Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Evolutionary Basis for Ethics?
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 1 of 57 (539899)
12-20-2009 1:10 PM


First, since this is my initial post here, let me say hello and thank you for making such a forum possible.
I've recently been discussing ethics and the theories regarding the possible origins of life (Biogenesis and Abiogenesis). During these discussions with my professors and his colleagues, a book called "Ethics" by Leonardo Polo was utilized. Some of the main contentions raised by Polo seem to be as close to a scientific basis for ethics as humanly possible (pun intended).
The basis for ethics I refer to is grounded in our (the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species) ability to stand up and utilize our hands. This was seen as early as Homo Erectus and Homo Hobilis, when they stood up and began to create tools. With the ability to create tools (technology), we gained infinite radiation. This means that as a species, we were no longer confined to a single geographical location. Our ability to make tools allowed us to bypass Darwinian evolutionary theory; instead of our environment changing us, we changed our environment.
Humans (Homo Erectus/Hobilis, and eventually Sapiens Sapiens), along with their technological advances, had the ability to produce much more than their single survival needs. This is to say, that we gained the ability to choose whether or not to produce more than we need. We have the ability to decide whether or not to care for other humans and provide for them. This is a profound distinction which no other species in history can say they have. It is also the basis for why I believe ethics are requisite for the survival of the species.
Now, as far as the type of ethics I feel best suit us as species, I motion towards Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophies.
If anyone has any insight to this postulation, please respond and let me know what I am doing right or wrong, or if I'm asking the right questions at all.
Thanks

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by MikeDeich, posted 12-21-2009 11:31 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 12:35 AM ATheist has replied
 Message 6 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-22-2009 10:16 AM ATheist has replied
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-03-2010 9:28 PM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 7 of 57 (540138)
12-22-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
12-22-2009 10:16 AM


Thanks for the in depth responses guys, I'm happy to know that Humans aren't the only species acting "ethically," so to speak.
Some of the issues I have with an ant or a chimp being ethical stem from the ability to choose, rather. I understand that there are some behavioral phenomenon which we can observe that appear to be ethical or exhibit an understanding of fairness, but ultimately each animal is acting out of self-interest. Animals are instinctual, humans are not.
Humans have the unique ability to choose. Monkeys, ants, whales, horses, dogs, etc., are all incapable of truly choosing. Instead, they are instinctual, and while it may appear that they can behave "selflessly" towards other apes, their behavior is ultimately predictable. The behavior of a human however, is not. However strong our intuitions are to do something, like a mother to answer her child's cry, they can choose whether or not to do so. Humans can decide whether or not to sacrifice their lives for something they deem worthy, animals can not. The list goes on and on. Furthermore, to say that humans are related to animals by degree (that humans are simply more advanced versions of animals) is fallacious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-22-2009 10:16 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 1:07 PM ATheist has replied
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 3:36 PM ATheist has replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 8 of 57 (540141)
12-22-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2009 12:35 AM


"This is not clear. If we accept that ethics depends on being able to decide whether or not to care for other people, then arguably it would be better for our species if, like the ants, we couldn't choose not to." - Dr Adequate
Interesting contention. Isn't that the greatest reason proving that we are truly transcendent of the "survival of the fittest" mentality?
For the history of life, one organism survived by killing another. Throughout biological history, the "fittest" were the most adaptable. One horse couldn't help a less adapted horse survive (not familial help, but unrelated horses of the same or similar age, like the monkey acting out of "ethics" to save the female), it was just the opposite. If I were a dog, I would survive best by not having other dogs to compete with for food.
Humans are the opposite, we survive better when we are cooperative. But again, I stress, we have the choice to cooperate. No other animal is social the way humans are social.
Regardless of the distinctions between humans and animals, do you understand the basis for ethics I feel needs to be there?
Ethics based on self-interest, like Machiavelli or Sartre or Nietzsche or Freud, etc, are naturally wrong if we accept that as a species, it is more advantageous to act for the good of the group rather than out of pure self-interest. This is the thesis I wish to prove.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 12:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by MikeDeich, posted 12-22-2009 2:37 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 4:41 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 12-22-2009 6:36 PM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 10 of 57 (540153)
12-22-2009 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by hooah212002
12-22-2009 1:07 PM


Allow me to clarify further.
When I say choose, I mean the ability to decide rationally what is best. Horses, chimps, dogs, etc., do not have the ability to decide whether or not to raise their offspring, they do it instinctively. Humans have the ability to decide whether or not they want to care for their child, no matter how strong the intuition is of the mother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 1:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by hooah212002, posted 12-22-2009 2:08 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 13 by MikeDeich, posted 12-22-2009 2:46 PM ATheist has replied
 Message 46 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 9:29 AM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 15 of 57 (540179)
12-22-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MikeDeich
12-22-2009 2:46 PM


Astounding!
I never thought of it that way. I'll have to bring up some of these points in my paper, they're very strong arguments to the contrary of what most of the ethicists want to believe.
If I read that article right, it seems to have biological reasons to disprove nihilism, materialism, and a slew of other philosophies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MikeDeich, posted 12-22-2009 2:46 PM MikeDeich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 12-23-2009 4:51 AM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 16 of 57 (540180)
12-22-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
12-22-2009 3:36 PM


Re: More About Chimpanzees
These are some strong contentions Adequate. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable replying to them, because I am not sure I could defend myself to a respectable level (I am declaring these by fiat, unfortunately.) My only basis for believing the things I do, is due to reading various philosophies and making an informed judgment on what is and isn't true.
Given the new information I have regarding the possibility of ethics and morality being "evolved," I cannot make any comments until I discuss this further with a few of my professors. If this is in fact as highly evidenced as it appears to be, I may have to make a few changes in my ideology, radical changes.
I'll shoot a few of my prof's an email and see what their take is on this. Hopefully I'll have some new insights that I can share with everyone here.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 3:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Briterican, posted 12-22-2009 4:18 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-22-2009 4:44 PM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 24 of 57 (540495)
12-25-2009 3:15 PM


