Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 166 of 438 (506194)
04-23-2009 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Granny Magda
04-23-2009 1:26 PM


Re: A selfish nitpick for the good guys
This is an interesting subtopic, hope you don't mind me jumping in.
In that example you are quite right to call the action basically unselfish, since it has no selfish motivation of which you would be aware. At the same time, you can't get away from the fact that your brain is going to reward you with a dose of serotonin. That leaves us in a quandary of sorts; was the noble motivation of helping your wife the root cause if the action?
This seems like a micro vs. macro situation.
At a micro level the action seems selfish because of the serotonin "reward", but at the macro level the action, seen by others, would be considered unselfish. - Aren't both relatively correct?
Also, at the micro level, should actions be given characteristics like "selfish" or "unselfish"? A selfish or unselfish act really only makes sense, to me, at the macro scale. In our experienced reality. So, IMO, that neuro functions predetermine the reasons why one may open a car door at the micro level, it does not affect the action at the macro level - it is unselfish because the micro actions are not made consciously.
Or was it the more mechanistic and subconscious motivation of your selfish genes at work, rewarding you for helping protect your genetic investments?
Wouldn't protecting your genetic investment also be considered unselfish? I know we say we are trying to insure that our genes are passed on, but they were passed on to us once already, and to our parents before that, and so on. The genes just seem to be unconsciously repeating the process they are "wired" to do. This does not seem selfish to me.
I realise that this way of looking at personal motivation is depressingly deterministic, but I can't help but suspect that these types of subconscious motivations govern our actions far more than we would like to suppose.
Would you really call it "motivation" though, if it is subconscious? Wouldn't the way the genes act be considered more of a successful repetative process rather than a "motivated" process? The gene is not aware of the full scale of is actions, right?
So how, or what, is "motivating" it's actions if the gene is not conscious to know the outcome of such actions?
And there's the rub. We can't really know what motivates us to act, not ultimately.
I would disagree with that, but only if we seperate the micro from the macro. Like with quantum mechanics. How does what is happening at quantum scales affect macro scales? Likewise, how does what your neurons are doing, since they do it as repetition and not as a conscious act, affect how the actual act, at the macro level, is viewed to be?

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Granny Magda, posted 04-23-2009 1:26 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Stile, posted 04-24-2009 8:30 AM onifre has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 167 of 438 (506240)
04-24-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by onifre
04-23-2009 7:01 PM


A nitpick for another thread
Google has been kind enough to show me a thread here that actually discusses this topic.
The off-topic-ness here is pretty much all my fault, so here's a link to another thread if anyone wants to further discuss the selfish/selflessness of actions:
Message 8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by onifre, posted 04-23-2009 7:01 PM onifre has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 168 of 438 (508441)
05-13-2009 12:19 PM


The "Laws of Morality" (continued)
In another thread ICANT responded to my off-topic post about the "Laws of Morality", in which I mentioned the "Golden Rule", with the question:
So, where did your "Golden Rule" come from?
In any sufficiently advanced civilization you will find rules of this kind. Morality and an ethic of reciprocity are part and parcel of what it means for a civilization to deserve the very name. It emerges automatically as the civilization matures. Moreover, a budding civilization that fails to develop it, will fail as a whole.
You'd be mistaken to think that Christianity has the monopoly on this rule. It is found in cultures of all ages, all over the world, a lot of them much older than Christianity, from the ancient Greeks to Buddhism, to Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, you name it.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Coyote, posted 05-13-2009 1:44 PM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 177 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 7:04 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 169 of 438 (508452)
05-13-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Parasomnium
05-13-2009 12:19 PM


Re: The "Laws of Morality" (continued)
Reciprocity was a major consideration in most, if not all, American Indian cultures. It was taken very seriously.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Parasomnium, posted 05-13-2009 12:19 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 170 of 438 (508502)
05-14-2009 11:09 AM


Simple and obvious
ICANT writes:
If morality exists without God, where did it come from?
Morality came from people. We think things up, it's what we do.
So, where did the "Golden Rule" come from?
As with all morals, it came from people thinking up ideas of how to interact with others.
Why does morality exist?
Morality is the term used to describe the guidelines of how people interact with others. The term "others" includes all mundane beings. It may also include imaginary or non-mundane beings. Actual existence in reality is not a pre-requisite. I can even have a morality that governs my relationship with an imaginary friend or illusion.
Morality exists because people exist who interact with others.
Why did it (morality) begin to exist?
Because people began to interact with others.
Asking why morality exists is like asking why communication exists.
People interact with others.
The signals (whatever they are) making up those interactions are called communication.
The guidelines (whatever they are) governing those interactions are called morality.
Both the signals and the guidelines are created by people.
Even if God existed.
Even if God created a system of morality for all people.
It's still each person's choice to follow that morality or not.
Therefore, even the ones who choose to follow God's morality are still creating that one guideline (to follow God's morality) themselves.

