K

Norge:

Sure it can. It implies that there is no "oughtness". "Ought" was brought in by you with your Christian bias. There is no need for it in order for determinism to be a complete and fully coherent explanation for human behavior.

With all your discussion of "ought" and moral determinations, is it any wonder that I don't believe that you understand?

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: K ]</p>

Norge

Well, K, I seem to stirred the pot a bit. I'm sorry to have upset you. That was not my intention. I think I perfectly well understand what you mean. The only difference is that in some places I have used the word "because" as in we do this "because" it is to our benefit, when what you really mean is, "we act and this is the explanation of what that means, it is determined by our inputs/environment." But I have always understood this from you. There has been no misunderstanding here. What I have tried to get you to answer is the idea of compunction. Why "should" we act in particular ways. You have simply answered, there is no "should", just "is." In other words, we simply act. That's it. No should, nothing else there.

Okay. So, let's take this idea and see how it works out. I'm going to write a scenario involving a death camp commander and he's going to defend his action that he is planning to kill Jewish children.

I plan to kill these children.

Why would you do that?

I don't need to provide an explanation to you, sir, since I am determined to do this, but if you want to have one, the reason is that it protects our group against an opposing group and it falls within the morality of my social grouping. I am conditioned to do this.

But, I think it's disgusting that you would do that. In fact, I think it will severely damage the ability for our whole human race to prosper.

Er, well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I happen to disagree. All my alternative inputs are telling me it's a wise thing to do. You think I"m disgusting, but not wrong. I happen to disagree with you. So what? After all, there is no ultimate punishment for anything I do. I can proceed and if I'm wrong, then so what?

Well, I think it's disgusting. If I could, I would stop you.

Well, you can't.


Now, the weakness here of course, is that the determinist's sole avenue of justification for the criticism that he can level at the Nazi is as follows:

He's limited to "my personal opinion is that it's disgusting" and "you shouldn't do that because it will hurt the group."

Now, if you find that a satisfying response to the murder of children, then determinism is for you. Since there is no right and wrong, then all you can resort to is "I don't like something," never "that's wrong." Those are moral tags that contain no real meaning. Fine. Go ahead. However, I would suggest that that simply does not accord with what the vast majority of us mean when we describe morality.


And I think this is where we have to agree to disagree. I simply think that when you propose determinism as an explanation of "morality" and it's inability to provide any real grounding for morality, even atheists generally baulk at this. It just doesn't describe what's going on when we make moral statements. If I cheat in a test and feel guilty, it has nothing to do with groups or anything else. Second, the statement "torturing babies is wrong" is a statement that most atheists admit to, but which the determinist just looks at blankly and disagrees with. All that can be said is "torturing babies is disgusting to me and it's not helpful to the group." But this is hopeless to explain our response to such a proposition. I can simply reply, "well, I enjoy doing it and I don't think it's bad for the group" and you're left with nowhere to go. I agree that as a system, it might just about hold together, although I would have to say that I think that the grounding for your criticism of others is particularly weak - but that is not enough. It fails because it doesn't accord with reality. In other words, when we describe morality, we don't mean what you are talking about.

K

Norge:

My responses weren't written in anger - just frustration that my position was being dismissed due to claims I had never made.

How are you in any better a position to stop the Nazi? I say I find his behavior is disgusting and I will stop him if I'm able. He says, "so what." You say you think he is being immoral and you will stop him if you're able. He says, "so what." In the end, who stopped the Nazis? It wasn't God or some kind of cosmic morality. It was people who found the behavior of the Nazis disgusting or threatening.

In the end, your criticism of determinism doesn't rest in any internal contradictions or disconnect with the observable physical world. It is simply that you feel that there should be an "ought". You would like to say that the Nazis and child torturers are wrong on some grand cosmic scale. These feelings are fully accounted for in determinism and it remains perfectly consistent.

So we may agree to disagree. I never expected more than that. I never expected you to give up Christianity because of my arguments for determinism. (It took me many painful years to realize that I couldn't accept on faith the things I saw that diverged between Christianity and the observed physical world.) I only wanted to point out that the determinism that you mocked in your first post is a perfectly consistent explanation that matches well with observations of brain function and human behavior we observe in the real world. I can accept that it doesn't feel right to you (and many others) or that you (and many others) don't particularly like the ramifications.

