Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 97 (544783)
01-28-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Stile
01-28-2010 11:02 AM


Re: Motivation isn't necessarily directed by instinctual evolution
It seems your focusing on the individual when you should be looking at the population and talking about why it, as a whole, would evolve said features.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 01-28-2010 11:02 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 01-28-2010 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 47 of 97 (544786)
01-28-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by New Cat's Eye
01-28-2010 11:30 AM


Re: Motivation isn't necessarily directed by instinctual evolution
Catholic Scientist writes:
It seems your focusing on the individual when you should be looking at the population and talking about why it, as a whole, would evolve said features.
I am not so much focusing on the individual, as I am focusing on the current situation as opposed to how we came to be. Which is why my point is minor and almost off-topic, even.
I'm not trying to argue against the main idea of this thread. I certainly agree that "Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution". I'm just adding a bit of information to identify a small nuance.
I'm more talking about after the population has already evolved such features, those features themselves do not necessarily have to be the reasons why people do moral things.
That is, I agree that "taking care of society" (and all the other evolution-related reasons given so far in this thread) is likely why our population has evolved to take care of the sick or elderly.
However, I do not agree that, here and now, people (even most of our population) take care of the sick or elderly in order to have them around to "take care of society" or any other evolution-related reason given so far. It may be, and certainly can be for many people... but it's not required. The entire population could shift to taking care of the sick and elderly in order to get their money and inheritance. That has nothing to do with the instinctual evolution of why our population evolved to be this way in the first place. It is a reason created by our intelligence in the here and now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-28-2010 12:42 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 49 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-28-2010 12:51 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 97 (544790)
01-28-2010 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
01-28-2010 12:32 PM


Re: Motivation isn't necessarily directed by instinctual evolution
Ok, I get it.
I misunderstood what you were getting at and saw the whole thing with and individual being able to not eat as a a faulty premise, but you weren't using it to conclude what I thought you were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 01-28-2010 12:32 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 49 of 97 (544794)
01-28-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
01-28-2010 12:32 PM


Re: Motivation isn't necessarily directed by instinctual evolution
Hi Stile
I'll respond in more detail to your points tomorrow (hopefully) because I think a lot of things need to be carefully considered and straightened out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 01-28-2010 12:32 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 50 of 97 (544886)
01-29-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Stile
01-28-2010 11:02 AM


