Secular Morality?

[Jaecp]

Rationality and consciousness may not be necessary to survival but having an awareness of the world of how the world functions and the ability to make rational decisions about how to successfully live in such a world is a definite advantage. If such qualities were detrimental to survival they would have been bred out.

But it not a definite advantage since many creatures that have neither rationality nor consciousness and survive just fine, some survive better than us. Your argument holds no water Tass no matter how may ways you say it.

Seer, your response here talks past Tass's point.

That creatures without those qualities survive is not an issue. Everyone knows that.

The point made is that rationality and consciousness are an advantage. Do you think humans would have invented the Apollo program without them? How many tigers plan for retirement? None, of course. They simply hunt and breed until they get old and something finishes them off. Humanity having those two qualities is largely why we're able to be having this conversation from the comfort of our own homes, with a fantastic life expectancy while having had a dinner that could have been culled from any of the cuisines of thousands of peoples using foods that aren't native to within a thousand miles.

The fruits of rationality and consciousness are all around us. I'd bet good money you've tasted them.

[Tassman]

But it not a definite advantage since many creatures that have neither rationality nor consciousness and survive just fine, some survive better than us. Your argument holds no water Tass no matter how may ways you say it.

necessary to survival, but they demonstrably assist it. If these qualities had been detrimental to survival they would have been bred out OR led to extinction.

Tass I have no reason to assume that a monkey for instance is rational in the sense that we are. That they just don't act from pure instinct. Our rationality involves deliberation, complex language, the understanding of long term consequences of actions and choices.

This is just silly Tass. You can't know of the inner mental life of a monkey, they may be self-aware but you don't know that it is anything like ours. And what do you mean my morality? That monkeys understand ethical theories?

any creature, seer, including your fellow humans. One can only arrive at conclusions via observations, comparisons and tests.

As for morality, all the primates clearly have notions of good and bad behaviour, if not ethical theories, but neither did Homo sapiens for most of human history. I very much doubt you'd have got much by way of "ethical theory" from the average cave-man.

And how is this any more than instinct? And again, as a human being I can choose to reject the food that was given unfairly or I can choose to ignore the unfairness and take the food. So we are different. BTW - starve this monkey for a week and see if it rejects the cucumber. Also, all your link shows is that the monkey rejects the cucumber is envious and greedy.

Would you please show us a way to scientifically measure this sort of awareness in any creature?

Observation is as good a way as any to determine whether or not a creature is aware and responsive to its surroundings.

[seer]

Yes, cockroaches have survived longer than us but their quality of life is, I fear, somewhat compromised. But that’s just me.

Rationality and consciousness may not be necessary to survival, but they demonstrably assist it. If these qualities had been detrimental to survival they would have been bred out OR led to extinction.

But in post #484 you tied rationality directly to survival. I'm glad you finally agree that it is not necessary.

Of course our simian cousins are not rational in the same sense that we are, nor are they as intelligent, which is the point. But their basic instincts regarding right and wrong are demonstrably similar and the precursors of human morality are found among the other primates. In short we’re highly intelligent apes. Why would you think differently?

They have no clue about right or wrong. They just act on instinct. When an alpha male takes the female and food from a beta male is that right or wrong? This whole line of reasoning is just silly.

You can’t know the inner mental life of any creature, seer, including your fellow humans. One can only arrive at conclusions via observations, comparisons and tests.

That is correct so stop assuming you know what a monkey is thinking about, stop assuming that you know his motives.

As for morality, all the primates clearly have notions of good and bad behaviour, if not ethical theories, but neither did Homo sapiens for most of human history. I very much doubt you'd have got much by way of "ethical theory" from the average cave-man.

Again, we have no idea what cave men did or did not know along these lines. And stop assuming that you have any understanding of the "notions" of apes. Again, when an alpha male takes the food and female from a beta male does he think that is wrong behavior?

…and of course human beings are never “envious and greedy”.

Interesting that you readily recognized these familiar human traits; our fellow apes are not so different from us after all are they?