Norge

K,

I have thought a lot about what you have written over the past few days. You may be quite surprised to learn that I have valued your patience in what you have written. I could not dialogue with someone like Primal, who is so full of vitriol, I am surprised that James has the patience to respond. But anyway, that’s just a personal note.

As I have reflected on what you have written, I have realised, (though I knew this before actually, but your posts have clarified my belief) that your description is an honest representation of atheism and its implications. Determinism, in all its horrific grandeur, is the final destination of the atheist who is consistent with his paradigm. You are driven by your presupposition that there is no God, to conclude as you do, because – with no room for God – you conclude that determinism is the answer to what you observe. I think you are right. Perhaps you can account for the fact that many atheists cannot live with this conclusion. Michael Martin, for example, cannot live with this. He does hold to objective morality – something outside the physical world - and yet accounts for it by calling it a “brute fact.” He goes no further than this, really, simply asserting that God is not necessary to explain what is observed. I think determinism is a better explanation for the observed world without God. It is more honest if you’re going to be an atheist.

Having said that, I’d like to challenge you in this post to think through some consequences of your position, but before I do that, I’d like to examine just one small portion of your argument before I start.

This has to do with your idea of moving, I think, from description to prescription. What do I mean?

You wrote this:

The behavior is determined by the current state (which is a result of the genetics and the sum of past experiences) AND THE INPUTS. I never said it was pre-ordained. By changing one of the inputs to a deterministic system, we can change the output.

Now, if I understand you correctly, there are basically two main planks to your thinking. No 1 is: there is no morality really, there is simply what is. There is no independent objective “good” “bad” or anything else. There simply is what is. Therefore I can like or dislike what another does. I cannot critique it on any basis that calls a person to respond to something external, such an objective cosmic morality. That is unwarranted and inconsistent. There is the past, genetics and what you describe as “inputs.” Now, let’s look at these inputs for a moment, because they relate to the second plank of your thinking, which is that behavior either helps a group or hinders its progress of survival. Now, there is nothing inherently virtuous about surviving. It is not better than not surviving. It is simply what organisms do. They try to survive. So, let’s look at these inputs.

First of all, the greatest weakness comes from the first plank. Since there is no such thing as good or bad, what this means is that there is nothing more than preferences. You are clear about this. Second, survival is not inherently better than non-survival. It simply is what organisms do. Now, let’s run that through what we mean when we talk about a particular situation that I am going to create, that involves you and one of your children. I am doing this to bring this closer to home and let’s see how you respond.

The situation is this: You are with your son, who is a Nazi camp commander and he is burning Jewish children one by one. You are his dad, but you have no influence beyond that. Let’s see what happens.

Son, I’m horrified by what you are doing. You have got to stop.

Excuse me? I am doing right now what is the result of my past, my genetics and the inputs I have received, Dad, what is the problem?

Well, I am disgusted by what you are doing to those children. I’d like you to stop. You have got to stop. Please stop.

Er, why Dad? I live in Germany. All the inputs I have thus far received indicate that it is good for my grouping to survive better if I go ahead and extinguish this other grouping here. I don’t really know what you are talking about. It was you who raised me to think this way. You always used to say there is no good and bad or right and wrong. So, that’s how I live. I am genetically conditioned to do this. What is the problem?

(At this point, you as the Dad are desperately tempted to use the word “should” or “ought” in order to give your words some force. You want to say “You shouldn’t do this. It is horrific.” But you can’t)

Are you saying Dad, that I shouldn’t do this?

No, there is no “should,” son, just things that produce bad effects for the survival of a grouping. That is why you absolutely must stop. Please, son, you have got to stop!

But, Dad, then there is no “should” in terms of the survival of a grouping either. We can’t say we “should” protect children from torture either, right?

Well, no, we can’t say “should” in terms of it being better not to torture than to torture objectively, but we can use it in terms of being better for our group – Europe – to survive, so in that sense I suppose we can say “you shouldn’t torture children.

Okay. I’ll accept that, Dad. I accept that you don’t like what I’m doing. But I think your idea that our grouping won’t survive as well is simply false. In fact, the reverse is true. By getting rid of the Jews, I think we are ensuring the survival of our grouping in a spectacular way. Now, I’m not doing anything wrong, Dad, am I? In fact, as I burn the next child, I am fully the result of my past, inputs and genetics, right, Dad?