Re: Motivation isn't necessarily directed by instinctual evolution
I think your comments raise some important issues; in particular, they highlight a trap we often fall into where we think of evolution as a process rather than a consequence. Maybe I haven’t been clear about my understanding of this in my previous messages.
Let's take Taking Care of The Sick.
Evolutionary reasoning - Everything you've been saying so far (things like it helps our society and they can help take care of the young, and all that other stuff too).
But, this isn't "why we all really do these things". That is, I'm sure this is why we all started doing these things... during the evolutionary development of our intelligence. And I'm also sure that many people still do these things for these very reasons. But it's not necessary.
I can take care of the sick because I want to get paid for it, or because it makes me feel happy, or because I want to rub-elbows with them so they might put me in their will so I'll get some inheritance.
Evolution is why I'm capable of making these decisions. But the reason behind why I do it doesn't have to be driven by our past evolutionary development.
At no point in the past or present has any individual (unless they were a bit weird!) made any decisions for evolutionary reasons.
There is no fundamental difference between the reasons why individuals make moral decisions today compared to the reasons of earlier homo sapiens 50,000, 100,000 or 200,000 years ago. Or even our earlier hominid ancestors. Or even our pre-hominid ape ancestors.
You must not think in terms of our evolutionary past and now as if there were a cut-off somewhere along the line. There was never a point in the past where there was any sense that we were in the middle of evolution.
For as far back as you wish to go, our ancestors generally made decisions in their immediate self-interest. However, ever since our ancestors became socially cooperative, that must necessitate that the decisions were also in the general interest of other individuals with whom we interacted. Individuals that did not act to the best of their self-interest - which would include the interest of others - would generally be at a disadvantage, less likely to survive to reproduce, etc. Hence we evolved as a species where individuals made decisions that were to the advantage of themselves and others.
All the reasons you give in the above examples are beneficial and advantageous to your welfare and to the person you are caring for. I.E. they fit exactly with my position that good behaviour means beneficial behaviour, which means behaviour that is generally cooperative and therefore advantageous to your survival and your genes. Any of our ancestors would have made the same sort of decisions that you give — to get paid, to feel happy, etc (obviously equivalent decisions based on their personal circumstances). At no point did our ancestors think, I must do this because it will help with my species survival and our general evolutionary progress. They made the decisions they did due to their genetic makeup, which they mostly inherited, and in response to their environment (including culture, upbringing, etc). And we do exactly the same thing.
It's very possible for me to choose to ignore the evolutionary reasoning of morality (even though it is a part of my human development) and use my intelligence (also given to me by evolution) to create my own reasoning.
As I said in one of my previous messages, our moral behaviour comes from 2 main areas:
1) Our instinctive emotions and
2) Our cognitive, conscious, reasoning minds,
both of which, as you recognise, are a consequence of evolutionary development. Your moral decisions are a combination of your instincts and your reasoning. However, I doubt that we can make reasoned moral decisions without our instinctive feelings and emotions still being involved.
At the base level... I agree it all comes down to evolution at some point. After all, humans evolved. But, when we get into morality we start to get into higher-level things like intelligence and decision making and motivations. The reasonings from these higher areas are not necessarily forced to coincide with their base level evolutionary origins.
Surely all the decisions we make are the ones that we consider to be the most beneficial in the given circumstances. All of our ancestors did the same thing. At no point did they make a decision for the sake of evolution, but the decisions they made would have affected their chances of survival and so the consequences helped to shape evolution.
I also like to point out that I do not find evolutionary reasons for a moral system to be "the best" or "the most righteous" kind of moral system. I think it's better than a fear-based system, but I still think it's below a system focused on doing good "just for the sake of doing good".
Some religions -> "fear" based morality system
Evolution -> "species survival" based morality system
Best (includes some other religions) -> "want to help others as much as possible" based morality system
There is no such thing as an Evolution/Species Survival based morality system, for the reasons I give above. As I have already explained, having a desire to help others (as per your Best morality system) is generally advantageous to ourselves. It makes us valuable members of society. Of course, nobody can survive by being entirely self-less, so looking after others goes hand-in-hand with looking after ourselves, and we are of more use to others if we look after ourselves.
I ask you to consider what you mean by doing good just for the sake of doing good. What do you mean by good? In my opening message I proposed that good behaviour means beneficial behaviour, which for humans means looking after ourselves and others. Essentially, there’s nothing more to it as far as I can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 01-28-2010 11:02 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Stile, posted 01-29-2010 8:50 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

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


Message 51 of 97 (544897)
01-29-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
01-29-2010 5:16 AM


