Secular Morality?

[shunyadragon]

You do not understand or you are deliberately misusing the concept of 'instinct.' Instinct does not make humans a robotic fatalist automaton. Instinct is more like a behavioral framework we inherit as a species. It does not preclude that humans do not have free will.

Correction:

You do not understand or you are deliberately misusing the concept of 'instinct.' Instinct does not make humans a robotic fatalist automaton. Instinct is more like a behavioral framework we inherit as a species. It does not preclude that humans have free will

[shunyadragon]

No Tass, the point is; We don't have to act on instinct. A human being has the power or ability not to nurture their children or defend their territory, we can choose to do otherwise.

You do not understand or you are deliberately misusing the concept of 'instinct.' Instinct does not make humans a robotic fatalist automaton. Instinct is more like a behavioral framework we inherit as a species. It does not preclude that humans do not have free will.

[shunyadragon]

More evolutionary psychology nonsense. Got any evidence for this at all?

Wrong scientific field, not animal psychology. There is abundant research into the field of evolution concerning the evolution of behavior morals and ethics.

Source: http://scu.edu/ethics/conscience/evolution.html

As part of the Markkula Center's yearlong series of talks on conscience, Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, member of the National Academy of Sciences, recipient of the Templeton Prize, the National Medal of Science, the Mendel Medal, and many more honors too numerous to list, came to campus to discuss the topic of whether biological evolution is compatible with the existence of a moral conscience. Here is a brief summary of what he said.

The overarching theme of Ayala's talk was that yes, indeed, biological evolution is compatible with the existence of a moral conscience. In fact, evolution is what makes us capable of having a moral conscience in the first place.

Ayala began his talk with the long view: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the "Cambrian explosion" of animal evolution, the origin of primates, the origin of hominids, and finally, the origin of Homo sapiens. He discussed two anatomical traits that certainly set us apart from other apes: we are bipedal (we have two feet), and we have large brains. Bipedalism evolved first, and large brains second, with the advent of toolmaking. Toolmaking correlated with the human brain growing to three times its previous size over a 2 million year period, creating the intellectual capacity for culture, language, and other products of intelligence, including moral conscience, and moral codes.

continued in article.

© Copyright Original Source

http://scu.edu/ethics/conscience/evolution.html

[Leonhard]

Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection.

More evolutionary psychology nonsense. Got any evidence for this at all?

[Leonhard]

The argument is that everything we have so far observed follows the repeatable rules for a material universe. Until such time that evidence arises to cast doubt upon this fact there is no good reason to assume otherwise.

In other words, I was completely correct in my diagnosis of what you'd do, namely presume naturalism in this discussion and ignore the fact that there's no scientific account of rationality. Then thump your own metaphysical commitment with an arm-waving argument.

You lose again!

[seer]

Stupid question! When parents nurture their children or defend their territory are they "just acting on instinct" or with a “notion of right or wrong”? Why would our cave-man ancestors be any different?

No Tass, the point is; We don't have to act on instinct. A human being has the power or ability not to nurture their children or defend their territory, we can choose to do otherwise.

Yes, they are acting according to their evolved instincts as social animals to maintain a cohesive community. The human animal does the same, albeit in a far more sophisticated way given our higher intelligence and ability to systematically codify our instincts as moral rules to be observed.

But you put the monkeys behavior in moral terms ("notions of right and wrong behaviour" your words). As if they understood ethics, and that was just foolish on your part.

Whether with humans or our primate cousins there is no means of assessing motivation other than by the behaviour being exhibited. E.g. the de Waal experiment re “fairness” among primates was devised to test the reactive behaviour of the subjects. We assess their motivation by what we can deduce from their behaviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Just as one deduces the love you have for your family by how you behave towards them.

Again Tass, this is just out and out stupid. You are reading your own sense of ethics into the monkey's action. The fellow in the link suggests that the monkey is rejecting the cucumber out of a sense of unfairness, that that somehow shows a working knowledge of fairness. But that is just silly - perhaps the monkey is acting out of the sense of envy or greed. Or perhaps, and which is more likely, he is just acting on instinct with no clue as to why he is acting that way.

[shunyadragon]

I see. So in concerns to the Ammonites sacrificing their children to Moloch you think that this is done out of instinct?

Too simplistic to be real. Explain the Hebrews slaughter of Canaanite women and children, God's commands? Subjective or objective morality?

The role of instinct in the evolution of morals and ethics involve the survival of the human species through a cohesive family and community.

[Darth Ovious]

No it’s instinct...........

I see. So in concerns to the Ammonites sacrificing their children to Moloch you think that this is done out of instinct?

