|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The idea that has been coalescing for me is that certain behaviour for any given entity is more beneficial to that entity than some other behaviour. ... Enlightened self interest. Treating others with respect and being fair-handed in dealings with others means you are more likely to be treated with respect and fair-handedness.
... Whether or not the behaviour is beneficial to that entity is determined by the environment in a completely objective manner. ... IF the person takes from the group or from individuals in the group there may well be a short term benefit to the individual -- better fed for less work, for instance. If instead we measure the behavior by how it benefits the group, then such selfish greed is seen as 'bad' for the (majority of the) group. A man kills another man to mate with his wife and steal his belongings. It benefits the man, but not the group. The group would see this as 'bad' behavior. Someone preventing this would be seen as doing 'good' ... and likely be offered mating opportunities and other rewards.
For example, the universe has shown us that cooperation is a successful tactic and therefore cooperation is both objectively and morally good. Within the context of being a social animal. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If instead we measure the behavior by how it benefits the group, then such selfish greed is seen as 'bad' for the (majority of the) group. Yes and so the group is part of the environment for the social individual and harming ones own environment is bad. Short term gains are short term and usually expensive like a high interest loan. What I am trying to get at is that those actions that are good for an individual are determined by the environment and that this process is objective as it not made by any conscious entity. Therefore, moral behaviour is classified in an objective manner by the environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
FWIW from Morality in everyday life:
quote:{emphasis added} I have a PDF if anyone wants it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes: Success within the environment is the most objective standard that we can employ given that there are no external or more universal reference points. "Most" objective? I think this is the problem. Are you sure you understand what "objective" means? You can't be kind-of objective. And something can't be more-objective than another thing. If you do think so... perhaps you could show me this scale-of-objectiveness that you're using to judge how objective something is? You seem to be making a subjective judgement (you personally like the idea of judging against success within the environment)... but you're just typing out the word objective and hoping that it means something. If "success within the environment" was an objective standard... you wouldn't have to convince me of it, you could just show me. Like how 10" is objectively longer than 8"... I don't have to convince you of it, I can show you a ruler.And 10" long is not "more objective" than 8" long... they're just both objective measurements. How is "success within the environment" a more objective standard than, say, things that are closer to the colour green? Other than you personally find "success within the environment" to be more helpful to your life than "things that are closer to the colour green?" (Which is a subjective judgement).
The environment and laws of nature are like the board and the rules of the game. They are entirely objective and universally applicable. I agree with this... once we agree that we should use that standard... you can make objective judgements against it.But the same goes with my closest-to-green example. We can objectively show what colours are closest-to-green by using a spectrometer. But why should we use the closest-to-green standard?
Why should we use the environmental standard? You haven't answered that question... that's what makes morality relative... because you can't answer that question. Or, at least, I don't think you can. And no one has ever been able to in the history of searching for an answer to morality.
I would challenge anyone to produce a more objective standard. Things that are closer to the colour of green. There. Just as objective. Now what?
I say that it does matter because the evolution of our nature preloaded us with our behaviour patterns that are all selected based on their tendency to help us survive and procreate. This is a reason why the standard resonates with you, personally.This is a subjective reason for the basis of your system. This is not objective in any way. May as well use my standard of what's-closer-to-being-green just because colours have absolutely nothing to do with being human... they are an external reference point. So these characteristics all come from an amoral environment where good characteristics are retained and bad ones are not. Here you have accidentally done some circular logic."Good characteristic are retained and bad ones are not" is only valid-true if you already assume your conclusion... that Good = health and prosperity. If we assume my conclusion... that Good = Green... then good things are not necessarily retained. Besides:Colours on the spectrum are amoral as well. Green is good, red is bad. Health and prosperity are not really subjective terms. Then provide a definition that doesn't rely on a person's subjective feelings.Do that, and I'll provide you with an example of a person who does not agree that your definition is "good." It's as simple as that to end the argument that the standard of health and prosperity are "objective" standards.