Re: Motivation isn't necessarily directed by instinctual evolution
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
At no point did our ancestors think, I must do this because it will help with my species survival and our general evolutionary progress. They made the decisions they did due to their genetic makeup, which they mostly inherited, and in response to their environment (including culture, upbringing, etc). And we do exactly the same thing.
I agree. But this isn't the separation I was trying to make. I was attempting to contrast the difference between instinctual decisions and intelligent decisions. One is done almost automatically, the other is done with some amount of forethought.
At some point, we had ancestors that acted almost entirely instinctually. Now we have a significant dose of intelligence added into our decision making.
However, I doubt that we can make reasoned moral decisions without our instinctive feelings and emotions still being involved.
I can make reasoned moral decisions without my instinctive feelings and emotions affecting the outcome. They are "involved" to the point that I recognize them and I may either intelligently agree or disagree with them. But that doesn't affect me when making an objective decision.
Surely all the decisions we make are the ones that we consider to be the most beneficial in the given circumstances. All of our ancestors did the same thing.
Yes. But not all of our ancestors did this in the same way.
Do you agree that at some point in our history we had ancestors that acted mostly-instincually?
These ancestors would almost unanimously have the same instincts and therefore consider the same things to be "beneficial" and therefore act in the same manner. This is what I'm talking about by saying evolution-related reasoning. It's all very similar across the board of the species and therefore is directly connected to evolution.
Do you agree that today we have a significant level of intelligence within our decision making abilities such that we can choose to go against our instincts towards a large variety of options?
With such abilities, we no longer have a large majority of the population acting in the same way. "Benefical" now means many different things to many different people. Evolution is no longer directly connected to our decision making process. It is now an indirect connection. A subtle difference.
At no point did they make a decision for the sake of evolution, but the decisions they made would have affected their chances of survival and so the consequences helped to shape evolution.
Exactly. Which is why I agree that "Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution".
However, we cannot make a jump and say that evolution-related reasons are why we all do things. To say "we all do what we consider to be beneficial" is a meaningless tautology. Of course we do what we choose to do. The point is that our instinctually-based ancestors had a vast majority that all acted the same way as their instincts drove what was "beneficial". And now, with intelligence added into the mix, we have a much smaller percentage that acts the same way because everyone has a different subjective (intelligent) choice for what "beneficial" actually is to them.
Evolution is certainly still at work. Evolution is certainly still behind all of it. But evolution has a direct link to instinctual decisions, and only an indirect link to intelligent decisions. That's all I'm saying.
There is no such thing as an Evolution/Species Survival based morality system, for the reasons I give above.
Well, this is easily shown to be false.
If I make all my moral decisions through motivation for species survival (exactly what most animals do through their instincts), than I certainly do have an "Evolution/Species Survival" based morality system. No?
As I have already explained, having a desire to help others (as per your Best morality system) is generally advantageous to ourselves. It makes us valuable members of society. Of course, nobody can survive by being entirely self-less, so looking after others goes hand-in-hand with looking after ourselves, and we are of more use to others if we look after ourselves.
I agree that having a desire to help others is generally advantageous to ourselves. But so what?
It doesn't change the fact that the motivation for my actions is a desire to help others and not a desire to promote the species' survival.
And there are many situation where having a desire to help others would not be generally advantageous to ourselves or our own species. Granted, a lot of these won't come up in our life-times unless we make contact with another intelligent species. But why should we base our motivations on something that breeds descrimination when we have identified a better alternative?
What's better?
Doing something good because you fear the consequences of not doing it?
Doing something good because you want to promote the survival of the species?
Doing something good because you have a desire to help others?
What do you mean by good? In my opening message I proposed that good behaviour means beneficial behaviour, which for humans means looking after ourselves and others.
Good is a subjective term. It's different for all people. You seem to agree with your term "beneficial behaviour". Every different person you talk to is going to have slightly different ideas of what they consider to be "beneficial behaviour". Therefore, the only way to "do good" is to find out from the people you're effecting if you're actually helping them or not (actually being beneficial for them or not).
Therefore, my definition of "good" changes depending on who I'm trying to do something "good" for.
Example:
Opening a door for a blind man.
-Generally, this is a good thing.
-However, if the blind man thinks people are taking pity on him and wants to start doing things himself and now hates it when people open a door for him... then it's a bad thing. And it would be a good thing for me to not open the door for him.
How do we know?
We don't.
Striving to be good is an ongoing process of attempting to learn about the people you interact with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-29-2010 5:16 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-29-2010 11:54 AM Stile has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 52 of 97 (544910)
01-29-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Stile
01-29-2010 8:50 AM