That’s right.

There’s no “torturing children is wrong,” right?

Right.

So I’m free to go and burn the next child, right?

If I could, I would stop you.

Because you don’t like what I’m doing, right?

Right.

Well, I guess we’ll have to disagree on that. Bye for now, Dad.

Now, let’s return to that issue of description and prescription. I think this is really where the issue lies. The fact is that all you do as a determinist is observe. You state that you think you can criticize others’ behavior, but you characterize this interaction as an “input” that might change their behavior. What kind of interaction might this be? Well, it has all the force of a wet fish, if I may be so blunt. I act disgustingly. You observe. Then you state, “I don’t like what you’re doing. I think it is bad for survival.” To which I respond, “So you don’t like what I’m doing. So what? And your argument sounds very close to that word “should” or “ought.”

I think the crux has finally been reached here. And I’m going to call you here for being disingenuous. K, this is what you really mean here. When you criticize someone for their behavior, you state “this is not good for group survival” and this is the most force that you can conjure up. Perhaps something judicial can be thrown in there, such as “Do that and you’ll go to prison” but that’s about as far as it goes. Then you state that you don’t like what they’re doing, but this is even weaker, since they simply reply, “so what?”

Now, I happen to think that this is not really what you mean. I think even in that sentence “this is not good for group survival” you are inserting the idea of an “ought.” You are really saying “You shouldn’t do that because it is bad for group survival.” But you can’t say that because there is absolutely no basis for saying “should.” There is no “should” about groups surviving or your wanting the group to survive.

It is no good stating that you are using words that are determined by what you know to be in line with wanting the group to survive. That is not what we’re arguing here. We’re talking about the force of the argument. And the argument you are proposing is this “you shouldn’t do that because it is bad for group survival.” But you can’t use the word “should” because there is no “should” only “is”. You’re out of options here. You have moved from what you are observing to what you think should be the case, but without any grounding for this at all. Not even survival itself is necessarily better or worse. It simply is, so your words to your son are basically meaningless. They have no force at all.

The fact that what you describe can be explained by your observation of the physical world is now under pressure, because I am going to appeal now to what should be called your intuition. Just read that dialogue above with your son (if you have one). What kind of a person are you, K? How would you feel about your son turning out that way?

I want you to confront the awful conclusion that you are proposing. Here it is: There is ultimately and intrinsically nothing to distinguish between the actions of a baby torturer and a humanitarian. Not really. Why? There is nothing inherently virtuous about the actions of a humanitarian, except that he helps people and the baby torturer commits unspeakably cruel acts. But they are both determined and neither has any choice, as you say and ultimately there is no standard of good with which to compare their actions. They simply are. To say one is good or bad, in other words, at best describes the preferences of a group of people. We give the humanitarian awards because we like what he does, but he didn’t really do anything “good.” He simply acted and we like what he did. The reverse for the torturer. Our criteria for whether we like or dislike is entirely personal and subjective. It has no greater force than our preferences. So, it is really vacuous, because another can simply disagree and we have no good reason we can give why we are right and he is wrong. “survival of the fittest” simply is, there is no virtue there in surviving over not surviving. It simply is.

It is time to address your intuitions. So horrific is this and so counterintuitive is this, that we must re-examine atheism and posit some alternative explanation. I honestly don’t think that what you describe is the best explanation for the experience we have of what is called “morality.” In fact, many atheists don’t agree with determinism. Why? For just this reason, that the conclusions just don’t line up with what we observe and how we respond to what we see.

Now, up to this point, K, you should be still with me. I don’t think I have misrepresented your position at all. You may not like the implications of what I have written, but this is what you believe. You’ll be very proud of me that I didn’t even write the word “moral.”!!!

In sum, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a baby torturer and a humanitarian, simply different inputs and different responses. Some aid survival, some you could argue don’t aid survival. Is that really what you believe, K. Is it? If there is even the hint of a desire to say to a loved one, “You shouldn’t do that” beyond mere survival of the group, then I challenge you to re-examine your position.

