|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
We have also evolved the ability to realize that we are going to die someday. quote: quote: The difference is that you are making a claim that there is more to life than our body and the physical universe. I make no such claim.
Where is the "spiritual awareness detector" in humans? quote: Huh? This makes no sense. You said that we 'evolved' a 'spiritual awareness detector', just like we evolved emotions. I can point to the brain structures that produce and regulate emotion. Where on the body is the part that detects the spiritual?
Most higher animals do, indeed, have emotions. Some of the most complex animal emotional lives can be seen, not surprisingly, in our closest relatives, the great apes quote: But you do see emotions in those animals, which contradicts what you claimed in your previous post:
quote: Now it seems that you are moving the goalposts.
Remember, ana, that the ability to imagine a God may easily be an artifact of having such large, complex brains quote: Pretty much, yes. Self-awareness and the cognitive ability to plan far into the future is probably neccessary, as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Stile writes: I also don't think I follow evolution-explanations for my morals. I find these explanations very strange, and sometimes even ridiculous.
Larni writes: Has this position changed? I would say that psychology offers a better explanation than Dawinian Evolution(or the Modern Synthesis) can. No, my position has not changed, although I do not think my word-choice there is very clear of what exactly my position is. What I wanted to say was that there are some explanations for human morality that stem directly from biological-evolution, and mainly use a survival instinct, or something like that, as a primary driver for why we do good. I do not like these explanations. I don't feel like they explain why I do what I do. However, I do believe that there are natural explanations, mostly having to do with psychology as you suggest, that do explain why I do what I do. For example, let's take murder again: I do not think murder is wrong because it will reduce the number of people in society and therefore lower our survival-chances. However, I do think murder is wrong because, basically, I've learnt that it makes me feel bad. Both reasons include only natural reasons, and have no link towards any spirituality that I'm aware of. However, I think the evolutionary "survival-chance" explanation is strange. While I also think that the psychology explanation is more truly-descriptive of my real decision making process. I sometimes do think that I believe in my own god, but I am convinced that even this strange god of my own is not needed for explaining human morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The 'surviaval chance' mechansim is pretty cold and clinical but you can look at it like the 'bare bones' of behaviour.
Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope these bare bones into psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us. Either way you cut it, it points to a non-divine driver for morality. What exactly is it that make either of these explanations unfulfilling for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Larni writes: What exactly is it that make either of these explanations unfulfilling for you? quote:I understand the logics in why these explanations are provided. But it is unfulfilling for me because I don't use them at all. Or, perhaps I only do not use them conciously at all. If someone says "we find killing to be wrong because it lowers our chances for survival". I just think "No, I couldn't care less about our, or my, chances of survival, that has nothing to do with why I consider killing wrong". I suppose, I see how it can be a explanation. But, as far as I can tell, it is not my explanation.
quote:I would word this as: "Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us." I do not understand why this "survival-instinct" must be at the core. As far as I can tell, my "massive brain with it's bias towards cognition" allows me to over-come, or even ignore my survival-instinct, and use my intellect to decide on what I'm going to do, and what I think is right. I think killing is wrong because I would not want to be killed. Not because I want to survive, but because I don't think anyone should be able to remove my priveledge of being "alive". ... Huh, perhaps being killed isn't a great analogy because it kind of directly affects survival. I think rape is wrong because I would not want to be raped. Not because a rapist causes serious distrust within a social circle (or whatever reason makes sense here) and therefore reduces our survial chances. I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal. And someone being raped is one person forcing themselves onto another, somehow thinking that their needs/wants/desires are more important than another's need/wants/desires to the point of harming them to get what they want. I judge that this particular removal of another's status of being equal is wrong. My judgement that the action is wrong has nothing to do with anything regarding survival chances. Although the fact that I think it is wrong may very well have a side-affect that it happens to increase survival chances. My judgement was made on an intellectual level, weighing empathic factors, how I would want to be treated, and my assumption that all humans should be treated equally. I suppose I can see how someone might say that "how I would want to be treated" is directly related to my survival chances. But, I don't see it. I mean, if someone held a gun to my head and said "rape this woman or I will kill you". I would just have to accept that I would die at that point. So how would my moral decision be based on survival chances if I'm willing to die to uphold certain moral decisions?
