Secular Morality?

[Tassman]

That is a falsehood Tass. So I will ask again, in the De Waal experiment you have three choices:

The monkey had a sense of fairness.

The monkey had a sense of envy.

The monkey had an instinctive preference for grapes over cucumbers.

De Waal and you claim number one. But how do you know that? Tells us all Tass, right here and now!

[seer]

Sigh!

Yet again, de Waal et al arrived at their conclusions utilizing "scientific inference”. I.e. they inferred a reasonable conclusion drawn from the data and rational assessment based upon the empirically verified knowledge that non-human primates are virtually identical to human primates and therefore likely to react to stimuli similarly.

I realize that your religious obscurantism will not let you accept that Man is not uniquely created in God’s image but that's your problem. All the evidence indicates that we are not unique…religious dogma notwithstanding.

Tass just stop, please! Why aren't the other two choices just as likely? Give a rational reason. See once again, if "science say" Tass believes it, whether there is good reason or not.

[seer]

Nonsense! There is no need to get a deity because there is no good reason to have a deity in the picture. Why would one believe in religious myths and legends when scientific methodology is better equipped to acquire factual knowledge?

Then prove a natural origin for this universe.


Then where is you physical evidence?

[JimL]

Then prove a natural origin for this universe.

As you well know, we don't have objective proof for the origin of the natural world, we only have objective proof of its existence. Do you have objective proof, or even objective evidence, of a supernatural existence? No, of course you don't. Therein seer lies the difference in the reasonable nature of our beliefs. We only have objective evidence of nature, none, nada, nil, zilch, zero objective evidence for super-nature.

Then where is you physical evidence?

Theoretical science is evidence, not proof, but evidence of a possible multi-verse, which is something that your belief in a creator is lacking.

[JimL]

Tass just stop, please! Why aren't the other two choices just as likely? Give a rational reason. See once again, if "science say" Tass believes it, whether there is good reason or not.

Seer, you need to read up on the science instead of jumping to uneducated conclusions based solely upon your world view. I suggest you read "Consciousness and the Brain" by Stanislas Dehaene. It isn't because the "science says so" that we believe it, it is because the science makes sense that we believe it.

[Truthseeker]

Sigh!

That is the fallacy of expressing frustration.



I doubt you need the adjective "scientific" before "inference."

[Jaecp]

It's redundant, sure, but the last time I checked Seer was still calling inference an assumption.

It's baffling, in a way that really isn't, that someone this bad at understanding science can't even get the terms straight, but still wants to argue the point long after his response patterns sum up to "no you"

[Tassman]

Tass just stop, please! Why aren't the other two choices just as likely? Give a rational reason. See once again, if "science say" Tass believes it, whether there is good reason or not.

is

Then prove a natural origin for this universe.

Why don't you "prove" a non-naturalother than a natural universe and certainly no substantive evidence that it was created by a deity.

Then where is your physical evidence?

"have no basis in reality",

That is the fallacy of expressing frustration.

No, just "frustration", I'll leave the logical fallacies to seer.

I doubt you need the adjective "scientific" before "inference."

One doesn't really, but it needs to be emphasised that "inference" is an essential component of science, given seer's tendency to dismiss it as a valid scientific tool .

[seer]

It's redundant, sure, but the last time I checked Seer was still calling inference an assumption.

It's baffling, in a way that really isn't, that someone this bad at understanding science can't even get the terms straight, but still wants to argue the point long after his response patterns sum up to "no you"

Then Jaecp, answer my question. I don't care if you use inference or assumption. Why "infer" a sense of fairness as opposed to the other options? And to do so would be an assumption.

The monkey had a sense of fairness.

The monkey had a sense of envy.

The monkey had an instinctive preference for grapes over cucumbers.

[seer]

is

What is the good reason Tass? Why believe the monkey has a sense of fairness, rather than a sense of envy? Or just instinctively prefers grapes over cucumbers. Please explain your good reason.

Let me ask you something Tass, if the monkeys were given grapes instead of cucumbers for their tasks, then one was given the standard grape and the other a cucumber at one point - do you think the monkey getting the grape would get upset and throw the grape away and demand a cucumber? I think we both know the answer. Monkeys prefer grapes.

[seer]

Seer, you need to read up on the science instead of jumping to uneducated conclusions based solely upon your world view. I suggest you read "Consciousness and the Brain" by Stanislas Dehaene. It isn't because the "science says so" that we believe it, it is because the science makes sense that we believe it.

Jim, I'm speaking of a particular experiment and the unfounded conclusions offered. Perhaps you would like to preset a direct answer to my question - no one else seems to want to.


And you people need to read studies that counter the work of de Waal. Making some of some of that same point that I have.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1837.full

Traditional models of economic decision-making assume that people are self-interested rational maximizers. Empirical research has demonstrated, however, that people will take into account the interests of others and are sensitive to norms of cooperation and fairness. In one of the most robust tests of this finding, the ultimatum game, individuals will reject a proposed division of a monetary windfall, at a cost to themselves, if they perceive it as unfair. Here we show that in an ultimatum game, humans' closest living relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), are rational maximizers and are not sensitive to fairness. These results support the hypothesis that other-regarding preferences and aversion to inequitable outcomes, which play key roles in human social organization, distinguish us from our closest living relatives.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5847/107.abstract

[JimL]

Jim, I'm speaking of a particular experiment and the unfounded conclusions offered. Perhaps you would like to preset a direct answer to my question - no one else seems to want to.


And you people need to read studies that counter the work of de Waal. Making some of some of that same point that I have.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1837.full



http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5847/107.abstract

Seer, the article itself calls the chimpanzees "rational maximizers". The key word here for purposes of this discussion is "rational". The degree to which they are rational, or the degree to which they are moral in comparison to humans is irrelevant since the former has to do with inherent cognative ability, the latter does not.

[seer]

Seer, the article itself calls the chimpanzees "rational maximizers". The key word here for purposes of this discussion is "rational". The degree to which they are rational, or the degree to which they are moral in comparison to humans is irrelevant since the former has to do with inherent cognative ability, the latter does not.

Jim, rational maximizers just means that they are extremely selfish. Sheesh! And that they are not sensitive to issues of "fairness." As Tass, has been asserting.

[JimL]

Jim, rational maximizers just means that they are extremely selfish. Sheesh! And that they are not sensitive to issues of "fairness." As Tass, has been asserting.

Seer, weren't you the one who went on and on about the proper definition and use of words, "rational" being the word in question at the time, a while back in this thread. Humans are rational maximizers as well. So what. This discussion has gone way of course anyway. It is about whether or not animals have the cognative ability to know what they are doing when when they are doing it. Behavioral studies, over and over again, show that they do. Whether they are moral or not, or to what degree they are moral, is irrelevant as to whether or not they are to a certain degree rational.
BTW, there are many studies out there that show animals to be moral and express emotion and empathy as well. Rheses monkeys for instance refused to press a button to recieve food once they learned that to do so would electrically shock another monkey. This shows both the ability to reason, as well as an inherent empathy for the other.

[Tassman]

What is the good reason Tass? Why believe the monkey has a sense of fairness, rather than a sense of envy? Or just instinctively prefers grapes over cucumbers. Please explain your good reason.

http://chrisstedman.religionnews.com...hout-religion/ The argument is by just what degree our simian cousins are different.

Jim, rational maximizers just means that they are extremely selfish.