Re: Motivation isn't necessarily directed by instinctual evolution
I was attempting to contrast the difference between instinctual decisions and intelligent decisions. One is done almost automatically, the other is done with some amount of forethought.
At some point, we had ancestors that acted almost entirely instinctually. Now we have a significant dose of intelligence added into our decision making.
I agree.
However, I doubt that we can make reasoned moral decisions without our instinctive feelings and emotions still being involved.
I can make reasoned moral decisions without my instinctive feelings and emotions affecting the outcome. They are "involved" to the point that I recognize them and I may either intelligently agree or disagree with them. But that doesn't affect me when making an objective decision.
I disagree. And this goes back to what I said in my first message. We have an emotional attachment to things we consider good and things we consider bad. We don’t consider them dispassionately. Why? However much we may apply our rational, objective intelligence to a problem, we still make the final decision based on what makes us happiest. If your instincts did not affect you when making an objective decision, it would mean you did not care what decision you took!
Do you agree that today we have a significant level of intelligence within our decision making abilities such that we can choose to go against our instincts towards a large variety of options?
With such abilities, we no longer have a large majority of the population acting in the same way. "Benefical" now means many different things to many different people. Evolution is no longer directly connected to our decision making process. It is now an indirect connection. A subtle difference.
It’s true that our intelligent rational minds give us much more variety of options to consider than our much earlier ancestors. Hence our different cultures and different opinions on what is the best way to do things. But our instincts are still there. The fact that we are here today with both instincts and rational intelligence means that, so far, they have worked together successfully. It's logical that our intelligence must have evolved to work alongside and not in oppostion to or in spite of our instincts.
To say "we all do what we consider to be beneficial" is a meaningless tautology. Of course we do what we choose to do. The point is that our instinctually-based ancestors had a vast majority that all acted the same way as their instincts drove what was "beneficial". And now, with intelligence added into the mix, we have a much smaller percentage that acts the same way because everyone has a different subjective (intelligent) choice for what "beneficial" actually is to them.
Evolution is certainly still at work. Evolution is certainly still behind all of it. But evolution has a direct link to instinctual decisions, and only an indirect link to intelligent decisions. That's all I'm saying.
I absolutely disagree. Our instincts evolved and our intelligent minds evolved. Just as our dextrous hands, our eyes, our upright stance evolved. They all evolved for the same reason — as a result of natural selection. Intelligence didn’t drop in from somewhere else. It evolved and is working for us for the same reason as all the other major traits we inherited.
There is no such thing as an Evolution/Species Survival based morality system, for the reasons I give above.
Well, this is easily shown to be false.
If I make all my moral decisions through motivation for species survival (exactly what most animals do through their instincts), than I certainly do have an "Evolution/Species Survival" based morality system. No?
No! No (other) animals make moral decisions through motivation for species survival. They make decisions as individuals due to what they are (their genetic makeup) and where they are (their environment). Humans are the only animals that can even contemplate the concept of species survival, and most of our everyday decisions to not consider species survival.
It doesn't change the fact that the motivation for my actions is a desire to help others and not a desire to promote the species' survival.
Again, there’s a misunderstanding. Even amongst humans today, virtually nobody thinks in terms of promoting the species’ survival. Certainly not in everything they do. We’re all making decisions to help others and ourselves. In effect, that will help determine the survival of the species, one way or the other, and our evolutionary path, but that is not the aim.
What's better?
Doing something good because you fear the consequences of not doing it?
Doing something good because you want to promote the survival of the species?
Doing something good because you have a desire to help others?
Why do you have a desire to help others? Sounds emotional and therefore instinctive to me.
I still maintain that we are ultimately driven by our emotions and it makes us predisposed to feel happy when we are helping others. Why is that? Why are you driven to help a blind man? Why does it make you feel good to help him? I can’t think of any explanation other than because our instincts are telling us through the release of positive emotions that if we help others it is good for us too.
We walk a fine knife-edge between helping others and helping ourselves. If we did things purely selflessly, we would not be taking care of ourselves, would have less chance of surviving than those who were at least a bit more selfish, and so would not pass on our traits. If we are too selfish, we will not be valued by others, would receive less help from them, be less likely to survive, etc, etc.
So our willingness to help others is ultimately selfish. But don’t feel bad, because our selfishness ultimately helps others!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Stile, posted 01-29-2010 8:50 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 01-29-2010 3:48 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

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


Message 53 of 97 (544933)
01-29-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
01-29-2010 11:54 AM