What is good is different for each subject but the assessment of good/bad is the same for each subject. I don't think you have shown this to be true.I think that the assessment isn't the same for each subject either. You can assess it using Health and Prosperity.I can assess it by seeing what's-closest-to-green. Aztecs assess it another way. Japanese assess it another way. It's the fact that the assessments are different that results in 'what is good' being different.
ProtoTypical writes: Stile writes: I, however, do not agree that "health and prosperity" are things we should morally aim for I meant to ask you why not. Well, in a way I actually agree... but you have to define "health and prosperity" my way for me to agree If we define it another way (which is what I assumed you were doing)... then I don't agree. If we define "health and prosperity" to be something specific, like, say... living long or having a family or being rich or having lots of resources available... then I cannot agree simply because there will always be people who do not want to live long, or have a family, or be rich, or have lots of resources. People are different, and want different things. If, however, we define "health and prosperity" to mean something along the lines of "whatever makes the individual happy.." then I do agree. But, I only agree because this then aligns with what I've been saying from the beginning... that good/bad can only be decided by the person being affected by the situation. That is, "being happy" is something that each individual can only decide for themselves, and it's going to be different for many people. Because that's the way people are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
RAZD writes: Natural selection is 'good' ...?Selfish greed is 'good' ... ? Person A stealing from person B means person A is 'good' and person B is 'bad' ... ? I don't understand the point you're trying to make with these questions. It went over my head, so I can't comment, sorry.
RAZD writes: Stile writes: IF we do agree... then we now have a basis for morality. From this agreed-upon-basis, we can objectively judge things against it.This is how we can create a meaningful, objective moral system. A logical structure based on a priori assumptions doesn't make it objective. Absolutely correct.You did not understand what I was saying, though. I did not imply that the basis for the morality became objective.I said that we can objectively judge things against that basis. For example: I subjectively choose that things closer-to-the-colour-green are good and red is bad.Once this is in place, we can make objective measurements against the system... we can use a spectrometer to see exactly how good something is by seeing how close it is to the colour green. This doesn't make the basis for the system objective in any way. But the measurements... the judgements against the system... are still objective. That's all I was saying. We see behavior we recognize as similar to what we feel is moral behavior in other social animals. It is not so straightforward. Our intelligence allows us to have a large scope.We can do this. But many people do not. Therefore... there is no deeper "ultimate" meaning hidden in here anywhere. You do this because if everybody behaves this way then you benefit. It's possible to do it for that reason.But this is not my motivation. I do it because I want to help people and not hurt them. And, since you're not the boss of me, my statement trumps yours
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ProtoTypical writes:
There's also a wide variety of thought on what constitutes a "benefit". Many people seem to agree that life would "benefit" from a lower population - but few people agree on how to remove the surplus. Sure there is a wide variety of thought but the proof is in the pudding. We can see if life benefits from our actions or not. Edited by ringo, : Spellin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
"Most" objective? I think this is the problem. Are you sure you understand what "objective" means? You can't be kind-of objective. And something can't be more-objective than another thing. I was comparing the existent available standard of success within the environment with the hypothetical outside of nature standard which would be more objective were it actually available.
If "success within the environment" was an objective standard... you wouldn't have to convince me of it, you could just show me. Like how 10" is objectively longer than 8"... I don't have to convince you of it, I can show you a ruler. No I would reject that line of reason. My agreement does not affect the objectivity of your claim. I do not think that simplicity and apparentness are necessary qualities of objective and just because the topic is complicated shouldn't disqualify it from being assessed objectively.
How is "success within the environment" a more objective standard than, say, things that are closer to the colour green? Well because morality doesn't have much to do with what colour things are...right? In order to have morality you need a self aware being and every self aware being will possess a will to survive. It will be a part of their nature. No self aware being will evolve without the primal will to survive. It can't happen and therefore we can know that trying to survive long enough to propagate is an essential quality of existence for a self aware being. (Probably for any other thing that needs to propagate as well.) Therefore, if a self aware actor is achieving this we can recognize it as success within the environment. This is an objective goal set by the nature of our existence and judged objectively by the environment in which we exist. Strikes me as being a more objective goal than striving to be green. I am sure that even Kermit the Frog would agree.
