Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Racism: A Completely Natural Trait?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    I don't think biology possesses any normative force. How could it?


    In truth, I'm not sure that anything dictates morality, but I contend that the phrasing itself presupposes certain things. Morals are declarative, imperative, and/or emotional statements made by one or more persons in an attempt to influence the behavior of another person or persons. I think the assumption that these statements refer to some absolute authority which can be dictated in categorical terms is false for many reasons. I believe that moral statements are end-relational. I tend towards Stephen Finlay's approach (to the extent I understand it) that moral statements which appear absolutist are in fact a result of a (dominant) group with homogeneous standards by which actions are evaluated. In other words, it looks like there are objective moral standards simply because most people in a given group accept the same general standards. I am not, however, convinced of moral realism, but that's due in part to the impossibility of defining such a term.

    Carrikature in the past you have made it clear that you don't believe in human freedom, free will. And if that is the case biology drives everything, there is nothing else. How we think, our response to stimuli, the cultures and relationships we develop are all dictated by biology.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      First let me say, these two men speak like my father, uncles, grandfathers, spoke in their day - there certainly was a racist streak in the largely Italian neighborhood I grew up in. This was much less prevalent in my generation, and almost non-existent in my son's generation.
      This is a very good development, hopefully it will have disappeared completely in a few generations. There certainly won't be any racism in Heaven.

      Racism and/or Tribalism is as old as mankind, so these traits most likely had an evolutionary benefit and if something helps a group to survive then that trait is good. Therefore Racism / Tribalism is good - correct? At least under certain conditions.
      Wrong. I don't think any evolutionary biologist would say anything like that. You're assuming that if something exists in a current population, then it had survival value and was selected for. Its quite possible that its simple not detrimental to the chance of having offspring, and so the trait will not be selected against.

      Second, other than this trait being prevalent, there's nothing to suggest that its hardwired into us. Much more likely xenophobia builds on more fundamental traits and preferences of the familiar. If these are the ones that have survival value, and xenophobia just piggybacking on it as an abnormal development then you haven't shown that a potential naive evolutionary moralist should take accept these behaviours as good and normative.

      Thirdly, I don't think anyone who advocates for evolutionary explanations of our sense of morality argues anything like this. So you're building up a strawman.

      All naturalists could reject that they ought to be xenophobes for anyone of these three reasons. Now you and I agree that naturalists can't have a proper system of ethics, but I don't think your objection here is a good one.

      Though you seem to have posed it more as a question so I've attempted to answer it like that.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Carrikature in the past you have made it clear that you don't believe in human freedom, free will. And if that is the case biology drives everything, there is nothing else. How we think, our response to stimuli, the cultures and relationships we develop are all dictated by biology.
        Even if all of the above were granted as stated (it's not), it does not mean that biology dictates morality. As I already said, biology possesses no normative force. Mull on that a bit.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          Even if all of the above were granted as stated (it's not), it does not mean that biology dictates morality. As I already said, biology possesses no normative force. Mull on that a bit.
          I understand the claim Carrikature, but you have yet to show how anything, behavior, ethics, etc... can rise above biology. If biology doesn't dictate our moral sense then what does?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            Wrong. I don't think any evolutionary biologist would say anything like that. You're assuming that if something exists in a current population, then it had survival value and was selected for. Its quite possible that its simple not detrimental to the chance of having offspring, and so the trait will not be selected against.
            Well I think Carrikature would disagree. That racism or tribalism may in fact had a survival value.

            Second, other than this trait being prevalent, there's nothing to suggest that its hardwired into us. Much more likely xenophobia builds on more fundamental traits and preferences of the familiar. If these are the ones that have survival value, and xenophobia just piggybacking on it as an abnormal development then you haven't shown that a potential naive evolutionary moralist should take accept these behaviours as good and normative.
            Then where does the "naive evolutionary moralist" go to decide what is good or normative?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by seanD View Post
              New Testament doesn't talk about race. There were only two distinct tribes -- Jews and Gentiles. So I guess I missed your point from your previous post.
              No Sean, but the New Testament tells us how to treat our fellow man, that we all are of "one blood" (Acts 17:26), and all bear the image of God.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Well I think Carrikature would disagree. That racism or tribalism may in fact had a survival value.
                I was puzzled by that as well, but Carrikature isn't prevented from making mistakes like that. It would be up to him to defend that it had survival value in the past rather than postulate it. In the name of gracious interpretation, I think he might just have been defending that even if the basic premise of what you said was true, no morality could be drawn from in the naive way you're proposing.

