Secular Morality?

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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

[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]

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

[Tassman]

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.

I think your dizziness is inherent. Our natural instincts don't make us into automatons, they simply predispose us towards certain behaviours.

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

...no it takes religion to do really bad things, e.g. look at Moses' genocidal atrocities. The gods give the authority to override our naturally evolved instincts.

[Tassman]

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.

Most certainly, so how about educating your colleague Darth that we are not robots, we have the power to make decisions and we demonstrably do within the context of our determined universe.

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.

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.

In other words, I was completely correct in my diagnosis of what you'd do,

Oh wow! Give the boy a gold star and an elephant stamp.

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.

One "presumes" naturalism because there is no substantive evidence to support an alternative argument, merely superseded conjecture about invisible creator gods. Once again: 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.

You lose again!

What are you, in kindergarten?

[Leonhard]

I presume materialistic naturalism because I deny the evidence for all other worldviews

I agree this is what you're doing Tassman. But it doesn't help you when you want to establish these points. It makes you come off as a committed materialist, and nothing more.

What you want is not a discussion of the scientific account of rationality and morality. And for some reason you don't seem to want to discuss naturalism. You seem to be content proclaiming ostensibly why we're wrong, by purely denying any evidence offered to you.

So it's half and half denial and begging the question.

In other words you lose.

Science can't currently and likely never will account for either the origin of our cognitive abilities or our moral intuition. You might not like this fact, but it's true.

I asked for evidence. You had none. I called it out as evo psych pop sci bull now long discredited by mainstream science, you offered no defense.

Effectively in a discussion about whether morality and rationality is a challenge to naturalism, you stomped your foot and said effectively:

"Well... There are no Gods!!! So therefore naturalism, and... And evolutionary biology, which you seer deny, but not me because I am not dumb. And evolution and morality see, something, survival of the species, something, and therefore morality evolves and we got smart!"

Dress it up in any language you want Tassman. You can't fool me. I've been a naturalist for a long time, and I know my science.

It's like Shuny who likes to pretend to know anything about quantum mechanics, but it's pretty clear his only understanding has been gotten through pop sci articles.

Now say it with me Tassman, because I believe you can do it:

There is no scientific account of the origin of rationality or morality.

There is no scientific account of the origin of rationality or morality.

There is no scientific account of the origin of rationality or morality...

[Jaecp]

We also don't have a "missing link" or a solid understanding of abiogenesis

Doesn't mean that we can't discuss evolution.

We don't know how consciousness first formed.

Doesn't mean we can't learn about psychology.

Maybe I just missed it, this thread has gotten long in the tooth, but why do the ultimate origins of rationality and morality matter?

[Darth Ovious]

I think your dizziness is inherent. Our natural instincts don't make us into automatons, they simply predispose us towards certain behaviours.

Well it's your fault. You should be clear instead of making people dizzy. So what's your assessment on this predisposition? Because sometimes it's bad and sometimes it's good apparently and I don't know on what basis you make this distinction.

...no it takes religion to do really bad things, e.g. look at Moses' genocidal atrocities. The gods give the authority to override our naturally evolved instincts.

So these people were not acting by instinct? That seems convenient. Also you're forgetting those things that happened under atheist states under communism again.

[Tassman]

I agree this is what you're doing Tassman. But it doesn't help you when you want to establish these points. It makes you come off as a committed materialist, and nothing more.

What you want is not a discussion of the scientific account of rationality and morality. And for some reason you don't seem to want to discuss naturalism. You seem to be content proclaiming ostensibly why we're wrong, by purely denying any evidence offered to you.

So it's half and half denial and begging the question.

In other words you lose.

Science can't currently and likely never will account for either the origin of our cognitive abilities or our moral intuition. You might not like this fact, but it's true.

I asked for evidence. You had none. I called it out as evo psych pop sci bull now long discredited by mainstream science, you offered no defense.

Effectively in a discussion about whether morality and rationality is a challenge to naturalism, you stomped your foot and said effectively:

"Well... There are no Gods!!! So therefore naturalism, and... And evolutionary biology, which you seer deny, but not me because I am not dumb. And evolution and morality see, something, survival of the species, something, and therefore morality evolves and we got smart!"

Dress it up in any language you want Tassman. You can't fool me. I've been a naturalist for a long time, and I know my science.

It's like Shuny who likes to pretend to know anything about quantum mechanics, but it's pretty clear his only understanding has been gotten through pop sci articles.

Now say it with me Tassman, because I believe you can do it:

There is no scientific account of the origin of rationality or morality.

There is no scientific account of the origin of rationality or morality.

There is no scientific account of the origin of rationality or morality...

What I said was that I presume naturalism because there is no substantive evidence to support an alternative argument. See the difference?

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

Well it's your fault. You should be clear instead of making people dizzy. So what's your assessment on this predisposition? Because sometimes it's bad and sometimes it's good apparently and I don't know on what basis you make this distinction.