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by OriginLifeandDeath, posted 05-14-2009 9:54 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 176 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 6:37 AM Stile has replied

  
OriginLifeandDeath
Junior Member (Idle past 5426 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 171 of 438 (508582)
05-14-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Stile
05-14-2009 11:09 AM


Re: Simple and obvious
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content, add banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Stile, posted 05-14-2009 11:09 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 3403 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 172 of 438 (511999)
06-13-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by onifre
04-01-2009 9:21 AM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Onfire : "Of course not, I have not stated that it was. But it is true that even if one lives in a civilization that is not prosperous, due to violence and aggression from their government, like Haiti, Cuba, etc, one is seeking a less aggressive society to migrate to. Like the US."
umm...not to be picky but ...
Quote : "Cuba easily has one of the lowest overall crime rates in all of Latin America. Cuba is often considered by most experienced travellers to be the safest of all Latin American countries and probably one of the safest tourist destinations in the world in terms of crime. However, like every country, Cuba is not immune to crime and it is always worthwhile being aware of a few potential dangers so you can avoid being a victim of crime while in Cuba."
"The rate of violent crime in Cuba is very low, and it is even rarer for violent crimes in Cuba to be perpetrated against foreign tourists. Cuban people in general are very friendly and helpful regardless of their economic status, so crimes such as mugging do not really occur very often in Cuba."
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/.../Common-Crime-in-Cuba/241
Extreme aggression of Cuban govt to it people is very unlikely. Any such aggression has to be masked in general crime statistics, such as in Colombia where the military stands accused of 1000's of murders of innocent civilians in the past 5 years (which they then dress up in fatigues to claim promotions and cash bonuses for killing "rebels"). They can get away with it their because of the very high crime rates and civil war which mask their killing.
Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.
Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.
Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 04-01-2009 9:21 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 4:39 PM jasonlang has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 173 of 438 (515665)
07-20-2009 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cedre
03-28-2009 8:28 AM


MORALITY
Cedre
Selfless acts can easily be explained by evolution. For most of our human history we lived in small groups where we would have known and been closely related to everyone we saw. Therefore it helped to pass on our own genes if we had empathy with those around us and looked after their welfare. Many other species also demonstrate strong evidence of such empathy.
Empathy is inherant in us as a consequence of our evolution and so we continue to apply it instinctively even in the modern world where we see and meet people on a daily basis who we don't know and will never see again. However, I like to think it will stay with us and remain important as a kind of goodwill currency. Even though we will never know most of the people in our large modern communities, if we all treat each other well we will all benefit.
As the saying goes: What goes around, comes around.
As for your question about forgiveness, I would say that holding on to an emotion like hate produces a lot of stress, and letting go of that can produce the feel-good emotion you talk about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cedre, posted 03-28-2009 8:28 AM Cedre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 174 of 438 (515839)
07-21-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by jasonlang
06-13-2009 6:38 AM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Hi Jason, just saw this reply.
Extreme aggression of Cuban govt to it people is very unlikely.
Well, I can tell you with some confidence that what the Cuban government has done to its people has been atrocious.
I have family and friends who have suffered a great deal at the hands of Castro and his henchmen. Those who fought against him during the Revolution, which included my father an 2 uncles (one didn't make it) felt the reprocutions of their, and others, failed attempt.
Currently there is no "freedom" for the people of Cuba. Freedom of speech, press, religion (sort of), are not granted, and certain rights to telephone and internet are also controlled. It is currently illegal to posses a TV satelite in Cuba, along with beef and pork products (you will receive 20 years in prison in Cuba if you have beef or pork products as a Cuban citizen). It is currently illegal in Cuba to say anything against the government and it is punishable by either death or life in prison to print such dissent.
You're from Australia, as it shows in your avatar, so I think for you guys Cuba is a vacation destination? For the millions of Cubans living in the US, Cuba is their home, that was taken away from them by an aggressive government under false pretenses and has ruined the lives of many, including many in my family. My father has had to hear of the passing of his mother and most of his siblings via scheduled phone calls and letters (he is not allowed back because he was a political prisoner). And I watched as my father broke down in tears when he saw the pictures of his remaining siblings after 30 years of not seeing them, and the knowledge that he will never see them again.
Perhaps I had a personal reason to include Cuba in my post, it is not the happy-go-lucky vacation spot that many enjoy, it is a horrible place where civil liberties and human rights do not exist.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by jasonlang, posted 06-13-2009 6:38 AM jasonlang has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-21-2009 5:16 PM onifre has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 175 of 438 (515842)
07-21-2009 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by onifre
07-21-2009 4:39 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
it is not the happy-go-lucky vacation spot that many enjoy, it is a horrible place where civil liberties and human rights do not exist.
I've been there and I agree with this. Incoming mail from abroad is opened and valuables removed. The health system (supposedly free and advanced) gives priority to those who pay bribes. Secret police are on every street. Fake revolutionary slogans are painted on walls and doors. Shops for local people in Havana sell virtually nothing. I've seen one of my teachers there break down and cry because life was so hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 4:39 PM onifre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 176 of 438 (516724)
07-27-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Stile
05-14-2009 11:09 AM