Intelligent decisions
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
However much we may apply our rational, objective intelligence to a problem, we still make the final decision based on what makes us happiest.
Yes, I complete agree. I'm just saying that our intelligence allows us to choose what it is that makes us happiest apart from simply following basic instincts.
If your instincts did not affect you when making an objective decision, it would mean you did not care what decision you took!
I do not understand this. If a decision is affected by your instincts, then that decision is subjective. Are you saying that objective decisions do not exist?
It's logical that our intelligence must have evolved to work alongside and not in oppostion to or in spite of our instincts.
I agree that it's logical. My point is only that it isn't necessary. And, the more intelligence we have the easier it is to identify and ignore our instinctual reactions.
Intelligence didn’t drop in from somewhere else. It evolved and is working for us for the same reason as all the other major traits we inherited.
The point I'm making is that without intelligence, we rely on instincts which results in "decision making" that is extremely common across the entire species. With intelligence, we gain more options. Now the decision making across the species is no longer so uniform. When it's no longer uniform, you can't say "we all do what makes us happy" and expect it to mean something. Of course we all do what we all do. The point is that "what makes us happy" is extremely uniform in instinctual species but "what makes us happy" is extremely varied across species with greater intelligence.
No! No (other) animals make moral decisions through motivation for species survival. They make decisions as individuals due to what they are (their genetic makeup) and where they are (their environment).
Yes, they do. A moral decision is basically defined as "a decision on how we interact with others". Do animals interact with others? Of course they do. Therefore, animals make moral decisions. How do they make their decisions? Exactly how you said... due to their genetic makeup and depending on their environment. The next step is... what is their genetic makup programmed to do in their environment? And the answer is... evolution has geared their genetic makeup in such a way so that they survive in their environment. Put it all together and we have: "Animals make moral decisions (through their instincts) in order to promote their species' survival (through their genetic makeup that evolution has helped form for survial within their environment)".
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
Stile writes:
It doesn't change the fact that the motivation for my actions is a desire to help others and not a desire to promote the species' survival.
Again, there’s a misunderstanding. Even amongst humans today, virtually nobody thinks in terms of promoting the species’ survival. Certainly not in everything they do. We’re all making decisions to help others and ourselves. In effect, that will help determine the survival of the species, one way or the other, and our evolutionary path, but that is not the aim.
I've bolded the misunderstanding.
We are not all making decisions to help others and ourselves.
We all make decisions based on whatever motivation we feel like at the time.
This is the confusing jump that I'm trying to point out to you. You cannot make this jump.
Even if we're making beneficial decisions... you can only say that we all make decisions that eventually have side-effects that will help others and ourselves. Once you jump to "we all make decision to help others and ourselves" you are telling people their "true motivation" for whatever decisions they're making. This is something you are not capable of. You cannot read my mind, you cannot claim to tell me (or anyone else) what their motivation is for taking their actions. Only they know that.
Why do you have a desire to help others? Sounds emotional and therefore instinctive to me.
I've already agreed with you on this. But I will agree again, if it's what you're looking for. I agree that "Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution". I agree that our desires are emotional and instinctive. I'm just saying that we have the intelligence to go against our emotional and instinctive desires if we so choose. Because of the proof of that ability, we also have the ability to choose to agree with our desires and instincts.
Therefore, the active, intelligent decision to do something that happens to coincide with evolutionary emotions and instincts does not necessarily have to have the same motivation as the evolutionary reasoning it simply agrees with.
In order to refute this point (if you want to refute it), you'll have to show that we are unable to use our intelligence to go against our instincts and emotions.
Why are you driven to help a blind man? Why does it make you feel good to help him? I can’t think of any explanation other than because our instincts are telling us through the release of positive emotions that if we help others it is good for us too.
Who said I was driven to help a blind man? I think you're creating your own idea to argue against here.
I said I choose to help a blind man. Are you not capable of using your intelligence to ignore your instincts? Must you eat as soon as you find food whenever you become hungry?
So our willingness to help others is ultimately selfish.
Not necessarily it isn't.
I fully admit that you can always think up a selfish reason for why somebody did something. But just because you can think of a possibility doesn't mean that it was actually used in reality.
My willingness to help others is done out of an intelligent decision based upon wanting to help others. Not because I want to help myself.
I admit that I cannot show you this idea in my head and you'll have to take my word for it.
However, you equally cannot claim that I am "ultimately selfish". Why can't I do things for people because I want to help others?
I have intelligence, I get to use that intelligence in order to decide my own actions based upon my own motivations. I agree that it's quite possible that alternative, selfish motivations may coincide with the actions I choose to take. But that doesn't mean that those selfish motivations therefore must be the ones I used. Such reasoning doesn't make any sense.
It's like me saying 12-8=4, but then you say that 2+2=4 so therefore 12-8 doesn't exist. It just doesn't work that way. Just because the resulting action is the same doesn't mean that the motivational pathway to get there is definitively one specific possibility.
Willingness to help others can be selfish. But it doesn't have to be. As long as you're intelligent enough to choose to ignore your instincts, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-29-2010 11:54 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-30-2010 9:22 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-01-2010 5:39 AM Stile has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 54 of 97 (544989)
01-30-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
01-29-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Intelligent decisions
Hi Stile
Thanks for your reply. I'll take a few days to consider the points we've both raised and get back to you. I know you'll appreciate that.
I say that for your benefit and for mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 01-29-2010 3:48 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 55 of 97 (545103)
02-01-2010 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
01-29-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Intelligent decisions
Hi Stile
We are largely in agreement on most things. I'd like to just concentrate on one important detail.
JUC writes:
If your instincts did not affect you when making an objective decision, it would mean you did not care what decision you took!
I do not understand this. If a decision is affected by your instincts, then that decision is subjective. Are you saying that objective decisions do not exist?
In a sense, yes, that’s what I’m saying. I think this is where the disagreement or confusion is between us.
When we talk about an objective decision, we are generally describing one where we give careful consideration to an issue and we apply our rational logical minds as much as possible to work out the different options that we have. This is where you are correct in saying that humans have intelligent minds that give us many more options than other animals or our more primitive ancestors. We have the ability to put (some of) our reactive instincts to one side. I agree with you to that extent.
But I believe that our survival instincts are still behind any rational considerations and are at the core of any subsequent decision. Our intelligent, rational minds can give us the options, and can persuade us which are the better options, but it is still the core instincts that make us want to take those actions. Wanting to do something is an instinct. That is what I mean about caring about the decisions we make. Our rational minds are just a tool to enable us to select the best course of action to satisfy our instincts.
That’s why when you say that you make an intelligent decision to help people just for the sake of being good, it is your instincts that determine what good is. A purely objective mind can think of the consequences of either helping or not helping other people. It can determine, for example, that helping people in one circumstance will create peace and harmony. But a purely, truly objective mind would not care what the consequences are, it just knows what they are. So there has to be a reason why peace and harmony is considered good. It’s "good" because you recognise that it will lead to a safer world, increasing your chances of survival, and this releases instinctive positive emotions that make you choose that decision - that make you care about making that decision.
This is critical to the point I made in my OP about what we actually mean by good and bad, and why we have an emotional attachment to morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 01-29-2010 3:48 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 02-01-2010 9:17 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

