Morality or Obedience?

[JimL]

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.

Which means that only one moral system, the one that tests for greatest survival value, could ultimately be the best moral system, regardless of any one persons opinion.

[carpedm9587]

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.

So let me try one more time. Assuming the proposition is "a moral compass increases the propability of survival," the method for validating or falsifying this claim is fairly straightforward (though would be very difficult to implement):

1. Identify populations that have and do not have a moral compass (so called "normal people" and sociopaths). Since we know which part of the brain is associated with moral reasoning, separating these groups can be done with a Functional MRI.
2. Level-set for other variables (this would be VERY complex to do, if even possible)
3. Gather information about their lifespans and reproduction (because the human lifespan is so long, this would likely be a multi-generational study)
4. Analyze the data.

If the data shows that people with a moral compass survive at a higher rate than those without, and the experiment can be replicated with similar results, then the case has been made that a moral compass enhances survivability and has likely been selected for by evolution.

If the data shows no statistically significant distinction in survival rates between the two groups, or shows that the amoral group has a higher survival rate, then the claim "a moral compass increases the propability of survival," has been falsified. Since we know evolution chooses for survivability, we will either have shown that a moral compass is not a trait that has been selected for, or we will show that amorality is actually a stronger evolutionary selector.

Your objection here appears to be about Step 2. As I noted, this would be very difficult to do in a practical fashion. But it IS how the statement would be falsified. That an experiment is difficult to run does not make something "unfalsifiable." Something is "unfalsifiable" when there exists no conceivable way to test the hypothesis. String theory is currently unfalsifiable. Intelligent design is unfalsifiable.

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.

You appear, again, to be making a basic logical reasoning flaw. Either you do not understand evolution, or perhaps you're confusing the concept of "necessary" and "sufficient." The claim "a moral compass provides an evolutionary advantage" is not equivalent to the claim, "all animals that survive have a strong moral compass." So "a moral compass" is a sufficient condition (assuming the statement above is shown to be true) for "survival advantage," but it is not a necessary one. Other characteristics can confer a survival advantage.

Look, for some birds, a long narrow beak provides an evolutionary advantage because it helps them feed better. No one would say, "that's not true, because there are a lot of birds without a long narrow beak and even more animals that have no beak at all." That, however, appears to be what you are trying to do with morality. Yes, many animals survive without a moral framework. That does not show that morality does not provie an evolutionary advantage for those species that have it, within that evolutionary niche. Evolution is about adaptation within an evolutionary niche. You seem to be trying to take traits and measure them across all species in all contexts. It doesn't work that way.

[carpedm9587]

Which means that only one moral system, the one that tests for greatest survival value, could ultimately be the best moral system, regardless of any one persons opinion.

Yes - if the metric is "increases survival value," that would follow.

[Tassman]

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.

Certainly!

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...

[Tassman]

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.

Are the inequitable, violent Christian nations living off centuries of religious capital? How come the secular nations do it better than say, the highly religious USA? It seems to me that as our lives become more stable, societies tend to become more 'godless' as our need for religion fades away.

Second, the religious impulse seems as ingrained in our genetic make up as anything else.

Prehistoric humans developed religious beliefs to help explain what was otherwise inexplicable in a prescientific age. But, science answers these things better.

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.

[seer]

So let me try one more time. Assuming the proposition is "a moral compass increases the propability of survival," the method for validating or falsifying this claim is fairly straightforward (though would be very difficult to implement):

Carp, this is not my point, I should have made that clear when you first responded to me. Evolutionary Psychology claims that our moral sense, all of it, can be traced to evolutionary pressures. That nothing else is needed. I was jumping off Tass' claim that religion was merely an evolutionary driven belief that was helpful for survival. But that, and the claim that our moral sense is only the result of evolution, is a metaphysical claim. It may be true or not, but it is not a scientific claim since there would be no way to falsify that theory.

[seer]

Then Tass, show me how to falsify the claim that our moral sense is only the result of evolutionary pressures. That belief in the divine is merely the result of the evolutionary process. You are making a metaphysical claim, unless you can show how this theory is open to falsification. And if it is not open to falsification how is it science?