Re: Simple and obvious
Morality came from people. We think things up, it's what we do.
If you believe that you may want to respond to these next set of points.
If morality comes from people, then morality has to be subjective, entirely within the mind of a person, meaning that a person can and has the right to establish for him/herself what is morally wrong and acceptable, and hence we cannot label the actions of another person, such as Adolph Hitler, as wrong.
If you blame morality on society then one society cannot label the actions of another society, such as Nazi Germany, as wrong.
Another problem that arises for the atheist from such reasoning is the following, if all sets of moral ideas are purely human invention, implying that they are prejudiced being determined by the individual or society making them, then no set of moral ideas are better than another, and hence it would be specious to prefer so-called civilised morality to Nazi morality. The problem is the instant you declare that one suite of morals is better than another; you are in fact measuring them by an ultimate standard. And the moment you own up that there must be some ultimate standard, you are arguing for the existence of God.
While we're on the subject I challenge you to provide reasons as to why child torture for example is evil in other words is morally depraved behavior, you can’t do that unless an ultimate standard as said above existed. One cannot identify a crooked line unless a straight line existed, in the same way one cannot judge one action to be crooked unless a straight action existed so to speak. And the minute you agree that such straight actions exist you are agreeing involuntarily to absolute morality, meaning that morality cannot come from the human mind as every person has varying views as to what is right and wrong.
As with all morals, it came from people thinking up ideas of how to interact with others.
As I have said above people have varying moralities, someone might say that lying is fine, while another person may find it to be the most disgusting action, and then again someone else might think that it is murder not lying that is the most disgusting action. Consider the following fictitious dialogue between a man and a child in a morally deprived world.
Why did you steal that candy? The man said to the boy after spotting him slip a lollipop down his pants.
I wanted it but I didn’t have any means to pay for it, so I took it.
But what you did is known as stealing and stealing is wrong.
Why is it wrong? The boy looked at the man curiosly.
Because it hurts other people and it can get you into lots of trouble too.
But why should I care if other people get hurt? The cheeky boy returned after a pause, the man never expected this one, after scratching his head a bitin confusion he finally said to the boy,
You should just care, because that is what normal people do, they care for one another; and you are going to return that candy because stealing is something that normal people just don’t do.
The above conversation gives a feel for what might occur to our societies if God is put out of the picture, and if humans are allowed to decide morality. The man did not know how to reply to the boy’s question as to why he should care for the welfare of others, because he did not have access to an ultimate standard. The best answer he could give is ‘because normal people of this society care for each other and don’t steal from each other’.
Morality exists because people exist who interact with others
And as I have shown above many ideas about morality also exist, someone might regard lying to children in the classroom not to be immoral, but does a person’s opinion really establish what is morally acceptable and what is morally unacceptable, can we trust even the world consensuses? For at one time the world agreed that the western form of slavery was okay, and today the world agrees that abortion is morally correct. And in fact we can see just from the on-going commotion in America surrounding abortion that varying moralities do exists, people don’t agree on everything and in the end morality is determined by votes, by power. This is nonsense this is not morality, it is what the majority of the people decided is moral, well everyone can agree together that black is white and black will still only be black and nothing more or less.
Asking why morality exists is like asking why communication exists.
People interact with others.
The signals (whatever they are) making up those interactions are called communication.
The guidelines (whatever they are) governing those interactions are called morality.
Perhaps but as communication varies from place to place so does morality without God the ultimate standard, we see it in the many examples I have provided. If straight actions did not exist we cannot know which ones are the crooked ones. According your worldview straight actions do not exist therefore morality does not exist also for no action can be judged as immoral. Who would judge it and using what standard. Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings happen to favor either because of their genetic makeup or conventional accords.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Stile, posted 05-14-2009 11:09 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Blue Jay, posted 07-27-2009 7:45 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 179 by Stile, posted 07-27-2009 8:46 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 180 by caffeine, posted 07-27-2009 8:50 AM Cedre has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 177 of 438 (516726)
07-27-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Parasomnium
05-13-2009 12:19 PM