No Tass, this whole line of reasoning is specious. You claimed that this experiment showed that monkeys had a sense of fairness, that was just a silly conclusion. We do not know their motives or that they are acting on any more than instinct .

[seer]

Seer, your response here talks past Tass's point.

That creatures without those qualities survive is not an issue. Everyone knows that.

The point made is that rationality and consciousness are an advantage. Do you think humans would have invented the Apollo program without them? How many tigers plan for retirement? None, of course. They simply hunt and breed until they get old and something finishes them off. Humanity having those two qualities is largely why we're able to be having this conversation from the comfort of our own homes, with a fantastic life expectancy while having had a dinner that could have been culled from any of the cuisines of thousands of peoples using foods that aren't native to within a thousand miles.

The fruits of rationality and consciousness are all around us. I'd bet good money you've tasted them.

But they are not an advantage for survival. I'm sure monkeys in their trees are quite content. And we all die in the end, ape and man. And one could argue that our intelligence might actually lead to our extinction. So, in the end, it may not be an advantage at all. There is certainly no evolutionary reason for either rationality and consciousness.

[shunyadragon]

But they are not an advantage for survival. I'm sure monkeys in their trees are quite content. And we all die in the end, ape and man. And one could argue that our intelligence might actually lead to our extinction. So, in the end, it may not be an advantage at all. There is certainly no evolutionary reason for either rationality and consciousness.

I do not believe you have the qualifications in the sciences related to animal and human behavior to comment anecdotally on what behavior has a survival value or not. It does not help that you basically reject the related sciences.

[shunyadragon]

Suppose it depends on the axioms in question and whether those axioms line up better than the other guys axioms

-Hey,

J

My axiom is bigger then your axiom.

[seer]

I do not believe you have the qualifications in the sciences related to animal and human behavior to comment anecdotally on what behavior has a survival value or not. It does not help that you basically reject the related sciences.

And this coming from a pretend "scientist..."

[shunyadragon]

And this coming from a pretend "scientist..."

Back up that false accusation or if not you are a liar. Glenn Morton can attest to my qualifications as a professional geologist as long time friend

Again. what are your qualifications to make that claim?

[seer]

Back up that false accusation or if not you are a liar. Glenn Morton can attest to my qualifications as a professional geologist as long time friend

Really Shuny? What are your qualifications? What is your degree? In what discipline? What peer revived papers have you written? Can you link them?

Again. what are your qualifications to make that claim?

What are your qualification to speak on philosophical issues? Biological issues? Issues concerning Cosmology? Are you degreed in any of these? Yet you speak on these issue all the time.

[Jaecp]

My axiom is bigger then your axiom.

Lol, I dont know how to respond to this

[Jaecp]

But they are not an advantage for survival. I'm sure monkeys in their trees are quite content. And we all die in the end, ape and man. And one could argue that our intelligence might actually lead to our extinction. So, in the end, it may not be an advantage at all. There is certainly no evolutionary reason for either rationality and consciousness.

You're evading the point with irrelevant comments about how content monkeys are. Who cares if we all die in the end? Our rationality, consciousness and intelligence is an obvious advantage over creatures that operate off of instinct, creatures incapable of true long term planning.

If you'd like to argue that our intelligence might lead to our extinction, go for it. Plenty of species, intelligent or not, have gone extinct for all kinds of reasons. Humans are uniquely equipped to stave off the disease, famine and other issues that plague unthinking creatures. Why do you think we're the top of the food chain?

As to their being no evolutionary reason. Good luck demonstrating that.

Oh, and I already listed a decent number of examples and contrasts (apollo program, tiger retirement, tasty food from all over the world)

If you are unable, or unwilling, to engage with concrete examples of advantages born from the fruits of intelligence how do you hope to competently argue here?

While we're here, have 4 more examples of the survival benefits re: intelligence

Polio sucks. Good thing we're self aware and can cure that.