K

Norge:

Thanks, I've enjoyed the discussion.

I appreciate the acknowledgement of consistency. That's all I'm really looking for in these discussions. However, in my particular case, determinism came before atheism. I was forced (begrudgingly) to accept determinism because it was the only system I found that would adequately explain all the observations. Atheism followed somewhat later because, even though I had accepted the basics of determinism, I still wouldn't allow myself to truly question my faith. At this point, it seems kind of silly. As you can see, determinism and Christianity are not too compatible.

I agree. Some of my most lengthy debates have been with atheists who believe in objective morality. To me, that is just replacing one mysticism with another.

So far, so good. I think you've summed it up nicely.

First of all, I can't imagine my son growing up to do such a thing. The inputs I've provided him all his life tell him to respect the lives of everybody (and animals too). I don't need an objective "good" and "bad" to do this. I, myself, lead a life which (not counting the religion part) many would find extremely moral. I have a strongly sympathethic / empathetic nature and he observes this in me. Although he is still young, he seems to be exhibiting those traits as well.

But, on to your example. If he is not worried about the disappointment I would feel (and I would be disappointed even though his actions were determined), he certainly wouldn't care about appeals to an objective "right" and "wrong". Especially if he disagreed with me on what was objectively "wrong". And my actions would not somehow be limited to expressing my distaste for the action. Determinism doesn't limit the measure of a response. If all else failed, I would do my best to physically prevent him from killing another child. He would have to kill me before he laid a finger on another child.

No, my response is not so simple. For mild transgressions, I may express my disapproval directly or by picketing, or I may work to pass laws to prevent the behavior. For more serious ones, I may make you pay a fine, spend some time in prison, or even take your life (all as part of a social group with a justice system).

I really don't see why you think I'm being disengenuous. When I criticize someone for their behavior, I do not say, "it's not good for group survival." I am only saying that I find it abhorrent. It so happens that it is probably also not good for group survival thanks to good old evolution.

It doesn't matter if they say, "so what". They will also say "so what" to you when you tell them you think their behavior is immoral. The real teeth comes (generally) not with the words, but the actions. If enough people find another's behavior revolting, that person will soon find herself or himself ostracized (even if the justice system doesn't come into play). Inputs like these definitely guide behavior. They are far less likely to get a "so what" response.

I'm not saying "should". I would like very much to see the species survive - I am a human being after all. But I don't think God (in Whom I obviously don't believe), the universe, or anything else beyond ourselves will care one way or the other if we don't.

That is not my position. My only objection is that I find the behavior disgusting. 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.

And simply wanting the force of a deity behind our condemnations of others does not make it so. Humans have been creating those deities to back them up for all of recorded history. I think you'd agree that there have been a lot of deities making a great many moral claims. How much more likely is it that people are making claims about what they do and don't like and then using gods to give those claims weight?

They have as much force as yours. That is, unless God is going around smiting people who disagree with you. Would you accept the moral judgements of a Hindu because Brahma backed them? How about those of a Muslim because of the backing of Allah? Unless these gods are showing themselves, my disapproval is just as powerful as any theists (except to those who happen to believe in that particular deity).

I would be horrified. That's why I'm raising him to appreciate all life. This is something that doesn't come from religions which teach that it is acceptable for someone to be tortured for simply not believing in something.

You seem to think that an objective morality is necessary for appreciation of life. I can't express emphatically enough that this isn't so. Do you destroy art, music, or literature just because their is no objective ideal which they are subject to?

My son is a very caring and thoughtful three year old. And he's probably heard the word "God" less than a dozen times in his life. I know it's too early to tell how he'll turn out. But I have no fear that he needs to believe there is a big guy in the sky ready to whack him when he screws up.

I've already confronted that. There is a huge difference to us humans, but nothing cosmic or anything like that. I can't stress enough that just wanting something to be so doesn't make it so.

OK. I think I've agreed to that plenty of times by now. No matter how badly we want there to be an objective standard, I don't believe there is one. And I'm unable to just assume there is one to make myself feel better.

It lines up extremely well with what we OBSERVE. It doesn't line up well with what we FEEL. But those feelings are easily explained within determinism as has been done numerous times previously.

Only slightly, but I've noted and corrected.