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


Message 56 of 97 (545118)
02-01-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-01-2010 5:39 AM


Re: Intelligent decisions
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
We are largely in agreement on most things.
Yes, I think so. Perhaps we are visuallizing slightly different definitions of key words. This will be confusing because it will limit communication.
But I believe that our survival instincts are still behind any rational considerations and are at the core of any subsequent decision. Our intelligent, rational minds can give us the options, and can persuade us which are the better options, but it is still the core instincts that make us want to take those actions.
Okay, let's call what you're talking about here "survival instincts".
I do not think it's quite the same as what I'm talking about when I say "evolutionary instincts".
That is, is it your claim that... at the end of things... we will always do whatever our survival instincts tell us? We may think about the positives and negatives of this and that possible consequence... but after all is said and done we end up "choosing" whatever it is that our survival instincts are pulling for?
That's what I think you're claiming. And that's what I am not convinced is true. If I am incorrect about your claim, you can likely disregard the rest of this post and correct me on what it is I should be discussing.
If I'm right... then you're saying that we do not, ever, go against what our survival instincts are telling us?
My trouble in accepting this is that I cannot think of a survival instinct that some people have not chosen to ignore and go against:
Eating to stay alive (individual survival)? Lots of people have chosen to not eat and consequently perished as a result.
Pushing for the survival of society (group survival)? There have been many groups (cults) that get together to form their own society and then use their intelligence to convince themselves that a mass suicide is for the better and go ahead and do such.
Can you give me an example, perhaps, of something specific you think is a "survival instinct" that you do not believe people can decide to go against?
If not.. perhaps you think that survival instincts are different for different people? And that we may all have different survival instincts and therefore just because some people do something... it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how others do the same?
If this is the case, then I propose that "survival instincts" is not a very good term. As "instinct" is generally a term used to describe something that is vastly uniform across a species. Perhaps you mean something more closer to "what we want". Desires and such that come from experience, memory and our intelligence.
This comes into the sort of thing I'm talking about... that our intelligence creates another group of decisions... "what we want" that are so different from "instincts" that it is confusing to call them such.
Keeping such definitions in mind:
That's why when you say that you make an intelligent decision to help people just for the sake of being "good", it is your instincts that determine what "good" is.
I would say that how vastly different "good" is perceived by so many different people indicates that "good" is determined by our intelligence, not our instincts.
A purely objective mind can think of the consequences of either helping or not helping other people.
Not quite. A purely objective mind can think of possible consequences. Objectiveness does not give the powers of reading the minds of others or seeing the future.
So there has to be a reason why peace and harmony is considered "good".
Yes, our subjective intelligence. Which is determined by our evolutionary instinctual heritage combined with our experiences and memory.
It's "good" because you recognise that it will lead to a safer world, increasing your chances of survival, and this releases instinctive positive emotions that make you choose that decision - that make you care about making that decision.
But this isn't true. Certainly not for all people, and certainly not for me. I do not do "good" (helping others) because I recognize that it will lead to a safer world or increase my chances of survival. In fact, I can think up a few situations in which I would still do "good things" (help others) in the face of the entire destruction of our planet and species as an immediate consequence.
Like, say, if I was put in the situation where I had to decide between saving our planet/species (7 billion people). Or saving another planet/species of equivalent or perhaps greater intelligence (500 trillion people).
I fully admit that I may choose to destroy our species due to my intelligence, which is derived from evolution and has some portion of instincts invovled. But to call this decision as sticking to my basic "survival instincts" just doesn't make much sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-01-2010 5:39 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-01-2010 12:48 PM Stile has replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 57 of 97 (545124)
02-01-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Stile
02-01-2010 9:17 AM