If, however, we define "health and prosperity" to mean something along the lines of "whatever makes the individual happy.." then I do agree. But, I only agree because this then aligns with what I've been saying from the beginning... that good/bad can only be decided by the person being affected by the situation. That is, "being happy" is something that each individual can only decide for themselves, and it's going to be different for many people. Because that's the way people are. I would define the terms that way. This again goes back to our nature and why certain things make us feel good. It all boils down to 'do what makes you feel good.' The group upon which you depend to survive will help you with deciding what makes you feel good. I think that Joseph Campbell had it right when he said "Follow your bliss."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
There's also a wide variety of thought on what constitutes a "benefit". Many people seem to agree that life would "benefit" from a lower population - but few people agree on how to remove the surplus. That's OK. Don't confuse our ability to know what the best course of action is with the idea that there is a best course of action. Once you have a goal then you can have a best course of action. Nature has uniformly provided us with that goal and morality involves recognizing the goal and having the intent to move toward it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I do not think that simplicity and apparentness are necessary qualities of objective and just because the topic is complicated shouldn't disqualify it from being assessed objectively. I agree that "complicated" is not a disqualifier for objectivity.But, objectivity does need to have a full explanation (guide, comparison, metric...) or else it is open-ended. If it's open-ended, I'm not sure if it's objective. Well because morality doesn't have much to do with what colour things are...right? I agree.My point with that example is that "morality" has no connection with "survival" either. My point is that you're forcing a connection here, so why can't I force a connection with the colour green? In order to have morality you need a self aware being and every self aware being will possess a will to survive. Okay. I agree with this 2-part statement alone."In order to have morality you need a self aware being". and "Every self aware being will possess a will to survive." There are many things a self-aware being will possess as well, though. Here are a few:-desires -fears -curiosity As well, there are many things (like morality) that require a self aware being. Again, a few examples:-personal happiness -sense of competition It will be a part of their nature. No self aware being will evolve without the primal will to survive. It can't happen and therefore we can know that trying to survive long enough to propagate is an essential quality of existence for a self aware being. I believe this could be argued (by means of dumb luck). But to make my point, it is irrelevant. So I accept this.
Therefore, if a self aware actor is achieving this we can recognize it as success within the environment. This is an objective goal set by the nature of our existence and judged objectively by the environment in which we exist. Again, I can agree to this statement. My issue is... how are you linking this objective-goal to morality?All you've said is that people can have this objective-goal of survival... and that people also have morality. You've given no explanation for why the two must (or even should) be linked. Why not link our goal of survival to competition instead? Or happiness?Why not link morality to our fears or curiosity instead of survival? What if there is something "moral" that is not decided by considering survival (personal or species)... does that counter this argument? I see that "self-aware beings have morality" is objective.I see that "a goal of self-aware beings is to survive" is objective (or, at least... I'm not going to argue against it here). I do not see that the two are objectively linked in the way you're implying.Can you objectively explain their link? Can you show me why good is along-the-lines of surviving and why bad is along-the-lines of dying out? (I believe this would include definitions for the words "good" and "bad" and why they must be linked to surviving and cannot be linked to other things instead.) I think that you are not able to offer such definitions or explanations. This is why I say that your objective argument (about morality being linked with survival) isn't valid.Even if you do create such definitions, I think it will be trivial to provide a situation in which your definitions do not jive with what we normally identify with "good" and "bad." In which case, your objective argument would not be valid again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Why not? How can we know something "is" if there's no what of testing for it?
