Morality without god

What do you think you have falsified exactly? Because I very much doubt that you have falsified the established evolutionary explanation for altruism and sacrifice.If you had that would be quite a big deal!!!! It's all to do with slefish genes. It's all in the genes man.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Selfish genes explain why altruism, acts of selflessness, sacrifice etc. etc. exist at all in biological organisms. Superficially one might expect selfishness to be the obviously superior survival strategy. Turns out that, at the genetic level, this isn't the case.I agree with you that such acts can be the product of either conscious deliberation or instinctive action.But it is genetics that ultimately lies behind such actions either way.

No. I said that God could have created a world without evil at all. Where indifference was the worst we would be capable of.So (for example) rather than actually desiring to hurt others the worst someone could do was not care that someone was coming to harm. Thus eliminating the Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world whilst retaining freewill.Imagine a scale with evil on the left, good on the right and indifference in the middle. God has apparently chosen to calibrate the morality-scale scale such that evil does exist when logically it doesn't need to even for freewill to exist. He could have shifted the whole scale rightwards and eliminated evil completely.But he didn't. So (if he exists) it appears he desires us to have the capacity for evil for some reason. I didn't say it was. But our brains are things that evolved. And our capacity for compassion and empathy and love and sympathy and self-sacrifice, and all those other things which provide the basis for morality, are evolved traits.In our close-knit hunter-gatherer ancestral environment all of these things aided survival at the genetic level (rather than the individual level - which is where I still think Dogma is going wrong here) - This is why they evolved.What alternative evidenced explanation are you putting forward for the existence of of empathy, compassion etc. etc.....? Do you agree that they evolved (in which case there must be an evolutionary explanation)>Or are you suggesting they didn't evolve and got sort of magically inserted by God at some point?

By facilitating the ongoing existence of other carriers.A parent sacrificing themselves to save their children being the most direct and obvious example.A member of a closely related hunter gatherer tribe sacrificing themselves to save other members of the tribe is a slightly more abstract example.A British soldier diving on top of a grenade to save a group of completely unrelated children in Helmund is a much more abstract example. Because it relies on the instincts and thought processes that make genetic sense in our ancestral environment but not in our modern one.

Twins who have the same genes are not the same person. If you were cloned the genetically identical clone would not be the same person you are. Thus your person-hood must consist of something more than your genes alone.This is surely inarguable? The person that is you (as opposed to your genetically identical twin or clone) is the culmination of your genes and experiences.This "you" is perfectly capable of sacrificing itself for reasons that can quite legitimately be described as selfless. You might very consciously decide to sacrifice yourself to save someone you love for example.Now I'm not saying that love or compassion or empathy are some sort of God given blessing as some seem to be implying here. I wholly advocate that there is a genetic basis for all these things. Compassion and empathy and love are evolved traits which assisted genetic propagation in our ancestral environment.But the fact that this is the case doesn't mean (as you seem to be insisting) that selfless acts are therefore impossible.It is just as possible to consciously and deliberately undertake a selfless act as it is to satisfy sexual urges whilst activity and consciously avoiding procreation by using contraception.

It seems you now implicitly accept that there is more to person-hood than genes alone. Erm...I've never heard of twins (or clones) that "occupy the same space at the same time". That seems a rather unnecessary distraction. No. It's exactly the same reason. Selfish genes. That's the point.

quote:

---

Our minds have been built by selfish genes, but they have been built to be social, trustworthy and cooperative.

​

- Matt Ridley, "The Origins of Virtue"

---

Then you are flying in the face of accepted evolutionary theory with regard to the origins of morality in exactly the same way (and on exactly the same basis - incredulity) as creationists do with regard to physical constructs.How are you proposing that compassion, empathy, morality etc. etc. did arise? Are you suggesting God magically implanted them at some point or what? In the closely related hunter-gatherer ancestral environment an individual act of sacrifice can lead to the ongoing survival of others carrying many of the the same genes.The key to grasping this idea is to think of it from the genes-eye-view rather than that of individual carriers.

quote:

---

Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice -- all of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. That's the good news. The bad news is that, although these things are in some ways blessings for humanity as a whole, they didn't evolve for the 'good of the species' and aren't reliably employed to that end. Quite the contrary: it is now clearer than ever (and precisely why) the moral sentiments are used with brutal flexibility, switched on and off in keeping with self interest; and how naturally oblivious we often are to this switching. In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.