Re: Intelligent decisions
Hi Stile
Thanks for your reply. If nothing else, you have highlighted how much of an amateur I am on this subject, and I want to read up more on it so that I can express my ideas with better clinical definition (assuming I'll still hold the same ideas having furthered my education).
Anyway, I think we're getting close to clarifying our respective opinions.
Can you give me an example, perhaps, of something specific you think is a "survival instinct" that you do not believe people can decide to go against?
I would consider having a "desire" or a "want" to be instincts, and I would amateurishly call them "core survival instincts". I don't think we can choose not to have any desire. Feeling hungry is also what I would call a "core survival instinct" to not being nourished, so I don't think we can turn that off, although, as you say, we can sometimes turn of the instinct to eat to satisfy that hunger.
There are all kinds of instincts working on all sorts of levels.
Some of these instincts can undoubtedly, as you say, be influenced by culture, our intelligent rational minds, etc. That's why different people can have different ideas of what is "good" and what is "bad".
But I'm saying that the notion of "good" and "bad" is a core instinct, as it describes what particular behaviour we want/desire. "Good" is behaviour that we want, "bad" is behaviour that we don't want.
We both agree that, generally speaking, our instincts and intelligence evolved so that they aided our survival. They had to, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
But our minds are so complex that this core instinct for "good" and "bad" that evolved for simple survival "purposes" can be corrupted for other purposes by individuals, religions, political ideologies, etc. Hence your example of religious cults thinking it's a "good" idea to commit mass suicide.
And, like anything else that has evolved to live in one environment, we could become seriously threatened by a sudden change to a new environment. This could include your other example of suddenly discovering aliens on another planet and having to make a decision to destroy life on Earth so that these more populous aliens can survive. That scenario clearly wasn't in the training ground of our genes, if it had been then, again, we obviously wouldn't be here to talk about it. So, in that example, I would say it is ironic but not nonsensical that our "core survival instinct" to want to make a particular decision could actually destroy us.
I hope that makes some kind of sense!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Stile, posted 02-01-2010 9:17 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Stile, posted 02-01-2010 2:07 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

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


Message 58 of 97 (545127)
02-01-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-01-2010 12:48 PM


But... I can't argue with that
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
If nothing else, you have highlighted how much of an amateur I am on this subject, and I want to read up more on it so that I can express my ideas with better clinical definition (assuming I'll still hold the same ideas having furthered my education).
Oh... don't take my definitions as anything clinical or professional. I'm just an amateur as well. I was only trying to make sure we are discussing the same thing, that's all. I have no formal background in such studies. My academic background would only go as deep as a single Philosohpy of Science course in University. Likely a 101 level... can't remember...
On the amateur level, I have been interested in such subjects for the past 10 years or so. My "training" would most accurately be described as "having my ass handed to me" throughout these forums...
I don't think we can choose not to have any desire.
This sentence... I completely agree with
"Good" is behaviour that we want, "bad" is behaviour that we don't want.
Within the above context... I see what you're saying and I agree. I just think it gets confusing when "what we want" is best described as "what we think other people may want"... in which case "what we want" becomes an... easily misunderstood... thing to discuss.
"Good" is behaviour that we want, "bad" is behaviour that we don't want.
Again, within your clarified context, I see what you're saying and I agree.
When I look towards morality, I like to describe my own as "an objective system based upon a subjective framework". That is, my decision to see "that which helps others, as defined by those others" as good and "that which hurts others, as defined by those others" as bad is subjective. However, once that framework is in place, I can make objective evaluations regarding moral decisions.
That is, if we accept the above subjective framework, then it becomes objective fact that opening the door for someone who is thankful that you opened the door for them is "good".
I like my definition because it even works for the sticky situations where some people like things that most people don't... For instance, under my system it is an objective fact that having masochistic sex is a "good thing" as long as the "victim" is willing and having a good time.
An action is good only if the person being affected by that action thinks the result was good.
-the action itself is irrelevant
-the opinions of those not being affected by the action are irrelevant
-even your own motivation for the action itself is irrelevant (irrelevant in defining if the action was morally good or bad... very much relevant in defining if your intentions were honourable or not...)
IF (the internet may not be big enough for this size of "if") the entire world could adopt such a notion... much confusion over whether such-and-such a thing is good or bad would be averted. Want to know if what you're doing is good or bad? Go and find out from the people you're affecting. Of course, the huge problem from here is trying to get people to understand such concepts after thousands of years of following moral systems best described as "Thou Shalt Not" lists which they think can and should be universally applied throughout the world regardless of what other people think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-01-2010 12:48 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-02-2010 4:48 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 62 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-09-2010 5:06 AM Stile has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 59 of 97 (545142)
02-01-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
01-25-2010 6:05 AM