                Then where does the "naive evolutionary moralist" go to decide what is good or normative?
                Good, now you're starting to ask the right kinds of questions!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I thought about posting this on the NS board but decided to bring it up here because of the discussion of Mr. Bundy and the recent comments by Don Sterling. First let me say, these two men speak like my father, uncles, grandfathers, spoke in their day - there certainly was a racist streak in the largely Italian neighborhood I grew up in. This was much less prevalent in my generation, and almost non-existent in my son's generation.
                  Maybe some of the racism is less blatant, because it has been much less socially acceptable to express it explicitly?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I was puzzled by that as well, but Carrikature isn't prevented from making mistakes like that. It would be up to him to defend that it had survival value in the past rather than postulate it. In the name of gracious interpretation, I think he might just have been defending that even if the basic premise of what you said was true, no morality could be drawn from in the naive way you're proposing.
                    Well the bottom line, in my view, is that all ethics (good or bad in a godless universe) are driven by biology. Carrikature, Tass and others have made it clear in the past that free will does not exist, therefore it follows that our moral sense is driven by biology - and there is no right or wrong in biology - only what works. If being a bastard helps one to survive, then being a bastard is good.


                    Good, now you're starting to ask the right kinds of questions!
                    I hate you...
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      Maybe some of the racism is less blatant, because it has been much less socially acceptable to express it explicitly?
                      I think that is true to a degree. But I also think it is changing in reality. When I was a kid I really like this fighter named "Cassius Clay." My father hated that fact - if I was going to have a black sports hero pick someone like Hank Aaron, or Willy Mays - they were "good" Negros. And of course there was Motown. Things really started to change back then - today my son and step son (and their friends) really don't see color - it just doesn't enter in.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Well the bottom line, in my view, is that all ethics (good or bad in a godless universe) are driven by biology. Carrikature, Tass and others have made it clear in the past that free will does not exist, therefore it follows that our moral sense is driven by biology - and there is no right or wrong in biology - only what works. If being a bastard helps one to survive, then being a bastard is good.
                        A lot of this right, but you might still not be addressing the beliefs of Carrikature or Tass. When you approach someone, in order to argue them out of a position, you have to be able to explain what they believe to them so well that they would agree that you've understood it. Otherwise you're actually arguing with them, but only with an imagined version of them.

                        I know that Carrikature does not support the idea that if something exists in nature, then its morally good and should be imitated. Even if it had survival value. I think he sees evolution ultimately as giving us a unified and well defended account of how we got to have our current nature. It explains why humans work in certain ways, and fail to work in other ways.

                        Has he at any point told you that if something has survival value, then its behaviour we ought to imitate?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          A lot of this right, but you might still not be addressing the beliefs of Carrikature or Tass. When you approach someone, in order to argue them out of a position, you have to be able to explain what they believe to them so well that they would agree that you've understood it. Otherwise you're actually arguing with them, but only with an imagined version of them.

                          I know that Carrikature does not support the idea that if something exists in nature, then its morally good and should be imitated. Even if it had survival value. I think he sees evolution ultimately as giving us a unified and well defended account of how we got to have our current nature. It explains why humans work in certain ways, and fail to work in other ways.

                          Has he at any point told you that if something has survival value, then its behaviour we ought to imitate?
                          I think you intended to have a "not" in the first paragraph.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            I know that Carrikature does not support the idea that if something exists in nature, then its morally good and should be imitated. Even if it had survival value. I think he sees evolution ultimately as giving us a unified and well defended account of how we got to have our current nature. It explains why humans work in certain ways, and fail to work in other ways.

                            Has he at any point told you that if something has survival value, then its behavior we ought to imitate?
                            Then we are back to what decides good or evil. If we are not basing ethics on survival value then on what? Here is an example - the Europeans come to North America. They are technologically more advanced, more aggressive, and possibly more intelligent, and eventually more numerous. They pretty much wipe out the native population and take over the land - and prosper. How, in the evolutionary sense, is that morally wrong? It would be no more unethical than one species of bacteria taking over or destroying another species of bacteria.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Then we are back to what decides good or evil. If we are not basing ethics on survival value then on what? Here is an example - the Europeans come to North America. They are technologically more advanced, more aggressive, and possibly more intelligent, and eventually more numerous. They pretty much wipe out the native population and take over the land - and prosper. How, in the evolutionary sense, is that morally wrong? It would be no more unethical than one species of bacteria taking over or destroying another species of bacteria.
                              It might not be 'evolutionary wrong'. Most naturalistic ethicists I know base things on preference. Humans have preferences for various things, and we want to live in a world where we have the greatest chance of living out our preferences. They identify this state as the happy life, and then they ask what kind of world fulfils that.

                              I'm not getting into the problems with this, but that's how they do it. Its not a matter of survivability itself dictating what's right and wrong.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                                I think you intended to have a "not" in the first paragraph.
                                I think I mean to say "A lot of what you say is right,"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X