Very good. And I'm fully aware of the implications. Determinism isn't a position easily arrived at (emotionally).

Objectively there is no real difference. There is a huge difference to me and the rest of humanity.

There is my revulsion which is all I really claimed to begin with (althoght I believe this revulsion was rooted in group survival). I still see no reason to re-examine my position. I've already wrestled with all of these issues. My wanting some greater thing to lend more weight to my condemnation of others does not create a God or an objective morality.

kingjames1

Primal, did you grow up in hyper-fundamentalist church? Perhaps your parents were hardcore Gothardites, or something? You seem not only angry, but bitter against Christianity. But perhaps that is too personal a question to discuss on this board. I would just like to know if you are willing to respond to my challenge and defend you evolutionary ethics against the charge of being arbitrary. You denied that this is the case, but haven't responded to my comments to the contrary.

Also, before you charge me of having low reading comprehension, let me ask, did you read my post carefully? I never asked you to show why a criticism of pragmatism doesn't necessarily entail a critique of Christianity. Perhaps you meant that it did imply such a critique. If so, then of course you know that your previous comments about Christians often being pragmatic doesn't necessarily imply that a critique of the theory of pragmatism applies to Christianity (though it may, depending on the crtique and the Christian's own pragmatic behavior, of course). Pragmatism might be demonstrated to be false or inconsistent, but that doesn't preclude one from being pragmatic from time to time, just as an absolutist may often act differently in different situations.

Contrary to your claim that I sloppily threw relativism, cultural relativism, and evolutionary ethics (as you prefer it to be called) together, I spoke as though the criticisms against cultural relativism had implications for evolutionary ethics. This has not been shown to be false. In particular, I applied the criticism of arbitrariness to the notion that human ethics evolved (and are tailored/adapted to different cultural situations). But again, you have not argued that this is not the case -- only asserted dogmatically so.

And yes, Fletcher (the author of "Situational Ethics") did believe in a absolute value or virtue, but with situationally determined norms resulting from that value (which, in his case was "love"). So there is no contradiction in saying that situational ethics presupposes an absolute value. Otherwise, what is the difference between situationalism and relativism? You may want to read his book...its interesting.

J.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

Cool... I've read John Searle. As you know better than I, he rejects strong AI (at least he did). I do find his much criticized Chinese-room experiment compelling. But then I am only familiar with these discussions, and by no means competent to debate such issues.

Who is Lotfi Zadeh? (forgive my ignorance)


Okay, so having read your response, I understand (I think) better your position. You do reject the notion of justice per se, it seems, and along with it the notion of right and wrong, absolutely speaking. Hence, your comments about suffering were not from within your own system of thought, but a question of the consistency of Christianity?

Is this accurate?

So, what do you think of the possibility of a Nietzchean ubermensch who has geniunely evolved beyond the need for "good and bad," and hence is free to committ such so-called "atrocities" as the Holocaust? What I mean is, do you think such a man is a monster or a "hopeful monster," that is, an instance of evolutionary progression within the human race? This is to say, if there are no norms (even evolved norms are arbitrary and hence non-absolute), on what basis (if any) would you condemn such a man? Is the appeal to your genetic code really compelling? "I don't like what he's doing because it goes against my genetically determined (but otherwise arbitrary) ethic?" Or are you content to go along with the Fuhrer (as it were) and lead the progress of humanity forward? Should we go along with evolution? Do we have a choice? What about genetic engineering and the possibility of 'helping' old mother nature? What norms ought (there's that pesky word again) to determine such bioethical questions? What about manipulating the conscience genetically? If being capable of successfully suppressing conscience increases my individual survival ability, why not? Why not (if it were possible) program ourselves to have selective consciences, which would allow us to act against a fellow species without qualm when it benefits us?

Finally, the question of love. Sure, it is a human experience, and human experience has been demonstrated on more than one occasion to be misleading, but are you truly capable of living consistently with the knowledge that your love for your wife is a genetically programmed tool to induce replication and preservation? Is this a satisfying understanding of your relationships? Or are you content to be 'fooled' as it were in believing that your love for her and your children transcends mere survival issues (if in fact you do). That she and your children have real worth, a worth that is beyond what biochemically induced feelings have engendered within you...(which is precisely what such feelings lead us to believe, hence a certain inherent deceitfulness)

I would, from such a perspective, feel rather duped, betrayed even, if it weren't for the fact that the universe were totally impersonal, and I am a stranger, a strange accident, by which we have stumbled into self-consciousness, only to continue the pointless game of who is fittest for survival. In the meantime, I try to make the most of "that short warm moment", yet I must recognize the fact that I am only a pawn in an impersonal, goaless game. What a miserable worldview? But if its true, miserable or not, we must face up to reality!

