to form a cohesive social communities. This would have provided them a significant survival advantage. This is all I'm saying. I'm not giving a way to label actions as moral or immoral. I am saying that it is usually pretty easy to take a behavior we consider moral and trace it back to survival advantage.

For instance: THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

Stealing can obviously help an individual. However, if all organisms in a group are forced to guard their possessions, then nobody can leave the group in order to hunt, find new land, etc. Groups with individuals that had an aversion to stealing had s significant survival advantage since they would be able to send groups of hunters to catch their prey and to find the most suitable place to live.

This leads to modern day grey areas. Since the group size for most of the evolution of social mammals was small (probably less than 10) the organisms knew everyone in the group. So now, people tend to find it a grey area when a faceless corporation makes an error in their favor. They don't always find it immoral to steal that money. Now I'm not in any way saying that keeping the money would be moral or immoral (I would be one to return the money), I'm just pointing out that I think the greyness is caused by the group sizes we now find ourselves in.

I think all of this is covered in my response above.

I meant killing within the social group. Obviously it was often beneficial to group survival to kill members of other groups. And, lo and behold, this instinct is still with us. In general, we find it acceptable to go to war with other groups (nations) simply because of an arbitrarily drawn line on a map or a difference in religious philosophy. Similar actions - larger group sizes.

The thing that stopped the Nazis was that their inhumanity was considered appalling and threatening to the rest of the world. Therefore, those with a more social nature stepped in and stopped the cruelty. So, it wasn't really in their group's best interest to behave in such a manner, was it?

Sure I do. I've said it too many times to count. I find their behavior unacceptable. I will not accept a world where they are allowed to behave in such a manner and I will do whatever I can to stop them. You seem to keep forgetting that determinism doesn't require a God or absolute standard in order to criticize behavior. The fact that the action of criticizing will have an effect is enough.

How much further does it have to go? The only option you're left with that I don't have is to pray that they stop. We've seen how well that worked.

No, I started with observations of neuron and brain behavior. That was my real interest. In searching for an explanation for the programming that obviously existed (and would have been the result of an insane programmer if a sentient programmer were assumed), I came across an evolutionary explanation that seemed to work quite well.

And just what do we experience as "moral" behavior that so clearly shows that it couldn't possibly have its roots in survival?

Where is the inconsistency. It's inconsistent with your version of morality, but it's not inconsistent. Please cite a specific inconsistency. And when you do, please remember, I have not provided a formula for determining whether an action is labelled "moral" or "immoral". You seem to be making that mistake in every single post.

I have never once implied anything other than that our actions are determined by our experiences and our genetic make up. I merely pointed out why behaviors that we may consider moral - that clearly would have been advantageous to small groups of social organisms - might no longer be advantageous to our global group of humanity.

True, but it's supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence as opposed to a grand total of zero evidence for any kind of objective morality.

No, I'm positing it because of its explanatory power and its close alignment with observation.

I've always said it was the sum of the inputs acting on the genetically honed brain. The genetics are the "buried from way back" part you're referring to. That's a fundamental part of my position.

I think the difference in peoples' genetics and their experiences are enough to explain abhorrent behavior. I'm not exactly sure what you are saying the weakness is.

[QUOTE] You also have yet to run your evolutionary model for me. You still have to show in various societies through human history how their "moral systems" benefited their survival. I have done this for the Nazis, but that is just one nation. Can you list successful nations or groups and link them directly to their "moral values" so that there is a direct link between their "moral values" and their survival. [QUOTE]

If you really believe that this is important to the discussion, then you really haven't understood what I've said.

It seems like we've been rehashing the same things over and over again. Maybe you could show determinism doesn't match reality by providing some evidence of something other than neurons making decisions. Or providing evidence that our brains don't use inputs or past experiences when making decisions.

Even if we disagree totally about how the "programming" of the brain happened, determinism only requires that it is.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: K ]</p>

K

Keith Russel:

Subjective truth possibly. Definitely not subjective preferences or morality.

Sr. Zonules

Ok, I am new to this forum and to this post, but hey, you gotta start somewhere. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I am an Agnostic. Well, maybe an Atheist. I dunno. I certainly am not a theist, that is for sure. This also means that I have to come up with some sort of standards of life (values, morals, ethics, chacha chacha chacha ) WITHOUT a diety. This is not to say, however that I cannot use (steal, parrot, borrow) other people's ideas that actually do exist, and determine their validity and value for myself.