I think our empathy comes from 2 areas. One is an instinctive sub-conscious part of our brain that, for example, reacts automatically to seeing someone else suffer, by making us feel sad. Sad is a "negative" emotion, so we are propelled to try and help the sufferer, so that we no longer feel sad. The other is our conscious cognitive mind that understands the concept that we are all the same, and when other people are suffering they are going through the same experience as we do when we suffer. And we are a lot more intelligent than pigs, crows or fish, which is a simple explanation for why we have this conscious ability and they probably don't.
If pigs crows and fish are not intelligent enough to prove the relationship betwee the two, it means that the relationship cannot be proven at all since you are left with only humans in any case study of it ...
Psychopaths lack the functioning part of the brain that endows most of us with empathy. They do not necessarily lack other parts of the functioning brain, which explains why they can have exactly the same intelligence as us in all other respects.
Which shows that it is perfectly possible that we can imagine what others feel but not have empathy for them. One does not oblige the other.
Exactly the same point that I made about the value of caring for the old and sick applies to the young and sick. More often than not, it is worth the effort to try and save a weak baby because the advantage of succeeding in saving it are so high, so our instincts are honed by natural selection to be (apparently) over-caring, because it is worth the effort. However, even in the case of a very sick or deformed baby, where your pragmatic conscious mind sees there is no realistic chance of it surviving, how do you turn off your instincts that drive you to care for it? I'm no expert in the chemical processes that drive our emotions and instinctual behaviour, but it would seem to be impossible for them to just get switched on and off according to the perceptions of our pragmatic cognitive minds. Even if that could happen, there would be a great danger if we suddenly lost our "caring" emotions in order to abandon a very sick child. A temporary loss of our empathetic and caring instincts could cause all kinds of dangerous behaviour towards others who are of great pragmatic value to us. So again, the point is that it is generally more useful to be (apparently) over-caring, than to live on an emotional edge between being caring and uncaring.
I'll take another path in the discussion. Let us suppose that there is a possible evolution of our over-caring nature and that this is how we became to be this way. The dilemna then becomes this one: it does not dictate what is good or bad to do right now, in the 21st century. I have also evolved an apparent free will to judge of a situation and see which way is more beneficial.
And so now I have evaluated that killing the elder people in our society would be the good thing to do. They consume ressources a lot of state money just to keep them alive. So I decide that we should give them an honorable death. Better that then wait till they get cancer and die anyways. The effects of their death will be there one way or the other, so better save us 10 years of taking care of them.
Who will tell me that this is morally wrong ? The majority ? And if I convince the majority of my point of view. Does it then make it good ?
You'll maybe tell me that such a politic would have terrible side-effects on the population. This, however is not true. More then 3 200 euthanasia were performed by Dutch doctors in 2008. Including 550 which were done ''without request''. No negative social repercussions of this, people continue to live as before. Now many physicians are asking that 'defective' and 'unwanted' newborns be also euthanized. Will this provoque a conscious outcry from the population ? Only from the christians among us, I suppose.
And so the two examples I used earlier are now happening or on the border of happening without any of the social repercussions you said they would have had in our distant evolutionnary past. But if they aren't happening now, there is no reason to think they would have happened in the past.
And so in the end, an evolutionnary framework has a hard time giving any consistent picture of morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 01-25-2010 6:05 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-02-2010 10:34 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 60 of 97 (545183)
02-02-2010 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Stile
02-01-2010 2:07 PM


Re: But... I can't argue with that
When I look towards morality, I like to describe my own as "an objective system based upon a subjective framework". That is, my decision to see "that which helps others, as defined by those others" as good and "that which hurts others, as defined by those others" as bad is subjective. However, once that framework is in place, I can make objective evaluations regarding moral decisions.
I'll accept that definition and agree with everything else you say. I'm glad we hammered that out in the end!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Stile, posted 02-01-2010 2:07 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024