Don't confuse our ability to know what the best course of action is with the idea that there is a best course of action. ProtoTypical writes:
And yet we're continually trying to thwart that goal. (I presume you mean the goal of survival.) We're forever doing silly, counter-productive things like climbing mountains and building dangerous airplanes just so we can jump out of them. Some people seem to derive a "benefit" from trying to throw the benefit away. Once you have a goal then you can have a best course of action. Nature has uniformly provided us with that goal and morality involves recognizing the goal and having the intent to move toward it. Is there an evolutionary advantage to risking our lives for "fun"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Is there an evolutionary advantage to risking our lives for "fun"? If you survive, you get laid. Well that's the plan anyway. Not the person who is having fun's plan, necessarily, but evolution's 'plan'. Why would this be? A selection pressure to find brave, non risk-averse, and competent partners as well as a similar one for advertising one's risk tolerance and competence. That's the easiest advantage I could find, but I'm sure there are other possibilities. Like maybe its not just about attracting mates, but also dissuading enemies or just sexual competition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
But who's more likely to get laid? The guy who climbs Mount Everest or the guy with a big roll of cash? I would suggest that the "best course of action" would be to stay home, play it safe and make a lot of money to show your ability to take care of the children.
If you survive, you get laid. Modulous writes:
That makes some sense. "Primitive" tribesmen often do war dances to demonstrate their ability to protect the children. On the other hand, when soldiers go off to war to protect the children, it's the guys who stay home who get the chicks and make more children. (On the other other hand, the soldiers who do survive can cause a Baby Boom when they do return.)
... dissuading enemies....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But who's more likely to get laid? The guy who climbs Mount Everest or the guy with a big roll of cash? The guy with the cash, I would expect, all things being equal. But guys with lots of wealth and secure power were rare as hen's teeth during our evolutionary history, so I expect there was still plenty of scope for other displays to evolve for the rest of the men who are competing.
I would suggest that the "best course of action" would be to stay home, play it safe and make a lot of money to show your ability to take care of the children. Sure, in a secure nation state that may well be the best course of action, and maybe passivity will get enough generations to become something that may result in passivity related changes in biology. But in a world of regular male coalitionary violence, staying at home will get you killed by a rival tribesman (or more likely, from angry members of your own tribe as you aren't pulling your weight while gaining the benefits of protection).
On the other hand, when soldiers go off to war to protect the children, it's the guys who stay home who get the chicks and make more children. In a society that has division of labour, this is all well and good. What might have been a good idea 25,000 years ago may not apply today. If it was considered essential for society that all the men share the risks and the benefits from eliminating rivals, then staying at home as mentioned above, can get you killed. Indeed, avoiding conscription, desertion and cowardice have been capital offences up until quite recent in many Western societies. It was a good idea to make us crave sweet things as sweet things typically provide us with essential vitamins as well as sugar itself. Today, in some parts of the world, this has led affluent people to drift towards obesity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Why not link our goal of survival to competition instead? Or happiness? Why not link morality to our fears or curiosity instead of survival? I think that the will to survive is the most primal of all and is necessary for any other goal to exist. So while curiosity and competition may also be necessary or beneficial I think that without the will to survive you wont survive long enough to be curious about anything much. (A competitive nature is very close to having the will to survive.) So it is a hierarchical thing. Without survival there is nothing.
I see that "self-aware beings have morality" is objective. I see that "a goal of self-aware beings is to survive" is objective (or, at least... I'm not going to argue against it here). I do not see that the two are objectively linked in the way you're implying. I would say that if you have a goal that is identifiable as part of your very nature and if morality is 'right' behaviour then it follows that knowingly working towards that goal is moral. This bridges the gap from amoral to moral. Those things that we think are 'right' come directly from our amoral past when we knew nothing of morality. This is the lineage that gives objectivity to our concept or right and wrong. Of course this assumes that our natural behaviour is 'right' behaviour.
Can you show me why good is along-the-lines of surviving and why bad is along-the-lines of dying out? No I don't think that I can give an objective reason beyond the thought that without survival there is nothing and something seems more interesting than nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Why not? How can we know something "is" if there's no what of testing for it?
We can test for it and because we don't know we have to test for it but morality comes in with our intent. It matters more that we are trying to be right than that we actually are right.
And yet we're continually trying to thwart that goal. No we don't climb mountains for fun until we are thoroughly surviving and even then we are not trying to thwart the goal but rather leveraging it for excitement and excitement is practice for survival.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024