Morality or Obedience?

[carpedm9587]

So much for the certainty... You don't know if it is made up or god's command. And even if it is god's command you are yet to show how it follows that it is a universal moral truth.

Obviously, much of this discussion rests on the question of whether or not there is a god. But there is another element to it as well. If there is a god, and this god is a sentient beibng, as claimed, then it's moral code is subjective to it and objective to me in much the same way YOUR moral code is subjective to you and objective to me. The last part of Seer's post reflects part of the disconnect we have had (besides the issue of the absence of an argument). In any context where moral codes do not align, some form of resolution will occur. The players will either ignore the disconnect (if it is trivial), separate/isolate from one another, or there will be contention, in which the stronger moral player will either force the weaker to ACT on the moral code they do not agree with, or punish them for not doing so. We see this all the time between individuals, in parenting, and religions extend it to the god relationship.

Presumably, if this god exists and is "all powerful," then this god will be in a position to win every such contention - and be able to punish those that do not follow the moral code they have set down. To Seer (and many others), this makes this being's moral code somehow "more objective" than anyone else's moral code. Couple that with rthe claim that this god is "all knowing" - and the argument is that no other being can have a better moral code than this god - so it would be folly for limited beings (such as ourselves) to ignore this code.

From the perspective of the belief that this god-being actually exists, the second part of the argument has some merit. Unfortunately, it is badly weakened by the reality that there are several competing such claims, some even based on the same sources (e.g., the bible), all claiming to be the "authoritative" code. The moral code this god apparently wants all to follow is badly muddled. This is explained as a by product of "sin." The whole thing is a bit odd to me. I can see how a god cannot limit "action" without compromising free will - but knowledge? Why is it that the failures of a limited being (humans) - designed to be limited and therefore imperfect (finite creation) - prevent an all-powerful being from clearly and unambiguously communicating this code? Why is it not "hardwired," as was earlier claimed, so that every person has the same moral code, knows intrinsically when something is right or wrong, and then is judged on their actions in light of that moral; code? Instead, we have this odd system that people can be judged for doing what they sincerely believe to be the right thing, simply because they chose the wrong competing claim to follow. It's a very odd system for a "perfect" god to preside over.

Of course, from the perspective of someone who believes this god-being does NOT exist, the entire thing falls apart. Instead, what we see is a group of people attempting to insist that their communal moral code is "absolute" and "objective" and everyone else ought to follow it. It has all the appearances of an attempt to concentrate power and define all those with competing moral codes as "other" and "outside."

Of course, atheists are just as prone to THAT phenomenon as theists...

[Tassman]

Except that the reciprocity rule describes a basic social contract; the basic dynamic by which society's tend to function.

It doesn't actually tell us what is morally right action or morally wrong action. Using it and it alone, a masochist could find justification for torture. A suicidal person could find justification for homicide. The list goes on.

[carpedm9587]

I don't find that my moral contract is built on this "instinct" or "rule." My moral code is rooted in the things I have come to value. Some of that I came to value as a function of my upbringing. Some as a function of my years in religion. Some from my friends and other social contexts. Some I have simply come to as an adult reflecting on life and what I see around me. The things I value are the foundation on which my moral code is built. The "reciprocity" social contract simply informs how that moral code plays out in society.

For me - anyway. Perhaps others function differently.

[Tassman]

I don't find that my moral contract is built on this "instinct" or "rule." My moral code is rooted in the things I have come to value. Some of that I came to value as a function of my upbringing. Some as a function of my years in religion. Some from my friends and other social contexts. Some I have simply come to as an adult reflecting on life and what I see around me. The things I value are the foundation on which my moral code is built. The "reciprocity" social contract simply informs how that moral code plays out in society.

For me - anyway. Perhaps others function differently.

[seer]

It's evolved, instinctive behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. This explains why the Golden Rule has been common to all human communities.

Oh nonsense, what about our instincts to be cruel and selfish, what about our instincts to destroy the other tribe and take their stuff? There is no overriding goal for the human species' survival. Any more than there was for the dinosaurs. And thanks to science we now have the ability to pretty much destroy the human race.

[carpedm9587]

All aspects are evolutionary (given that everything about us is the product of the evolutionary process). I'm also sure that some aspects of what we value are instinctive, but I am doubtful we can attribute everything we value to instinct. We are reasoning beings - and function at a higher level than mere instinct. We instinctively value life (survival), and perhaps even liberty and happiness. But trust? Prosperity? Relationships? Some of what we value is instrictive. Some is indoctrinated. Some is reasoned.

At least that's the way it is in my world.

[Tassman]

Oh nonsense, what about our instincts to be cruel and selfish, what about our instincts to destroy the other tribe and take their stuff? There is no overriding goal for the human species' survival. Any more than there was for the dinosaurs. And thanks to science we now have the ability to pretty much destroy the human race.

[Tassman]

All aspects are evolutionary (given that everything about us is the product of the evolutionary process). I'm also sure that some aspects of what we value are instinctive, but I am doubtful we can attribute everything we value to instinct. We are reasoning beings - and function at a higher level than mere instinct. We instinctively value life (survival), and perhaps even liberty and happiness. But trust? Prosperity? Relationships? Some of what we value is instrictive. Some is indoctrinated. Some is reasoned.

At least that's the way it is in my world.