Why not be a nihilist then? It seems to me to be the only consistent conclusion to draw.


Concerning Christianity, I do believe that there will be suffering in hell (perhaps psychological more than anything else). I was simply wanting to correct a caricature of hell that we often see on TV and in literature, in which hell is a sort of torture chamber of the devil.

The biblical commands "to judge not" do not refer to social justice (e.g. the Pentateuchal "an eye for an eye") but for interpersonal relationships (outside the courtroom setting). E.g. Jesus' sermon on the mount did not do away with the OT provisions for social justice, but denied the application of such laws regarding civil disputes to intrapersonal settings. "An eye for an eye" principle may be appropriate in dealing with a forensic scenario in which a neighbor stole one's cattle (i.e. the ruling that he must replace the cattle, or give the monetary equivalent), but not as an ethic for every day living (e.g. I will not show him kindness because has not shown me any).

You see the point...

Finally, the Christian understanding of divine sovereignty and the caricature of divine tyranny are obviously worlds apart. God has the right to do what he might with what He has created and designed for his own purposes. We were created for him (not ultimately for replication). In the most profound sense, we owe him everything as our Creator and Sustainer. He has revealed himself to be good and merciful (general revelation -- the Romans 1:18 and following, which you haven't read) in bringing rain in it seasons, food from the ground, and provided men and women with joy in their hearts, in order that they might seek him and find their rest in him, though he is not far from any of us. Since we know his goodness in everyday life, his demand to be reconciled to him should hardly be seen as bullying or unfair. Quite the opposite: it is right and wholly appropriate that we me reconciled with our Maker. Moreover, it is good to do so, for He is the source of life and the goodness we enjoy. And his decision to remove those from his presence altogether who have refused to be reconciled to him during the course of their lives is hardly an arbitrary act. Knowing that justice is ultimately divine, Christians know that the human concept of justice is often flawed, and usually weak (as are our other ethical concepts, or so it seems from the Christian perspective). Hence, we do not conclude that God is unjust. In fact, when He judges, it is precisely justice that he establishes. When Christ does come, bringing righteousness and peace to the world, as well as ruthless justice, no one will wonder whether or not God is just or right in so acting.

This is the Christian understanding of justice and divine punishment.

More later...


J.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

Norge

K,

Appreciated your reply and your personal input. Very valuable. Thank you. I'm not quite done yet. I would call your attention the following quote:

At a minimum, that last observation should be enough to cause one to doubt that the BEST explanation is the one you have. If there is another one that is better, given that almost the entire world in the whole of human history has not believed as you do, including almost every one on the planet right now, then it should cause one to question how it is that there is this feeling that the explanation you offer is misguided. Just a short note there and one you're sure to disagree with, but again, I'm appealing to your intuition here, and perhaps one day in the future you will "see" the sense in this.

Okay, onto questions on the details of what you wrote and this time, I have some questions for you:


Here, I just wanted to say that you're off course in your response. I'm not saying here that this is utilitarian. In other words, I don't judge the "so what" by whether it produces effects, I'm talking about the validity of the argument itself. When you object with "I don't like that" the response and it is justifiable on the other person's part is "so what?" You have no teeth to your argument. Forget actions for the time being, we're addressing the argument. You have absolutely no grounds for disagreeing with someone except on your own personal preference and your own ideas about "inputs" and perhaps utilitarian arguments about "you'll get caught" etc, but here we're not talking about utilitarian arguments, we're talking about the validity of the argument itself. In other words, when you object, do you have any justification and the answer for you is simply "well, I don't like it!" and what I'm saying is that as an argument against racism or torture is about as meaningful as saying "hello, it's sunny today!" It is meaningless and provides no good reason for me to change my behavior.

Okay, I want to leave that behind because I want to zero in on your thinking here and ask you some questions.