---

I would say that Hitler was more than indifferent with regard to his persecution of the Jews. He actively sought to eliminate them!!!!!Anyway - Call it what you will - The point is that God could have created us without the ability to actively wish harm upon each other (i.e. do "evil" on my aforementioned scale) without particularly compromising free-will. He could have made us so that we can either be compassionate or (at worst) uncaring rather than actively hateful. Yet he chose not to.Thus we can only conclude that he wants us to have the capacity for hatred and evilness.Can Jesus be hateful or do evil? Does Jesus possess freewill? This is incredibly confused.On one hand you reject the scientifically accepted (and evidenced) conclusion that morality, compassion etc. etc. evolved as a result of naturally selecting genes. Yet you also claim that morality is still evolving.If it isn't ultimately genetics - How do you think morality originated and how is it still evolving?What are you proposing in place of the scientifically accepted and evidenced explanation?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Selfish genes can, and do, result in individual gene carriers (aka persons) undertaking selfless acts.Because an individual act of self-sacrifice can facilitate the ongoing survival of genes in the wider social environment.I’m not sure why you persist in denying or quibbling this point?

Because 2 individual persons can carry the same genes (e.g. twins or clones) whilst not being the same gene carrier (aka "person").And when talking about self-sacrifice we are talking about individual gene carriers (aka "persons") sacrificing themselves for the good of the genes in the wider social environment.So the distinction is rather essential How much of you and the clone of you I have made are the same person? Well the clone I have made of you is only a few days old and it's personality is yet to be shaped in many ways.Yet it carries the same genes as you do.......

It makes the point that person-hood (i.e. that which can act selflessly) is distinct from genes alone. Because two people with the same genes are not the same person. Which includes the environment that shaped the person through experience. I have absolutely no idea what any of this has to do with the very simple point that selfish genes can lead to genuinely selfless acts by individual gene carriers (aka "persons").I still don't know why you persist in quibbling or denying this

I haven't said that at all. What on Earth you talking about? In the context of morality that is way too simplistic. As I have repeatedly pointed out two individual gene carriers with identical genes are not the same person. So person-hood (aka the entity which is able to act selflessly) must be defined by more than genes alone.Are you really saying that person-hood and personal-genome are synonyms? And all of it's environment history. That is what makes each person unique. It is ultimately what makes clones/twins different persons despite having the same genes. Person = Genes + Environment. OK. Obviously. So what? Much much much too simplistic.Your selfish genes have evolved such that the individual gene carrier (aka 'you' in this instance) is perfectly capable of acting in ways which are personally detrimental and selfless because these behaviors facilitated the survival of genes in the wider gene pool in the ancestral environment.Furthermore you have the capacity to selflessly dive on a grenade to save the lives of unrelated children in the same way that you have the capacity to enjoy sexual intercourse whilst using contraceptives. Selfish genes have given you the psychological tools (compassion and lust in the above cases) but don't have to be deployed to meet the intended genetic aim.To deny that individuals can act selflessly because their genes are ultimately "selfish" is like saying you can't enjoy sex with contraception because you genes are ultimately seeking to reproduce themselves. It's silly.People can act selflessly. And at times demonstrably do so.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am saying things like empathy, compassion, the inclination to self-sacrifice etc. etc. etc. were selected for because they facilitated the ongoing propagation of genes in our ancestral environment. I am saying selfish genes can produce individuals who are capable of selfless acts. By sacrificing the individual in a way that facilitates the ongoing survival of the gene pool. You have said more than that. You have said that genuinely selfless acts effectively don't exist. Yet this is demonstrably untrue. According to your theory our much cited soldier who consciously and deliberately sacrifices his life to save the lives of others who are completely unrelated to him shouldn't be able to exist.Conversely - According to the selfish gene theory I have cited the soldier is perfectly capable of acting in this personally selfless way because he has been equipped by evolution with the moral equipment to make this selfless decision.

I'm sure my brother would appreciate that description. It benefits your genes. I'm not convinced it benefits you as a person (aka your "self") because you as a person no longer exist. Selfish genes can produce individual "selfs" who are capable of selfless acts. It is genetically selfish but personally selfless. Our genomes and our "self" are not synonymous (as demonstrated by the existence of genetically identical twins who are not the same "self") What if the person was instead completely unrelated to you?

I think you are still conflating one's genes with one's 'self' when they are quite palpably not the same thing at all.At the very core of the idea of 'selfish genes lies the idea that individuals do not consistently do things for the good of their species, their group, or their families, or even themselves. They instead consistently do things that are likely to facilitate the ongoing propagation of the genes (or copies of the genes) they carry. Giving your life so that another may live (whether related or not) is a selfless act practically by definition. Because it sacrifices the 'self' in question to death such that somebody else can carry on living.To describe such acts as "selfless" is not to deny that this behaviour is ultimately derived from selfish genes. Instead the description of such acts as "selfless" is simply derived from the fact that the genes of another (even the most closely related) do not constitute the "self" that has been sacrificed.