I am quite certain (in fact, I have some very strong arguements, but those are for another time, another thread) that there is no afterlife awaiting me (even if there was, it is quite outside my reign of knowledge, or even my possible reign of knowledge). That means also that I cannot base my virtues upon a reward that MIGHT exist.

What this leaves me is what I think the origional message of this post is getting at:
-Zulu

I'll tell you how. Athiests (and I'll also lump-in agnostics, and basically all non-theists) can be (and most usually are) moral, ethical people with strong values, and even stronger opinions, with a very objective sense of right and wrong.

An athiest (lowercase to denote non-theists like I keep mentioning) does not steal. He (and also she, but I just say 'he'; I am not sexist) is a non-stealer NOT because a god (or a fallable book written by people; "It must be true, I read it in a book...") told him that stealing is wrong and he shall burn in Hell for eternity for doing so. He does it, rather, because he knows that a.) he could be caught and punished by a court law. b.) that he would not want others to steal from him, so he should not sleal from others c.) it could damage his reputation for doing so (becoming a social outcast IS quite a tough punishment) and d.) he would rather work honestly for what he has / gets, because then he has a greater meaning of life, and he knows that the the whole world (including himself) will be bettered by it.

-El Fin

Whatup?

I expect more people have been killed in the name of "God" and religion than in the name of atheism. So the question might be how can people be moral if they see humans as nothing more than the slaves of some universal tyrant who burns unworthy slaves in hell for eternity?

Luiseach

So, what we call 'morality' or 'ethics' is a survival mechanism? I would agree with this. At the same time, however, I'm glad it exists; otherwise, the world would be a more dreadful place than it already is.

Hang on...the world can often be a dreadful place, even with various systems of morality in place, indeed perhaps because of some of the systems of morality that we have in place. How can we account for these facts, I wonder?

I mean to say, if we agree that we all have a sense of 'right' and 'wrong', then how do we account for the frequency with which human beings behave in ways which could hardly be called 'moral' or 'ethical' or 'right'?

Further, systems of morality change over time, and from place to place, so that what was considered moral a hundred years ago is seen as barbaric today. Ethical systems of some countries clash with those of others, leading to conflict and mutual distrust and dislike. Moral relativism is repugnant to me, but I can't help noticing that some systems of morality and ethics are more desirable than others. Which moral system is the 'best'? How do we decide which one(s) are the 'best' anyway? Can we have a meta-ethics which can judge everyday ethics? Is morality subject to the same evolutionary laws that we are?

Hmmm.....

Vicar Philip

I think there are a number of reasons. Perhaps the most prevalent one is the tendency of humans to "follow" another whom they believe to be a leader. Hitler we know was bad, but he inspired patriotism and a desire to follow him in his countrymen.

Did the German regulars know they were committing atrocities in the concentration camps, or were they so indoctrinated in the Nazi mindset that they had no doubts they were in the right? Did it just seem to them that since "everyone else was doing it," it was OK for them to follow suit?

Another possible reason is the range of addictions the human mind becomes wrapped around. The church accountant who embezzles because of a gambling debt, the teenager who becomes a thief to support a drug habit, the faithful husband who frequents prostitutes to satisfy his sexual addiction.

I gave up the notion of a "universal morality" in another thread here, but I do believe there are general guidelines we can follow to differentiate between "right" and "wrong."

Vicar

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Vicar Philip ]</p>

Luiseach

Hi Vicar:

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head there with your comments on group mentality and behaviour. Yes, I agree that many atrocities are committed because some people decide to place faith in powerful leaders. So there is one possible definition of 'evil' - unthinking, uncritical adherence to others, individuals or groups. Dependency, in other words. Non-independent thought?

There's a dilemma at work here, though - if adherence to the 'group' is potentially wrong, and yet we want to come up with a system of morality/ethics which works best for the group, it's going to be rather difficult to formulate rules of 'right' and 'wrong' to which the group must agree.

From my point of view, morality and ethics are an evolving system which nonetheless can be seen to contain some basic tenets which would balance the freedom of the individual with the welfare of the group - freedom balanced by responsibility. The balancing bit is the tricky part, though - how much freedom and how much responsibility? Math is hard.