So these people were not acting by instinct? That seems convenient. Also you're forgetting those things that happened under atheist states under communism again.

Once again for the dummy: Natural Selection predisposes social species like Homo sapiens towards altruism, reciprocity, adherence to the rules of the group and other natural instincts which tend towards the social cohesion which is essential for survival of the group. But predisposition does not mean "able to do no other", it means "inclination or tendency towards". See the difference oh dizzy one?

[Tassman]

We also don't have a "missing link" or a solid understanding of abiogenesis

Doesn't mean that we can't discuss evolution.

We don't know how consciousness first formed.

Doesn't mean we can't learn about psychology.

Maybe I just missed it, this thread has gotten long in the tooth, but why do the ultimate origins of rationality and morality matter?

It doesn't because, as you imply, even though science doesn't currently know everything that doesn't mean science knows nothing and that it will not arrive at more solid conclusions re rationality and consciousness in the future. Science is after all a work in progress. In the meantime the scientific deficits are being seized upon by the faithful as a god-of-the-gaps argument, i.e. the fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance. Sad really, so desperate!

[Darth Ovious]

Once again for the dummy: Natural Selection predisposes social species like Homo sapiens towards altruism, reciprocity, adherence to the rules of the group and other natural instincts which tend towards the social cohesion which is essential for survival of the group. But predisposition does not mean "able to do no other", it means "inclination or tendency towards". See the difference oh dizzy one?

Still Dizzy, once again for the dummy: What's your assessment on this predisposition? Because sometimes it's bad and sometimes it's good apparently and I don't know on what basis you make this distinction.

[Leonhard]

This is the fallacy of an Appeal to Ridicule, albeit a verbose and sadly confused one.

No I wasn't. I was making a ridicule of you. You're already the butt of a joke here. But lets deal with this.

What I said was that I presume naturalism because there is no substantive evidence to support an alternative argument. See the difference?

Yes I do, but you're not trying to do a philosophical argument, you're doing an appeal to a scientific result. Or rather you seem to make postulations about evolutionary biology that requires knowledge you don't have. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure you could get there even with your commitment to naturalism.

You're not appealing to materialistic naturalism, instead you're appealing to a scientific position, as if there was in fact a scientific account of the evolution of morality. Which you've done several times. Basically every time you say that natural selection has pushed us as a group towards social benevolence, altruism, etc... all for the group survival. Then you're either appealing to a scientific theory, or you're appealing to jargon. It sounds technically, and sciency, and sounds a bit like what they'd say on Discovery and that you can sometimes read about in issues of Scientific American, but does it actually represent modern science? I'd argue that it doesn't.

Once again: The argument is that everything we have so far observed follows the repeatable rules for a material universe. Do you deny this?

Yes but that's irrelevant.

At the bottom of this post you'll find the quote you keep repeating over and over again. This quote implies that there's a scientific account, within the field of evolutionary biology for selecting for what we'd typically identify as the "good kind" of morality, as well as for rationality. While I have sympathy for the latter. At least it makes intuitive sense, I also have to admit that there's no scientific evidence in existence supporting this, period. As for morality, here its even worse, as humans have moral behaviour which could make it harder for your genes to enter the genepool.

Until such time that evidence arises to cast doubt upon this fact there is no good reason to assume otherwise.

I'd say this is wrong as well as materialistic naturalism is not the default position, but again, its irrelevant to the discussion.

Do you have such evidence?

Yes, but its irrelevant in as much as you're trying to push a scientific argument.

You can either drop the jargon, and stop talking as if evolutionary biology supports your general assertions or you could admit that you're making a philosophical argument, based on your commitment to materialistic naturalism based on some set of arguments you have. You're definitely doing the latter, namely philosophy (I respect that even if I think your arguments aren't that good).

Natural Selection predisposes social species like Homo Sapiens towards altruism, reciprocity, adherence to the rules of the group and other natural instincts which tend towards the social cohesion which is essential for survival of the group.

And there you go.

I'm sorry Tassman, but there's no scientific evidence at all for anything you're saying. There's not a single successful paradigm in the field of evolutionary psychology. And what you're appealing to, whether you like it or not is not just evolutionary psychology (a field that's basically collapsed and is bordering on pseudo-science now), you're also making a just-so story: who cares if the group survives? Certainly not evolution, it "cares" mainly about whether one couple gets to have offspring and that's it. Whether they have nice cousins, or sweet aunts is completely irrelevant. You can make about as good an argument based on what we know, that a tribe where the children eat the parents once they have had their first offspring, would do about as well as one in which we're good to each other.

The origin of morality and rationality in Homo Sapiens is an unsolved problem in science, and may in fact end up having no conceivable solution in terms of natural selection.

Personally, I'm only here to criticise the way you're slanting your replies. As if you're replying to seer from a position of scientific aloofness. If you'd concede that they're philosophical arguments, then we can start to discuss the metaphysical problems with materialism and naturalism, and whether it can ever hope to deal with rationality, intentionality, qualia, aboutness, morality, and so forth.