Okay!
So, after talking with a few of my professors, they've pretty much garnered the same response to the questions I've brought up.
For the most part, they're all Aristotelians (a few Thomists in there, but most certainly not the majority). When I asked them if animals share the same ethical principles as humans, they scoffed resoundingly. Their reasoning behind that apparently laughable contention is that evolution has no "goals," so when an ape drowns trying to save a non-familial ape in a moat it is not a sacrifice as we interpret it. They argued that an ape does not have the ability to know that they may die if they try and save another ape. I responded in saying that "well, if the ape doesn't know that he may die, how does he know the other ape may die?" They said that apes simply don't have the concept of death.
Anyways, I have to go to a family meeting, I'll finish responding when I have time tomorrow.
And, by all means, please criticize what they said, so I know what else to discuss.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by MikeDeich, posted 12-25-2009 7:27 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-25-2009 11:09 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 27 by Iblis, posted 12-26-2009 12:13 AM ATheist has not replied
 Message 48 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 11:06 AM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 28 of 57 (540580)
12-26-2009 1:47 PM


I have to agree with you Adequate, they are arguing philosophically about things which have been answered fairly conclusively in scientific study. However, they are leading philosophers, so don't dismiss them as ignoramuses who have no valuable knowledge.
I will contact the microbiologists and some of the behavioral sciences professors and see what their takes are on this matter (I imagine they will be carbon-copies of your beliefs, because they are Atheist, so they have no reasons to have to disprove the conceptual ability of an ape (or any other animal for that reason)).
I will return with more information soon, thanks for the prompt responses guys!

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by MikeDeich, posted 12-26-2009 7:13 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 30 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2009 7:34 PM ATheist has replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 31 of 57 (540672)
12-27-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by bluescat48
12-26-2009 7:34 PM


I know atheism has no concrete relation to evolution, but there is a remarkable correlation between atheism and an undying fealty towards evolution. So, with that said, I imagine that trend will continue with whomever I speak with in the biology department.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by bluescat48, posted 12-26-2009 7:34 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluescat48, posted 12-27-2009 1:19 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 12-27-2009 10:03 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 12-28-2009 1:47 AM ATheist has not replied
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2009 1:57 AM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 39 of 57 (540973)
12-30-2009 12:26 PM


Yeesh!
I wasn't aware I'd be so highly criticized for only a few trends I've merely noticed!
Anyway, Razd, I am familiar with logic. I am also aware of all of the fallacies associated with arguments. I also understand that some of the professors I've spoken with may not have as much scientific knowledge as you may have, which allows you to compartmentalize the crazy Catholics, once again.
I however, will be speaking with the Microbiology department, who are Atheists in general. They would fall into your nicely categorized Group A, filled with all of the evolutionists, and those who have blindly gone along with the theory behind it.
Anyways, believe it or not, there are more enlightenment and modern philosophers at ND than theist philosophers. But, neither a Theist or Atheist could provide us with valuable knowledge as you all view it, so I won't be asking for their opinions anymore (even though Ethics is more related to Philosophy than anything else, especially biology and it's sub-fields).
Sorry for misspelling the Latin names, my mistake. By the way, there are older hominid fossils found than Laetoli (a strange piece of evidence to include none-the-less). For example: Ardi - Wikipedia was just found not too long ago.
As to Mike, there is a difference between believing in evolution because it's all you know (it becomes a fact rather than a belief), and accepting evolution given a philosophical understanding of evolution (pardon my adjective, if you would like, replace philosophical with profound).
Dr Adequate, you hit the nail on the head once again. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the theist philosophers do in order to rationalize the behaviors of monkeys/apes/what have you. Now, once they can rationalize it, then it becomes a philosophical argument again and there's little you can do to argue against their points.
I also agree with your other post, Mike. Most people simply compartmentalize their beliefs: religion has it's own box, evolution another, politics another, etc. But, as you can see, I'm not one for complacency! I want to pile everything into one nice messy box.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Coyote, posted 12-30-2009 12:48 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2010 12:33 PM ATheist has not replied
 Message 53 by jasonlang, posted 01-03-2010 1:35 PM ATheist has not replied

  
ATheist
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 11
From: Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Joined: 12-20-2009


Message 43 of 57 (541395)
01-03-2010 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by MikeDeich
01-02-2010 8:24 AM


Since it's a theory, like gravity (a much stronger theory), it is subject to whatever interpretations we can come up with, right? So, if I wanted to apply my philosophical knowledge which deals in absolutes based in empirical observations, then so be it. If I tried to disprove a fact, like 2+2=4, then you'd have a case for me misusing philosophy, but when it comes down to it philosophy is the strongest tool that any scientist can possess if they want to understand an event in the deepest levels of comprehension. Use philosophy like a comb through hair, except instead of hair, it's observations of reality.
Also, I don't know that all of the biologists are Atheist, but I do know that the majority of the faculty at Notre Dame are either Atheist or a religion other than Christianity. Christians, especially Catholics, are a staff minority who's population densities are greatest in the liberal arts (Philosophy, English, Classics, etc). If you'd like, you can look at the different departments faculty's and see for yourself where the religious divide is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by MikeDeich, posted 01-02-2010 8:24 AM MikeDeich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 4:24 AM ATheist has 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