Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without god
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 271 of 1221 (681967)
11-29-2012 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by GDR
11-28-2012 2:20 PM


Re: Selflessness Test
GDR writes:
IMHO I have falsified it.
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!!!!
Wiki on altruism writes:
Every single instance of altruistic behavior need not always increase inclusive fitness; altruistic behaviors would have been selected for if such behaviors on average increased inclusive fitness in the ancestral environment. This need not imply that on average 50% or more of altruistic acts were beneficial for the altruist in the ancestral environment; if the benefits from helping the right person were very high it would be beneficial to err on the side of caution and usually be altruistic even if in most cases there were no benefits.[2]
The benefits for the altruist may be increased and the costs reduced by being being more altruistic towards certain groups. Research has found that people are more altruistic to kin than to no-kin, to friends than to strangers, to those attractive than to those unattractive, to non-competitors than to competitors, and to members ingroups than to members of outgroup.[2]
The study of altruism was the initial impetus behind George R. Price's development of the Price equation, which is a mathematical equation used to study genetic evolution. An interesting example of altruism is found in the cellular slime moulds, such as Dictyostelium mucoroides. These protists live as individual amoebae until starved, at which point they aggregate and form a multicellular fruiting body in which some cells sacrifice themselves to promote the survival of other cells in the fruiting body.
It's all to do with slefish genes. It's all in the genes man.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 11-28-2012 2:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2012 10:08 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 287 by GDR, posted 11-30-2012 2:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 1221 (681973)
11-29-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Straggler
11-29-2012 6:44 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
It's all to do with slefish genes. It's all in the genes man.
Sure, for the explanation of how altruism would evolve in a population. But that doesn't necessarily explain an individual's altruistic behavior. I still think that an individual can overcome thier genetic-based intuition and, through rational reflection, act either selflessly or selfishly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2012 6:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2012 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 273 of 1221 (681977)
11-29-2012 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by New Cat's Eye
11-29-2012 10:08 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2012 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:38 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 274 of 1221 (681982)
11-29-2012 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by GDR
11-24-2012 12:24 PM


Re: X Wthout God
GDR writes:
You say that God could have created a world where indifference is worse than evil.
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.
GDR writes:
At its most basic life is about survival and I agree that in many cases co-operation enhances our chance for our survival but that isn’t what morality is.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by GDR, posted 11-24-2012 12:24 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by GDR, posted 11-30-2012 3:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 275 of 1221 (682045)
11-29-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by crashfrog
11-23-2012 11:32 PM


Re: Morality for all not just some
Crashfrog
Everybody establishes it, through the very hard work of reflection, experience, and absorbing (but not being dictated to by) the community consensus view. What Harris is saying is that, via empiricism, we can in broad strokes arrive at many things that are "good" and "bad" with enough justification to enforce those views on the unwilling.
Bertot writeshilosophizing is not a valid replacement for a formally set out argument. The above statement while very eloquent provides no basis for actually establishing the reality of Good and Evil, Bad or good. They simply cannot exist in an existence that isl matter in motion. You are hopelessly lost trying to establish any such thing
Even if emotions are actually real things, right and wrong are not. Right and wrong have to exist actually and apply to all eixstence and species. Anything short of that is stupidity, willful ignorance and moronic
CF writes
That leaves many situations where people don't arrive at a consensus view, of course. But we have an abundance of mechanisms for dealing with that, too. Harris isn't saying that we should give over to empiricism, reflection, and consensus-making all of our moral reasoning, he's saying that we already have, and it's time to recognize it.
Bertot writes: If this is what Mr Harris is actually teaching, from a philosophically logically driven perspective, i would first suggest he not actually be teaching philosophy classes at all
Secondly, I would ask him to set out the logical proposition or argument, that preceeds, the verbose eloquence, that is unnecessary, unless he does. Set out the argument that demonstrates these entities actually exist, or even have the possibility of existing
CF writes:
Harris proposes a morality for humans, not for cattle.
Dawn Bertot writes: Sorry, that is not logically possible. You first have to establish why that makes any rational sense
Does this man actually teach philosophy somewhere?
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2012 11:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2012 5:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 276 of 1221 (682057)
11-29-2012 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dawn Bertot
11-29-2012 5:00 PM


Re: Morality for all not just some
Even if emotions are actually real things, right and wrong are not.
Could you expand on this? I think that right and wrong are real things. You disagree. How does your system of theology deny the existence of good and evil?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-29-2012 5:00 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-05-2012 5:18 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 277 of 1221 (682139)
11-30-2012 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
11-28-2012 12:07 PM


