Morality without god

But genes do not seem to govern much when it comes to what the brain stores or retrieves. Genes may well govern how the brain gets built but does not seem to have much influence on how it is used.

I agree with everything in that post.One example that has been repeated throughout this thread is that of the soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the others but what I have never seen reported is the incident of a scrum like pile upon the grenade.

Jainists believe that it is wrong to kill even one ant; even accidentally. Christians don't. The problem that both they and you have is that the world is set up so that violence to life forms by other life forms is a simple consequence of life existing at all.If it's immoral to wipe out an ants nest - and I believe that in some circumstances it would be, such as doing it for fun, not necessity - then is it immoral to harvest a field of wheat; if not why not?Jains belive that it's wrong to harm plants but can't get beyond our need to eat which means harming plants....the best they can achieve is a path of least harm. What's inside of us is a series of physical emotions developed in our communities over many generations that in sum we call our sense of morality, some of which we codify into law. It has varied over time and varies between communities. As I've said, in some circumstances it is plainly immoral to kill other animals. This is why most developed countries have laws protecting cruelty to animals. When we do it for any other reason than necessity, there is an obvious moral problem. I say obvious, but to many cultures and to our own in earlier times, cruelty to animals was not considered immoral.So if it's immoral for us to wantonly kill and torture animals, why is it ok for God to do so?

I understand it I just don't agree with it. I see that the trait could be maintained in the population as you claim but I think that it is much more likely to be maintained there because it directly benefits the individual almost all of the time.Our tendency to be compassionate and empathetic is almost always beneficial to the individual. I might say 100% of the time if grenades had not been invented. Why should we focus on the minute percentage of the time when it is not beneficial to the actor and claim that there is some other motive at work?I thought that we were getting closer to agreement when you said that it was just the misfiring of our instinctive behaviour. Behaviour that has become instinctive because it is usually beneficial to the individual who carries the trait.

Then you're not talking about altruism...

quote:

---

In the science of ethology (the study of animal behaviour), and more generally in the study of social evolution, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.source

---

Like the posts above discuss, it is a very complex interplay between nature and nurture. Our genes give us the ability to store and retrieve experiences. However, it doesn't control what those experiences are. At the same time, our genes can govern our basic emotions towards experiences, and those basic instincts (not the movie) can and do influence what we would call "free will".I really don't think there is a clear division between learned/cultural behavior and instinctual behavior. Rather, some behavior is influenced more by one than the other.

No, you can call it altruism if you like. Actual cases that meet the definition. The important point is that the actor never intends to decrease his own fitness but rather to increase it. They are basing this on past experience where 'selfless' behaviour led to a direct personal benefit.You seem to be ignoring the fact that all of the positive reinforcement for such behaviour comes from all those other cases when the actor wasn't blown up by the grenade or trampled by the mammoth.

How did the selfish gene that causes selfless behaviour get started? How could it have become prevalent in the population if it did not benefit a whole bunch of individuals first?

When people insist that morality is possible without "god," they are referring to themselves and perhaps a small group of like minded people, rather than the larger view, that morallity without Islam, Christianity and once, Judaism, has historically PROVEN to be impossible for any society.We see this today in secular America where the bashing of Religion and the decline of the vhurch has produced the crushing Welfare System of unwed mothers, raising a generation of kids that will be statistically responsible for every social evil from violent crime to the abuse of the same children during childhood.In every case, history demonstrates that when god disappears from the culture, and sex, drugs, and rock N Roll replace it, that society falls and is destroyed:Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away (in the spirit of thought), into the wilderness (of my imagination) and I saw (as if) a woman, ....... (those who have Institutionalized a system of sexual seduction into a failed matrimony), sit upon a scarlet coloured beast (of a brazen and corrupt sexually misdirected economic system: [Dan 3:1-5]), full of names of (Pagan) blasphemy, having seven heads:
(which existed in (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Persia/Mede, (5) Greece, (6) Rome (7) the whole of Western Culture to follow)... ... having ten horns upon these seven heads:
(1. Undivided Empire; capital Rome: [305 AD],2. Western Roman Empire: (Romulus Augustus): [to 476 AD],3. Eastern Roman: Byzantine Empire, [1453 AD]4. Charlemagne, [800 - 1000 AD]5. Holy Roman Empire, [1200 AD-1492 AD]6. Italy, [Renaissance, 16th century]7. Spain, [17th century]8. France, [18th-19th Century]9. Britain, [19th-20th century]10. Nazi Germany, [20th century])11. America next?Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

If you are saying that involuntary actions are calculated and rationalized, I have to inform you that I am not very convinced.

I don't think I said that.

I'm saying they are NOT.Saying they are is an oxymoron.

Are we talking about an evolutionary explanation for altruism or not? Huh? That's not even a sentence. I don't see how bringing intention into this helps, and if the individual's fitness increases then it isn't altruism.In Message 443, you wrote:

quote:

---

How did the selfish gene that causes selfless behaviour get started? How could it have become prevalent in the population if it did not benefit a whole bunch of individuals first?

---

Bingo! That's the apparent paradox that makes this interesting enough to warrant an explanation.So, are you familiar with The Sefish Gene explanation or not? You seem to be disagreeing with it, but in ways that suggest that you've misunderstood it.

Proverbs 6:6
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:Clearly, the selfish gene that works to assure the survival of the fittest incorporated this useful self sacrifice of one ant for the ant colony.
It also operates in the same manner for the bees and termites, all social animals that have evolved and lived through many catastrophic geological events.Why is it so hard to accept this also is found in man, an animal so social it builds societies, cities, and nations over all the Globe?

Well it is only a paradox if you imagine the gene to be an independent 'profit centre', so to speak, that receives some benefit or suffers some harm from any particular behaviour.Compassionate, empathetic behaviour has become fixed in the population because it benefits the individual who possesses the trait almost all of the time. Even if it only benefited the individual more often than not it would become fixed. Just like all of the other traits that have become fixed in the population.The same way that a reflexive response to a butterfly flying close to your face might cause you to hit your head. Most of the time the response is helpful because it is usually a twig or something that might poke out your eye and that is why you do it all of the time. The fact is that having the reflex is more often beneficial to the individual than not and that is why it persists. The actor would not behave in that fashion all of the time if they had the opportunity to reason it through.This is why the question of intention is pertinent. There may be such a thing as altruistic actions but they are never intentional. For this reason you can't call them selfless in the colloquial sense.I certainly may have misunderstood the selfish gene theory and I am sure that there is a lot about it that I am not aware of but I see that I am not alone in my objections to it. I would agree with Stephen Gould's objection that it is the phenotype that is the unit of selection and not any particular gene or sub group of genes.