Larni writes: Either way you cut it, it points to a non-divine driver for morality. This I whole-heartedly agree with. I think I'm just arguring that "survival chances" doesn't necessarily have to be a part of morality either, even though morality is still strictly mundane in nature. Although I do concede that an increase in "survival chances" may be a side-effect at certain points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Stile writes: I think killing is wrong because I would not want to be killed. *cough* survival instinct *cough*
Stile writes: I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal. Mate, either way (and at risk of sounding like a broken record) you believe what you believe because of your learning that has taken place throughout your life. Again: socialization. If you were bought up to has no respect for life (for example) your predisposition towards empathy would be so stunted and you would have been so concistantly rewarded for behaviour that to our eyes is abhorent that you would concidered murder part of the natural order of things.
Stile writes: I think rape is wrong because I would not want to be raped. This is simply you wanting to protect your self....hmmm where might that drive come from?
Stile writes: I judge that this particular removal of another's status of being equal is wrong. It's interesting to note that this sense of another's status does not develope untill we develope 'Theory of Mind' at about 4-5 years old. Bofore that time the brain does not have the capacity to see the world through someone elses eyes.
Stile writes: My judgement that the action is wrong has nothing to do with anything regarding survival chances. So you keep saying, but remember that the psychological drives we have include the survival drive, but are not limited to it.
Stile writes: My judgement was made on an intellectual level, weighing empathic factors, how I would want to be treated, and my assumption that all humans should be treated equally. As I said the survival drive is the bare bones....note how you have reworded my statement from:
Larni writes: Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope these bare bones into psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us.
to:
Stile writes: Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us What you have done is simplified a tiered construct of morality. You ignore the interplay of evolved wiring and evolved psychology. The 'evolved psychology' is the intellectual bit you imply I ignore. You empathic weighting stems from (as I said) evolution's hitorical path for humans I don't ignore it at all.
Stile writes: I would just have to accept that I would die at that point. So how would my moral decision be based on survival chances if I'm willing to die to uphold certain moral decisions? Because the action of rape would go against your perception of right and wrong that you have learnt. This is self sacrifice that is very important to a society. But again, you get all hung up on survival and miss the importance of what you have learnt! My whole point is that you learn these notions of right and wrong!
Stile writes: This I whole-heartedly agree with. I think I'm just arguring that "survival chances" doesn't necessarily have to be a part of morality either, even though morality is still strictly mundane in nature. Although I do concede that an increase in "survival chances" may be a side-effect at certain points. Again. To reiterate. Survival drive (of individual + society) + learnt responses to stimulus (see classical or operant conditioning) = expressed reaction (psychologically, behviourally and physically). Take out survival drive and you have not reason for the organism to do anything, we (humans) would not have evolved from emotional existance to a cognitive existance were it not for this drive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Larni writes:
Yes. I totally agree with this. Mate, either way (and at risk of sounding like a broken record) you believe what you believe because of your learning that has taken place throughout your life. However, it's just easier to say:I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal. Then it is to say: I think it is wrong since the learning that has taken place throughout my life has caused me to understand that, as people, we are equal. I agree with you on this point. But I'm not going to re-write every sentence with 13 extra words just to explicitly say so everytime. Trust me, if anyone ever asks me "but why do you believe that?" I will go into the same explanation you keep telling me I'm forgetting. I'm not forgetting about it, I'm just condensing it to more-understandable language.