[seer]

Really? First you have no idea if the world in general can function without religion, even your secular nations are still living off centuries of religious capital. Second, the religious impulse seems as ingrained in our genetic make up as anything else. Third, this theory of how we developed ethics is not scientific, it is a guess - what behavior could falsify the theory? If it explains why a mother both protects her offspring and kills her offspring what behavior could possibly falsify that idea? So obviously it is not open to the scientific method of falsification.

[carpedm9587]

Yes - survival is a deeply ingrained instinct. There is much that we value, however, that is not necessarily related to survival. At least, that is true for me.

[carpedm9587]

As I said, Tass - everything is ultimately traced back to evolution. But sometimes, what is selected for as a survival attribute, becomes something used for other things.

And the jury is still out on sentience. We are a VERY young species, comparatively. We are doing some amazing damage to our planet, and we are spreading like a virus. It may well be that sentience is NOT a long-term survival attribute, because sentient beings are simply too self-absorbed and their sentience gives them the ability to make horrific short-term choices with no real appreciation for long term consequences. Non-sentient anuimals also cannot think in terms of long-term consequences, but they are also not as capable of inflicting so much short-term harm.

Who knows, we may ultimately, make this planet unsuitable for ourselves, and nature will move forward with other species...maybe cockroaches...

[carpedm9587]

Really? First you have no idea if the world in general can function without religion, even your secular nations are still living off centuries of religious capital. Second, the religious impulse seems as ingrained in our genetic make up as anything else. Third, this theory of how we developed ethics is not scientific, it is a guess - what behavior could falsify the theory? If it explains why a mother both protects her offspring and kills her offspring what behavior could possibly falsify that idea? So obviously it is not open to the scientific method of falsification.

So that mothers can both kill and protect offspring renders the idea non-falsifiable? Setting aside the rest, this leaves the distinct impression that your grasp of science is weaker than I thought. There are multiple reasons why a parent (of any species) might kill some offspring, and protect others; or even protect an offspring only to ultimately kill it (not that I'm defending the practice on moral grounds, mind you).

Perhaps you are back to absolute thinking? Evolution is not about absolutes - it's about averages and trends.

One approach to falsifying the proposition, for example, would be to isolate a group of individuals who have sentience and LACK moral capacity (i.e., sociopaths), and then assess their survival rate against a comparable group WITH a moral sense.

[seer]

So that mothers can both kill and protect offspring renders the idea non-falsifiable? Setting aside the rest, this leaves the distinct impression that your grasp of science is weaker than I thought. There are multiple reasons why a parent (of any species) might kill some offspring, and protect others; or even protect an offspring only to ultimately kill it (not that I'm defending the practice on moral grounds, mind you).

This has to do with the discipline of Evolutionary Psychology, and their sweeping claims...

Perhaps you are back to absolute thinking? Evolution is not about absolutes - it's about averages and trends.

One approach to falsifying the proposition, for example, would be to isolate a group of individuals who have sentience and LACK moral capacity (i.e., sociopaths), and then assess their survival rate against a comparable group WITH a moral sense.

That would not falsify anything. Even sociopaths could selfishly cooperate for the sake of their personal survival. Heck even sociopaths in our own population learn to cooperate, fit in and survive. You would be hard pressed to find a behavior that could falsify this theory.

[carpedm9587]

This has to do with the discipline of Evolutionary Psychology, and their sweeping claims...

That would not falsify anything. Even sociopaths could selfishly cooperate for the sake of their personal survival. Heck even sociopaths in our own population learn to cooperate, fit in and survive. You would be hard pressed to find a behavior that could falsify this theory.

The point is if, of the two groups, those with a moral compass survived at a higher rate than those who lack the moral compass, and this experiment could be reliably replicated with the same results, it would affirm the claim that moral codes increase survival probability. If it could not, then it would falsify the claim that moral codes increase survival value. That makes the claim itself within the realm of scientific study.

I was under the impression this was the claim (morality is an evolutionary product that has increases survival value) being disputed? Did I get that wrong?

Note, there is enormous practical difficulty in conducting this experiment, and leveling all of the other potential variables. But it IS a theoretical approach to affirming or falsifying the claim, assuming I have the specific claim correct.

It is even (theoretically) possible to run similar tests to determine which specific moral codes have greater survival value.

[seer]

The point is if, of the two groups, those with a moral compass survived at a higher rate than those who lack the moral compass, and this experiment could be reliably replicated with the same results, it would affirm the claim that moral codes increase survival probability. If it could not, then it would falsify the claim that moral codes increase survival value. That makes the claim itself within the realm of scientific study.

I was under the impression this was the claim (morality is an evolutionary product that has increases survival value) being disputed? Did I get that wrong?

Note, there is enormous practical difficulty in conducting this experiment, and leveling all of the other potential variables. But it IS a theoretical approach to affirming or falsifying the claim, assuming I have the specific claim correct.

It is even (theoretically) possible to run similar tests to determine which specific moral codes have greater survival value.

See Carp, this is the problem, you can really can not name a possible behavior that could on its face falsify this theory of human behavior. Your sociopaths, being rational, could act for other reasons and be fully cooperative, as they presently do in society today. Also higher primates survive just fine with no abstract concept of morality, as do most animals. So, again, if a theory explains why a woman protects her offspring and why a woman kills her offspring what behavior could or would fall outside this theory of Evolutionary Psychology? What behavior couldn't be incorporated? In other words, we see behavior A, and say, it is unlikely behavior A is the result of evolutionary processes.