[carpedm9587]

Then here we disagree. Evolution has given rise to many characteristics. That both "instinct" and "reasoning" are the product of evolution does not make them equivalent. They are orders of magnitude separated. Not differentating them is (to me) like not differentiating between a tricycle and a lamborghini because they both have wheels and can move you from Point A to Point B.

Oh I wasn't suggesting the cockroaches would be intelligent. I was suggesting that it could well be that sentience itself only gives a species a short-term survival advantage, but the species will inevitably die out in a fog of its own self-centeredness. If cockroaches gained sentience - they would basically do the same thing.

[seer]

Then here we disagree. Evolution has given rise to many characteristics. That both "instinct" and "reasoning" are the product of evolution does not make them equivalent. They are orders of magnitude separated. Not differentating them is (to me) like not differentiating between a tricycle and a lamborghini because they both have wheels and can move you from Point A to Point B.

Well Tass is a determinist, there is no freedom of the will, so this makes perfect sense from his position. Everything you think do or say is in the causal chain, based on antecedent conditions.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, this is not my point, I should have made that clear when you first responded to me. Evolutionary Psychology claims that our moral sense, all of it, can be traced to evolutionary pressures. That nothing else is needed.

I don't need "Evolutionary Psychology" to tell me that. Everything about us is the product of evolution, so all forms of reasoning would likewise be the product of evolution, including our moral sense.

I was jumping off Tass' claim that religion was merely an evolutionary driven belief that was helpful for survival. But that, and the claim that our moral sense is only the result of evolution, is a metaphysical claim. It may be true or not, but it is not a scientific claim since there would be no way to falsify that theory.

Actually - the methodology I outlined would do exactly that. Since we know that evolution drives the development of species - the only question is which traits do and do not confer survival advantage. If you are raising the question of whether evolution is "true" or "intelligent design" is true, then that discussion I will leave to you. I find it as pointless as climate denial and geocentrism. Some things are just too well-established science for me to waste time questioning them. I include in that list a) the earth is not the center of the universe, b) climate change is happening and humans are having a significant impact on it, and c) species evolve - that's how life on this planet developed.

Because of c) - any trait/aspect of my person is a result of the evolutionary process. That is a scientific claim - not a metaphysical one.

[carpedm9587]

Well Tass is a determinist, there is no freedom of the will, so this makes perfect sense from his position. Everything you think do or say is in the causal chain, based on antecedent conditions.

I had no idea he subscribed to strict determinism. I always found that position a bit odd.

[seer]

I don't need "Evolutionary Psychology" to tell me that. Everything about us is the product of evolution, so all forms of reasoning would likewise be the product of evolution, include our moral sense.

Right and that is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one.

Actually - the methodology I outlined would do exactly that. Since we know that evolution drives the development of species - the only question is which traits do and do not confer survival advantage. If you are raising the question of whether evolution is "true" or "intelligent design" is true, then that discussion I will leave to you. I find it as pointless as climate denial and geocentrism. Some things are just too well-established science for me to waste time questioning them. I include in that list a) the earth is not the center of the universe, b) climate change is happening and humans are having a significant impact on it, and c) species evolve - that's how life on this planet developed.

That does not answer my point, no one is arguing that certain behaviors are not more advantageous to survival.

Because of c) - any trait/aspect of my person is a result of the evolutionary process. That is a scientific claim - not a metaphysical one.

And how do you falsify that claim? And if it not open to falsification how is it science?

[seer]

I had no idea he subscribed to strict determinism. I always found that position a bit odd.

Why? I'm not sure how one escapes determinism if materialism is true.

[carpedm9587]

Why? I'm not sure how one escapes determinism if materialism is true.

Because we don't see strict determinism in many aspects of our universe: quantum mechanics, emergent properties, etc.

And because my experience of life isnot a deterministic one. Well - except when it comes to my bread baking. I know, without doubt, that loaf will NOT come out right!

[carpedm9587]

Right and that is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one.

That does not answer my point, no one is arguing that certain behaviors are not more advantageous to survival.

And how do you falsify that claim? And if it not open to falsification how is it science?

I give up, Seer. You constantly claiming it is unfalsifiable in the face of a clear methodology for falsification is unsurmountable. It's like trying to tell someone how to open a car door and having them continuously deny the car that is right in front of them actually exists.

I leave it to you. The discussion has ceased to be rational.