Larni writes:
I do not ignore the interplay. I'm over-coming the inter-play you say I use. I don't think I do use it. In fact, I think I go directly against it. I understand that as we evolved, we used these survival instincts to help our society grow and continue to survive and prosper. However, I think we've reached a point where our cognitive abilities have gotten to a level that we don't necessarily respond to these survival instincts anymore. Take this for example:
What you have done is simplified a tiered construct of morality. You ignore the interplay of evolved wiring and evolved psychology.The 'evolved psychology' is the intellectual bit you imply I ignore. You empathic weighting stems from (as I said) evolution's hitorical path for humans I don't ignore it at all. Stile writes:
But, I'm telling you, this IS NOT me wanting to protect myself. In fact, I also say:
I think rape is wrong because I would not want to be raped.
Larni writes: This is simply you wanting to protect your self...hmmm where might this drive come from?quote:To which you reply with more survival-driven reasons: quote:And my rebuttle to that is that I would sacrifice the entire society before I allowed something to force me into raping another person. So, how is that important to a society's survival chances? We're coming down to this:
Larni writes:
Which I have stated over and over again, that I totally agree with.
My whole point is that you learn these notions of right and wrong!Larni writes:
You see this as one thing, one concept. I see it as two, separate and distinct. I agree with your second half, I agree that we would not have evolved from emotional existance to a cognitive existance were it not for our survival drive. Hey, I even agree that we'ed never have evolved into an emotional existance in the first place without our survival drive. Take out survival drive and you have no reason for the organism to do anything, we (humans) would not have evolved from emotional existance to a cognitive existance were it not for this drive. BUT, we are here now. We are now in a cognitive existance. And I no longer need my survival drive (as far as I can tell, anyway). In fact, I can use my cognitive existance to completely ignore and over-come my survival drive. I DO have reasons to do things without my survival drive, and that is my entire point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Stile writes: This I whole-heartedly agree with. I think I'm just arguring that "survival chances" doesn't necessarily have to be a part of morality either, even though morality is still strictly mundane in nature. Although I do concede that an increase in "survival chances" may be a side-effect at certain points. Think about this one more time. If morality is not based on anything except feelings and survival chances, and our feelings about survival chances, and our long-dead recognition of anything involving survival chances, there is really no wrong action. If we want the species to survive, we need only pick one choice of person to save...yourself, or your neighbor. In almost any situation the right thing to do is to save your neighbor. This is said to be a by-product of our life in societies. Nonetheless, it is way more natural to love ourselves. In Jesus time, when He told the disciples 'love thy neighbor' they had to ask, 'Lord, who is my neighbor?'. Jesus told them not to throw stones, to turn the other cheek, and to love thy enemy. Whoever these people were who wrote the NT, they were not thinking survival, they were not scientists, nor politicians. Do you not see that our moral standard today is based on these teachings? That these teachings were not normal in the time of Jesus? and that all of this 'scientific' evidence has been gathered from humans who have already accepted these words of Jesus subconsciously? Why are we looking for reasons for our own morality, when obviously morality has changed? The only thing we have seen is a shift from 'love thyself' to 'love thy neighbor'. We have gone from slavery, which is good for the master, to freedom, good for the slave. We have gone from rape, good for survival and quite normal, to appreciation of consent. There are a million such examples. No great prophet has ever preached survival, but love.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Stile writes: I think it is wrong since the learning that has taken place throughout my life has caused me to understand that, as people, we are equal. Sure, unless we are an innocent Iraqi, unborn, or a criminal. We still get to decide who is equal, don't we? If self-sacrifice is VERY important to a society, why do more mothers-to-be not take that little leap of blah blah natural sacrificial instinct and protect their young, the way you would die rather than be forced to rape?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Larni writes: Because the action of rape would go against your perception of right and wrong that you have learnt. This is self sacrifice that is very important to a society. But again, you get all hung up on survival and miss the importance of what you have learnt! My whole point is that you learn these notions of right and wrong! I know. And as common as rape is today, I would have to guess we are not doing much teaching. Matter of fact, I don't think we have learned a thing since Biblical times. This entire topic is a big circle. Rapists have not learned, have a brain mal-function which causes them not to feel empathy, and have only survival drive. Poor things, it is not their fault. Don't you understand what you are doing? I already told you we have choice, I already told you we have the Knowledge of Good and Evil from God. You are doing such a nice job of explaining how God made this work. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
anastasia writes:
But that's just it. That's what I've been trying to say from the beginning of this thread. I don't think morality is based on only feelings and survival chances. In fact, I don't think morality is based on survival chances at all. I think intelligence is a larger factor. Yes, intelligence evolved and came-to-be because of our ancestors' (pre-human ancestors) reliance on survival chances. But I do not think we continue that reliance now that we have our intelligence.