Re: Selflessness Test
Not that, but it does show that people are capable of selfless actions after a rational reflection - which you've denied is possible.
No CS. What I have said and maintain is that at the root of all action is some self serving motivation. When I use the word selfless I mean zero benefit for the actor.
The study shows that we are inclined to be kind instinctively. Instincts develop because they increase our chances of survival. This looks like evidence that actions which appear selfless are actually beneficial to the actor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-28-2012 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by jar, posted 11-30-2012 7:49 AM Dogmafood has not replied
 Message 283 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 9:46 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 278 of 1221 (682140)
11-30-2012 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Straggler
11-29-2012 10:41 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
Superficially one might expect selfishness to be the obviously superior survival strategy.
Even the slightest examination of a completely selfish behaviour model shows immediately that this would be a failing strategy.
You never answered how a selfish gene benefits from destroying it's carrier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2012 10:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2012 8:22 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 279 of 1221 (682141)
11-30-2012 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dogmafood
11-30-2012 7:28 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
What I have said and maintain is that at the root of all action is some self serving motivation.
I understand that you have made that claim but how can you support that assertion in all cases?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:28 AM Dogmafood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 9:56 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 280 of 1221 (682142)
11-30-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by GDR
11-28-2012 2:20 PM


Re: Selflessness Test
IMHO I have falsified it.
Fine. Will you concede then that my position is falsifiable while yours is not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 11-28-2012 2:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by GDR, posted 11-30-2012 6:54 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 281 of 1221 (682145)
11-30-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Dogmafood
11-30-2012 7:38 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
Dogma writes:
You never answered how a selfish gene benefits from destroying it's carrier.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:38 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 282 of 1221 (682153)
11-30-2012 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dogmafood
11-08-2012 9:55 PM


Re: Selfless Persons Selfish Genes
Straggler writes:
The flaw in your argument here is the assumption that our genes and our personhood are one and the same thing. They are not.
Dogma writes:
I may be misunderstanding you but I can't agree with this.
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?
Dogma writes:
I am the sum of my parts.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dogmafood, posted 11-08-2012 9:55 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Dogmafood, posted 12-01-2012 7:03 AM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 283 of 1221 (682155)
11-30-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dogmafood
11-30-2012 7:28 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
Not that, but it does show that people are capable of selfless actions after a rational reflection - which you've denied is possible.
No CS.
So are people capable of sefless actions or not?
What I have said and maintain is that at the root of all action is some self serving motivation.
What self serving motivation caused that soldier to dive on that grenade?
When I use the word selfless I mean zero benefit for the actor.
How did the soldier benefit from it?
The study shows that we are inclined to be kind instinctively.
Yes, inclined, but not constrained.
Instincts develop because they increase our chances of survival. This looks like evidence that actions which appear selfless are actually beneficial to the actor.
Just because something ends up being beneficial to the actor doesn't mean that the benefit is what motivated the action.
Too, instincts develop within populations and may or may not be had by an individual. Just because we evolved as a species to behave some way doesn't mean that an individual cannot behave another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Dogmafood, posted 11-30-2012 7:28 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 1221 (682157)
11-30-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by jar
11-30-2012 7:49 AM


Re: Selflessness Test
What I have said and maintain is that at the root of all action is some self serving motivation.
I understand that you have made that claim but how can you support that assertion in all cases?
His position doesn't look to stem from just the evidence supporting it, but also from a distaste for the perceived alternative (dualism):
From Message 75
Straggler writes:
Dogma writes:
If it is good for our genes then it is good for us.
This is where you are going fundamentally wrong. By any coherent definition of 'personhood' our genes result in us sometimes doing things which are personally detrimental at times.
No doubt that we do things that are ultimately detrimental to ourselves and our genes are the cause but it is the self that carries out the action. The motivation is still one of perceived personal benefit. That is perceived by the mind or the self either consciously or subconsciously. It sounds like you are describing a symbiotic relationship between our genes and ourselves. A relationship between two cognizant entities.
Could you provide a definition of personhood so that I know what you are talking about. It sounds like dualism to me. The idea that you are something other than the sum of your parts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by jar, posted 11-30-2012 7:49 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 285 of 1221 (682179)
11-30-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Phat
11-23-2012 11:21 PM


Re: Even sheep that think they walk independantly have a shepherd
Being led by the Shepherd.
You dont need to believe that the shepherd is leading you in order to be led by the shepherd. You simply have to do what you know internally is right. You may think its your conscience but it is His voice.
Yes, the Conscience seems to have access to a deeper source of knowledge because so often the instinctual emotional response experienced spark our Conscience into demanding behavioral changes.
We saw this when Rev Martin Luther king sacrificed his life in the name of Truth, that Separate but Equal was a lie..
That bullet ended all the rationalizations and debates within the white majority's collective Conscience such that Civil Rights Laws were enacted immediately and without any real opposition.
I believe this "deeper source of knowledge" is the Unconscious friend who is a mental companion to our Conscious Mind.
The Unconscious mind is reconstituted in every birth from the genetic storehouse of its memories learned by experience in previous lives.
This fountain of real truth that has evolved in the body of Humankind contains all the behavioral modifications our species have adapt our species to.
They former ways of all the species and previous lives of modern man that had led to disaster has been weaned out, and we are in the ongoing process of eliminating those still with us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Phat, posted 11-23-2012 11:21 PM Phat 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