Re: The "Laws of Morality" (continued)
In any sufficiently advanced civilization you will find rules of this kind. Morality and an ethic of reciprocity are part and parcel of what it means for a civilization to deserve the very name. It emerges automatically as the civilization matures. Moreover, a budding civilization that fails to develop it, will fail as a whole.
I will disagree with what you have said above that complex ethics are not present in small societies. There are many nomadic societies in Africa that are among the most peaceful of societies known. Even in small societies ethics are present, it does not emerge overtime but is present right from the start, because humans are moral agents created in God’s image and are expected to recognize right from wrong because they all reflect God’s moral character. In fact small societies or young societies start out with a strong moral fiber it is when it exposed to differing worldviews of the outside world that decay is noted in the moral fiber of its subjects.
You'd be mistaken to think that Christianity has the monopoly on this rule. It is found in cultures of all ages, all over the world, a lot of them much older than Christianity, from the ancient Greeks to Buddhism, to Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, you name it.
The fact that a non-christian can utter moral statements and even act morally does not logically lead to the conclusion that morality does not depend on God, much less that God does not exist. This challenge misunderstands the believer’s position on the relationship between morality and God. The world owes the existence of morality to a moral God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Parasomnium, posted 05-13-2009 12:19 PM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Granny Magda, posted 07-27-2009 11:12 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 178 of 438 (516732)
07-27-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Cedre
07-27-2009 6:37 AM


Re: Simple and obvious
Hi, Cedre.
Welcome back.
Cedre writes:
The problem is the instant you declare that one suite of morals is better than another; you are in fact measuring them by an ultimate standard. And the moment you own up that there must be some ultimate standard, you are arguing for the existence of God.
Well, this isn't true: the ultimate standard championed by most atheists is simply a rational decision. The decision that one should not expect better treatment than is given to others does not require the existence of God: all it requires is a realization that there is no objective, rational reason to consider oneself particularly special.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 6:37 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 10:24 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 179 of 438 (516737)
07-27-2009 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Cedre
07-27-2009 6:37 AM


Where is the absolute morality?
Cedre writes:
The best answer he could give is ‘because normal people of this society care for each other and don’t steal from each other’.
What makes you think that an answer of "because this is God's ultimate morality" is any better?
Let's say we have two people. Both are good, decent folk. One is a good, decent person because she decided that she'd rather be a good person than a bad person. The other is a good, decent person because he decided to follow God's ultimate standard.
Which one is "better?" Why would you assume that a morality based on an appeal to authority is more firmly grounded then one that is built from first principles?
But, before we can discuss whether or not an appeal to an absolute moral standard is "better," we first have to show that it actually exists.
I have never come across an absolute moral standard that governs this existence. I have heard many, many people declare that their deity or holy book claims to have an absolute moral standard. But each and every one of them have never, ever been able to actually show that what they say is an actual part of reality. For the length of recorded history of the planet. Think you can be the first? Please go ahead, I'd love to be a part of breaking history.
Of course, I should warn you that the reason why these people can't show their concepts are actually real... is because they aren't. Personally, I find it incredibly irresponsible for people to base their life's entire system of morality on something they are unable to differentiate from pure imagination. But perhaps that's just me.
I can show you that the morality I accept is based in reality. It is an objective system that is based on a single, basic, subjective concept: making people sad is wrong, making people happy is good.
But this thread is not about my moral system. If you'd like to discuss my specific moral system, please take it to one of the threads that already discusses such things. Like either of these two:
Message 1
Message 1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 6:37 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 10:40 AM Stile has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 180 of 438 (516738)
07-27-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Cedre
07-27-2009 6:37 AM


Re: Simple and obvious
Consider the following dialogue between a man and a boy:
Why did you steal that candy? The man said to the boy after spotting him slip a lollipop down his pants.
I wanted it but I didn’t have any means to pay for it, so I took it.
But what you did is known as stealing and stealing is wrong.
Why is it wrong? The boy looked at the man curiosly.
Because God says it is wrong.
"But why should I care what God says?" The cheeky boy returned after a pause. The man never expected this one, after scratching his head a bit in confusion he finally said to the boy,
Because otherwise he'll send you to hell to suffer in eternal torment.
There being a God doesn't solve any philosophical problems about where an absolute morality can come from. Avoiding the wrath of Almighty God is a good practical reason to do as he says, it doesn't actually tell us why something should be seen as absolutely right or wrong.
This is all irrelevant to the question of whether morality poses a problem for evolutionary theory, though. All that needs to be explained is why people have the idea of morality. The philosophical argument that a morality without God is logically indefensible is a wholly different matter from the question of how unguided evolution could produce a sense of morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 6:37 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Cedre, posted 07-27-2009 9:38 AM caffeine has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024