You wrote:

First, how can you possibly know this? And if you are asserting this, then you're going to have to show in the evolutionary model the direct link between different behaviors, the survivability of species and what we would call "moral" behavior. That's how your model works. What is "moral" tends towards group survival, right? But it isn't completely clean cut, because you write this:

So what you have here is your objection to certain actions that may actually hinder group survival and you're now basing your observation, not now of what you're actually observing but by reasoning on "instincts that originally developed which helped preserve groups." Now here, I am afraid I can't really follow you. This is simply confused. You originally said that "morals" were based on group survival, but you actually say here that what you find objectionable may in fact not be to do with group survival but you may have to go back in the evolutionary model to find out why they benefited survival. Now, either what is "moral" according to you is because we have evolved to find certain actions beneficial or we don't. You can't have it both ways.

I'd like an answer to this one.

I have another question that we haven't even addressed yet. Are you saying that "morality" is grounded in what benefits a group or the values of a particular group. In other words, does determinism imply that at the moment of acting, I am acting "morally" if I do acts that benefit the group or are they linked to the belief that I am acting morally because what I am doing is in line with the inputs I have so far received? There is a distinction here. The reason has to do with whether an act, to be "moral" is considered to be so in your model by virtue of its being in line with the beliefs of the group or the survival of the group. I'd be interested in whether you can answer that question.

You should know where I'm going with this. There is an inevitable problem with your model in that what is considered "moral" is not simply to do with group survival. Quite often it has to do with something specifically individual, that has absolutely nothing to do with any group. We'll cover that when I hear your response to my question.


Finally, a quote from Kingjames. You obviously realise that values as we commonly understand them are not really open to you. Nor is human dignity or so many of the things we take for granted. Once you have an organism that is simply surviving, without anything objective, all goodness truth and beauty are gone as commonly understood. They are simply descriptions of matter in motion. They have no objective value at all. You know this. You live in this kind of world and I imagine it must be hard, because every day you keep on having to remind yourself that humans have no inherent value. Values do not exist. All this business of racism being wrong is simply ill-conceived, for example. There is no "wrong," there is simply likes and dislikes. That's it. Where it really must hurt, though, is when you consider your marriage. Here's a quote from Kingjames to bring this home:

Simply from an aesthetic point of view, determinism, which is inherently nihilistic, is completely depressing and should be rejected simply on those grounds. But here's a kicker, if everyone were to become determinists, we would all become so depressed that we would not survive very long!

Oops, there goes the theory. Your turn.

K

kingjames1:

The Chinese room is a poorly conceived critique, but I still believe Seale's objection to the direction AI was taking at the time was correct. The Chinese room is just a very poor way to attemp to show it. If you'd like to discuss this further, we can take it to another forum.

He's primarily known as the father of fuzzy logic.

Absolutely.

All I can say is that I'd find that type of anti-social behavior repulsive and I'd do my best to make sure it was stopped. I would condemn the action for the same reasons I'd condemn an attack on my family.

I don't believe we have a choice. If there are environmental (including social) pressures to evolve, we will evolve.

I'm sure this will happen whether we want it to or not. I'd like to see safeguards put in place to prevent mucking too much with our genes - after all, I'm human and would like to see the survival of the human race. However, I don't delude myself into thinking that we are the end all and be all of evolutionary development. Things will change.

I think that people who would selectively disable their consciences probably don't follow their consciences too closely in the first place.

No, it's not particularly satisfying. But it certainly doesn't hurt the relationship. I would go back to when I compared love to other drives like the taste for food. Knowing the biological reason for something doesn't eliminate the deeply human experience. I still savor every bite of a delicious meal. And I'm overwhelmed at times with the love I feel for my wife and kids. Simply knowing that I'm a biological creature does not diminish my humanity. Ironically, n many ways, I think it has enhanced it.

I would definitely like to face up to reality than to live a comfortable lie - but not everyone agrees. I can't say I fault them for that.

Why is that? I, as a human being, would like to see humanity thrive with fair and equal rule of law. Just because I believe the actions we lump under the heading of morality are simply drives evolved for socialization, doesn't mean I'm a Nihilist.

I think of it more of a torture chamber (ok suffering chamber) of God. After all, He's the one in control and doing the condemning.