[Darth Ovious]

The problem with your patronizing observations is that they are nonsense. Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us because, as social animals, they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species. The same applies to the other primates to a lesser extent. In them one can observe the precursors of our own morality. Hence, there is no good reason to think that we are any less members of the animal kingdom than they are.

I'm just calling it as I see it. You are having your cake and eating it. You decry some moral values from what you observe in nature but then use what happens in nature as an example our good moral values. Reading you posts make me dizzy because this is all I see in them. It's total confusion.

[Tassman]

You ask this as if you have not already decided the answer.

I have a 4 year old daughter. I will answer; it is not instinct that causes me to protect(nurture) my daughter, but it is the rational understanding of the value of her soul.

"Her Soul" being all that she is, every last atom and molecule. I have thought about it many times, followed many paths of reason to come to my conclusion that my time well spent is spent with her...but does this make me act differently?

No, for man(and woman) is a creature of habit, and Aristotle said it best; We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.

To be like God, one must have the habit of Jesus....good luck.

I have wondered if there is a paradox?....Survival of the fittest....might also be understood as the elimination of the non-fit (weak) which could be destructive to the group as a whole...less individuals to breed etc...

...so...could one say that morals/ethics balances instincts of "self-preservation" with a larger,..."group-preservation"....?

[siam]

...Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us because, as social animals, they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species. The same applies to the other primates to a lesser extent. In them one can observe the precursors of our own morality. Hence, there is no good reason to think that we are any less members of the animal kingdom than they are.

I have wondered if there is a paradox?....Survival of the fittest....might also be understood as the elimination of the non-fit (weak) which could be destructive to the group as a whole...less individuals to breed etc...
...so...could one say that morals/ethics balances instincts of "self-preservation" with a larger,..."group-preservation"....?

[Pytharchimedes]

When parents nurture their children or defend their territory are they "just acting on instinct" or with a “notion of right or wrong”?

You ask this as if you have not already decided the answer.

I have a 4 year old daughter. I will answer; it is not instinct that causes me to protect(nurture) my daughter, but it is the rational understanding of the value of her soul.

"Her Soul" being all that she is, every last atom and molecule. I have thought about it many times, followed many paths of reason to come to my conclusion that my time well spent is spent with her...but does this make me act differently?

No, for man(and woman) is a creature of habit, and Aristotle said it best; We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.

To be like God, one must have the habit of Jesus....good luck.

[Tassman]

Of course on this subject from those of an anti-theist persuasion, they will firstly tell you that morality is subjective because that is what we observe in reality but then further on they will try and argue that morality is real because people exhibit behaviours that are common. The first implication here is suggesting that our observation of people not having common moral values is an indication of morality being subjective while the second implication suggests morality is real because of people having common moral values. This is a case of having your cake and eating it.

The problem with your patronizing observations is that they are nonsense. Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us because, as social animals, they were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species. The same applies to the other primates to a lesser extent. In them one can observe the precursors of our own morality. Hence, there is no good reason to think that we are any less members of the animal kingdom than they are.

[Tassman]

What do you mean by "notions" of right or wrong? That they were thinking in moral terms? Or just acting on instinct with no notion of right or wrong?

Again Tass, you are suggesting that apes are thinking in moral terms, rather than just acting on instinct.

Yes, they are acting according to their evolved instincts as social animals to maintain a cohesive community. The human animal does the same, albeit in a far more sophisticated way given our higher intelligence and ability to systematically codify our instincts as moral rules to be observed.

Again, this is just silly. You claimed that the monkey was acting from a sense of unfairness, but it could just as well been that he was acting from a sense of envy. The point is, we CAN NOT KNOW. We can not know that he is acting from anything but base instinct.

behaviour of the subjects. We assess their motivation by what we can deduce from their behaviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Just as one deduces the love you have for your family by how you behave towards them.

There you have it, now go on and grill him on him begging the question. He might try to make this about the case for naturalism being apparently "so good" that he can just presume his metaphysical commitment in a discussion like this, without bothering to argue for it. Don't let him do that, either the science can tell us how rationality came into being, or it can't. It can't, ergo his argument is a red herring, since what he's really doing is simple presuming naturalism.

http://www.ericberne.com/games-people-play/

The argument is that everything we have so far observed follows the repeatable rules for a material universe. Until such time that evidence arises to cast doubt upon this fact there is no good reason to assume otherwise.

[seer]

Of course on this subject from those of an anti-theist persuasion, they will firstly tell you that morality is subjective because that is what we observe in reality but then further on they will try and argue that morality is real because people exhibit behaviours that are common. The first implication here is suggesting that our observation of people not having common moral values is an indication of morality being subjective while the second implication suggests morality is real because of people having common moral values. This is a case of having your cake and eating it.

Exactly...