If morality is not based on anything except feelings and survival chances... anastasia writes: Whoever these people were who wrote the NT, they were not thinking survival, they were not scientists, nor politicians. Do you not see that our moral standard today is based on these teachings? That these teachings were not normal in the time of Jesus? and that all of this 'scientific' evidence has been gathered from humans who have already accepted these words of Jesus subconsciously? Why are we looking for reasons for our own morality, when obviously morality has changed? The only thing we have seen is a shift from 'love thyself' to 'love thy neighbor'. I do not see that our moral standard today is based on these teachings, only that the two teachings are very similar. I've also heard of teachings from before the time of Christ, in other parts of the world, that are also similar teachings. I've also heard of teachings from places very independant from Christ or anywhere else for that matter, and they too have similar teachings. I have not seen a shift from 'love thyself' to 'love thy neighbor'. I have seen the same battle that goes on today between these two conflicting ideals as has gone on in Jesus' time and even before Jesus' time. Jesus did not create this ideal of 'love thy neighbor'. Although, I will concede that he is promoted that way and it is certainly the popular belief of a majority of Western civilization.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
anastasia writes:
Yes. And this decision is also based what we have learnt throughout our lives.
We still get to decide who is equal, don't we? anastasia writes:
A very interesting question. But I'm afraid I'm not concerned with the answer to it in this thread. Since I don't think my morality is dependant at all on the survival of any given society (even my own), the answer will therefore not have any affect on how I see my morality. If self-sacrifice is VERY important to a society, why do more mothers-to-be not take that little leap of blah blah natural sacrificial instinct and protect their young, the way you would die rather than be forced to rape? However, I would guess that most women certainly would sacrifice themselves for their children, though. I have never seen anything that would make myself think otherwise, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Stile writes: However, I would guess that most women certainly would sacrifice themselves for their children, though. I have never seen anything that would make myself think otherwise, anyway. You have never seen a girl go out and buy baby items, and then abort her baby because she hates her boyfriend? I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
anastasia writes:
I certainly believe you. This, however, does not phase me in my statement:
You have never seen a girl go out and buy baby items, and then abort her baby because she hates her boyfriend? I have. quote: I never required that all women act this way. People are different, some are "mal-functioning" as previously described in this thread, others have had non-optimal environments during their main growth and learning phases of life. Are we on topic? What are we discussing on this line of thought, anyway? ...I find myself without a point I'm trying to make
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Stile writes: Yes. And this decision is also based what we have learnt throughout our lives. I guess I have learned better than some, then. Yeah for my screwed up mixed up parents. My head still screams when I see loss of innocent lives, and I don't gloat over this country's 'success'. And yes, 'love thy neighbor' is preached in many ancient religious texts, way before any behavior science tried to claim it was survival instinct. No one has to preach survival as if they were driving a mule. We already have plenty of natural selfishness driving our survival, and plenty of intelligence to make it work. So much for the Bible not being scientific. The ancient Israelites seemed to have the brain already figured out. The said 'we have choice' and we have 'knowledge of good and evil'. They are evolved gifts that God has given us absolutely to help us survive. Any creature which has the intelligence to choose would self-destruct without knowledge of 'right'. That is; spiritually, and physically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Stile writes: Are we on topic? What are we discussing on this line of thought, anyway? ... My point? Reducing men to a lot of mal-functioning animals is pretty much what Hitler did.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024