Man it gets cold/hot/wet/dry in vastly disparate parts of earth. Good thing humans, unlike other animals, have figured out how to survive in ways that our natural bodies would get straight destroyed in.

Nutritional deficiencies are a huge problem world wide, good thing we've got boats full of banana's, oranges, and the like to allow us to have a fuller diet, worldwide, compared to having to deal with only the food thats just around us.

Oh man, timmie fell down a well and broke his leg. If we were some sort of animal we'd have no ability to fix that (survive) and even if our bodies healed then the legacy of that injury would make it easy enough for the next predator to finish us off or make it hard to take down prey.

Who gives a damn about the evolutionary basis of intelligence? The benefits of it are legion. I could list examples of how intelligence in humans has solved a problem that unintelligent being are plagued with all day. Literally, the examples are nigh endless

[seer]

You're evading the point with irrelevant comments about how content monkeys are. Who cares if we all die in the end? Our rationality, consciousness and intelligence is an obvious advantage over creatures that operate off of instinct, creatures incapable of true long term planning.

If you'd like to argue that our intelligence might lead to our extinction, go for it. Plenty of species, intelligent or not, have gone extinct for all kinds of reasons. Humans are uniquely equipped to stave off the disease, famine and other issues that plague unthinking creatures. Why do you think we're the top of the food chain?

As to their being no evolutionary reason. Good luck demonstrating that.

Oh, and I already listed a decent number of examples and contrasts (apollo program, tiger retirement, tasty food from all over the world)

If you are unable, or unwilling, to engage with concrete examples of advantages born from the fruits of intelligence how do you hope to competently argue here?

While we're here, have 4 more examples of the survival benefits re: intelligence

Polio sucks. Good thing we're self aware and can cure that.

Man it gets cold/hot/wet/dry in vastly disparate parts of earth. Good thing humans, unlike other animals, have figured out how to survive in ways that our natural bodies would get straight destroyed in.

Nutritional deficiencies are a huge problem world wide, good thing we've got boats full of banana's, oranges, and the like to allow us to have a fuller diet, worldwide, compared to having to deal with only the food thats just around us.

Oh man, timmie fell down a well and broke his leg. If we were some sort of animal we'd have no ability to fix that (survive) and even if our bodies healed then the legacy of that injury would make it easy enough for the next predator to finish us off or make it hard to take down prey.

Who gives a damn about the evolutionary basis of intelligence? The benefits of it are legion. I could list examples of how intelligence in humans has solved a problem that unintelligent being are plagued with all day. Literally, the examples are nigh endless

Yes and our intellect has given us the power to completely destroy mankind. Let me ask you has our intelligence been good over all for the planet or bad?

[Jaecp]

You're moving the goalposts from survival benefits of mankind to whether our intelligence is beneficial to the planet. Bad form, seer. Moving the goal posts is a tacit admission that your original point that intelligence et al. doesn't benefit survival is wrong.

Are you willing to concede the point and then move onward to something else? If so, great, we can talk about that something else. If not? How good do you think it makes you look when you claim that there are not advantages to intelligence when we've eradicated numerous diseases and working on numerous more? Those happy monkeys lay bleeding on the jungle floor from problems that can be solved by a trip to the local pharmacy.

[Leonhard]

As much as I disagree with Jaecp's main existential thesis seer, he's got you there. Proving that there's no survival advantage to intelligence is going to be quite an uphill battle. If there were none, it would be a miracle why we exist at all.

[seer]

You're moving the goalposts from survival benefits of mankind to whether our intelligence is beneficial to the planet. Bad form, seer. Moving the goal posts is a tacit admission that your original point that intelligence et al. doesn't benefit survival is wrong.

No Homer, I said that neither rationality or consciousness are necessary for survival. That is a fact. As to whether these are a benefit to human survival in the long run is an open ended question that can not be answered. It may be our intelligence that causes us one day to destroy ourselves. Just look at the tens of millions killed in the last century because of the technology of modern warfare. No, you have no argument.