Yes, this may be one interpretation. Others interpret the Sermon on the Mount to supplant the law of Moses.

And you thought my beliefs were without hope. I believe we are at the mercy of an uncaring universe. You believe we are at the mercy of the whims of a Tyrant Who believes His subjects have no inherent right to be treated in any manner other than what He sees fit.

A good and merciful God would not condemn people to an infinity of suffering simply for not believing in Him. A good and merciful God would give all people and EQUAL opportunity to believe in Him. Thomas the Apostle certainly had more of an opportunity that a poor child living in China. A good and merciful God would not allow the suffering we see on a daily basis on this planet.

How can we even call it justice if it looks nothing like what we would call justice? It looks more like an extremely abusive parent who will only accept unquestioning adoration from his children.

K

Norge:

There are quite a few who believe this way. As far as I know, the majority of those researching consciousness and neurobiology believe this.

It doesn't feel like time should vary depending on the inertial reference frame. It doesn't feel like electrons should behave like particles and waves at the same time. It doesn't feel like we are sitting on a spinning globe that is hurtling through space. However, the observations tell us otherwise. Intuition only goes so far.

If my beliefs are correct, it's all utilitarian. That isn't an objection that bothers me. You change your behavior because of the threat of social retribution or the promise of social rewards.

when you train a dog not to pee on the floor, you don't use the force of an objective "goodness" of not peeing on the floor to effect the change. It's simple social rewards and punishments that do the trick. Humans obviously are more complex than dogs, but the method is still there. When two "gods" disagree, it is only classical behavior modification that determines which one is "right".

Okay, I want to leave that behind because I want to zero in on your thinking here and ask you some questions.

I asserted this a long time ago. The majority of what we call moral behavior has to do with people forsaking immediate individual in order to live together in a group. I think it's obvious that tight-knit groups have a survival advantage of individuals. it certainly allows a species with no real physical advantage (speed, power, claws, sharp teeth, etc.) to dominate the earth.


I added this because it is only relatively recently (in evolutionary time) that we've reached a point where our communities are on a global scale. I don't believe that evolution has had the necessary time to develop drives to promote survival of the species under these circumstances.

For instance, I have a drive to provide a nice place for my family to live and they always come first in my list of priorities. It's easy to see how this could evolve as a survival aid. However, it may really be a hinderance these days with the rapidly growing population and destruction of the environment.

Actually neither. I am only saying that you act the way you do because you have drives to do so. Others would GENERALLY label your behavior as moral if it were a behavior that sacrificed your immediated gratification in order to behave in a more socially beneficial manner. (ie. you don't steal to satisfy your needs, you don't rape to satisfy your sex drive, you don't kill to eliminate your competition, etc).

Actions are neither moral nor immoral in my belief system. They are just labelled that way by others. Actions that tended to benefit group survival are generally labelled moral.

You got my response.

Not true. Things don't have to have an objective value to be valuable. Have you ever had a pet? I don't know about you, but most Christians don't believe that animals have souls. Was your pet worthless to you because it didn't have a soul guiding its actions.

Do you not appreciate art or music because there is no objective standard for either? Is eating simply an unenjoyable chore because the taste for food is a biological function?

Life can be enjoyed and enjoyed immensely - even if we are only biological machines.

Again, things don't have to have objective value in order for them to have value to me.

This is another emotional appeal to throw out the evidence and go with what feels good.

Determinism doesn't depress me. I'm still able to enjoy the human experience. I don't need a guy in the sky to validate my experiences. They are valid simply because I experience them.

But your last point is well taken. Some poeple reject the evidence because the implications are unpleasant to them. That is fine. I don't mind if people want to hold on to superstitions that they find comfortable as long as they don't try to force them on others or criticize my beliefs as not consistent with the evidence.

You and kingjames1 have lately been arguing from an emotional point of view - about how determinism makes you feel. I find that much more acceptable than those that argue that determinism doesn't match our observations of the world.

But, I am unable to ignore the evidence just to give myself the illusion of a God backing up my moral claims. And, as I've said before, determinism doesn't depress me or diminish my enjoyment of life in the least. Actually, it may even free me to enjoy the experiences and relationships I find here in this life instead of focussing on the next.