A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Tassman]

Tass, I never said antecedent condition never play a roll, but that they are not necessarily determinate, that we still can make contrary choices. But that does not change the fact that when you rail against Trump and others you are railing against nature.

If you acknowledge that antecedent conditions play a role then what you're advocating is compatibilism, which I am in agreement with, not Libertarian Free-Will. So drop your dishonest pretence that I'm promoting 'fatalism'.

[Tassman]

I understand the notion of a precursor. What part of interpretation do you not understand? Of course higher animals are going to have traits that look like altruism, empathy and gratitude. Higher organisms share the same biology and some degree of moral apprehension is necessarily identified and mapped out in physical functions and expressions, even in dualist models. So of course there are similarities--real or imagined--in the behaviors of higher animals and humans. The issue is [in linguistic terms] a matter of interpretation.

because this is what they are. The fact that they operate at a purely instinctive level does not make them less real. The human animal has the necessary intelligence to codify such instincts into a moral system, whereas the lesser primates do not. But the behaviour has the same natural origin.

Those whose agenda is to show a natural cause for morality are going to accept and interpret information that fits that view. Same on the other side of the coin.

I suppose it never occurs to a theist conspiracy theorist that primatologists and ethologists are merely investigating animal behaviour for the sake of advancing knowledge.

The salient points imo are, 1) There are plenty of credible reports available of the controversial nature of decades-long attempts to place morality--precursory or otherwise--in higher animals, 2) there is an obvious commitment by a largely secular scientific community of energy and resources to "proving" their naturalist worldview, and 3) the bias and motivation that naturally attaches to such commitments is reasonably explained by the spiritual mechanics of the Christian worldview provided in earlier posts. Secularism uses "natural" psychological reasons to explain away religious commitment while the theology of a value-driven motivation attests to what drives the psychological mechanism itself. The real precursor in these matters is more rationally and coherently explained from the theological view.

The precursor in these matters is NOT

[seer]

If you acknowledge that antecedent conditions play a role then what you're advocating is compatibilism, which I am in agreement with, not Libertarian Free-Will. So drop your dishonest pretence that I'm promoting 'fatalism'.

No, I'm not advocating compatibilism, I'm advocating the ability to do otherwise. You do realize that not all Compatibilists believe that we have the ability to do otherwise? I quoted and linked Dennett in one of these threads - he does not believe we have the ability to do otherwise. And since when did you become a Compatibilist?

[shunyadragon]

No, I'm not advocating compatibilism, I'm advocating the ability to do otherwise. You do realize that not all Compatibilists believe that we have the ability to do otherwise? I quoted and linked Dennett in one of these threads - he does not believe we have the ability to do otherwise. And since when did you become a Compatibilist?

It depends on how you define 'the ability to do otherwise.' You cannot selectively cite Dennett and believe you are defining all the variations of compatabilism, nor does it accurately describe Dennett's view of human ability to make limited choices. I am a compatabilist, and believe that people can make choices and have 'the ability to do otherwise,' but within a limited range of possible choices due to the limits set by the compatibilist definition for the influences of determinism. Please note you said; 'not all Compatibilists believe that we have the ability to do otherwise . . .'

From the libertarian free will perspective you would reject most influence of determinism in human free will choices.

[seer]

It depends on how you define 'the ability to do otherwise.' You cannot selectively cite Dennett and believe you are defining all the variations of compatabilism, nor does it accurately describe Dennett's view of human ability to make limited choices. I am a compatabilist, and believe that people can make choices and have 'the ability to do otherwise,' but within a limited range of possible choices due to the limits set by the compatibilist definition for the influences of determinism. Please note you said; 'not all Compatibilists believe that we have the ability to do otherwise . . .'

From the libertarian free will perspective you would reject most influence of determinism in human free will choices.

Stop lying Shuny, I linked directly to Dennett's paper, he does not believe we can do otherwise - period. And no I do not believe we can be both determined and free - that is a contradiction.

[shunyadragon]

Stop lying Shuny, I linked directly to Dennett's paper, he does not believe we can do otherwise - period. And no I do not believe we can be both determined and free - that is a contradiction.

As I said before Dennett DOES NOT define all the different forms of compatabilism. I agree with some of things Dennett proposes concerning compatabiism, but not all.

I am a compatabilist, and believe that people can make choices and have 'the ability to do otherwise,' but within a limited range of possible choices due to the limits set by the compatibilist definition for the influences of determinism. Please note you said; 'not all Compatibilists believe that we have the ability to do otherwise . . .'

From the libertarian free will perspective you would reject most influence of determinism in human free will choices.

[seer]

As I said before Dennett DOES NOT define all the different forms of compatabilism. I agree with some of things Dennett proposes concerning compatabiism, but not all.

Right and all those who believe in LFW don't believe the same.

I am a compatabilist, and believe that people can make choices and have 'the ability to do otherwise,' but within a limited range of possible choices due to the limits set by the compatibilist definition for the influences of determinism. Please note you said; 'not all Compatibilists believe that we have the ability to do otherwise . . .'

From the libertarian free will perspective you would reject most influence of determinism in human free will choices.

No Shuny, we don't all think alike, I said that antecedent conditions play a role, or have influence, but do not determine the outcome.

[shunyadragon]

Right and all those who believe in LFW don't believe the same.

True, but in general most believers in LFW believe the limits on Free Will are physical limits on will as you offered as exceptions earlier.

No Shuny, we don't all think alike, I said that antecedent conditions play a role, or have influence, but do not determine the outcome.

If antecedent conditions determined all outcomes it would be strict determinism. Compatabilism proposes that antecedent conditions do limit the range of possible choices, and 'the ability to do otherwise.' I believe the problem lies in to what degree our choices that are limited by antecedent conditions including the ability to do otherwise in a limited way. Based on the evidence humans cannot determine when their choice is a free will decision and to what degree the choices are limited.

At minimum I believe in Dennett's possible 'wiggle room' to make choices within the context of a greater determinism. I believe there are more possibilities than just 'wiggle room,' but the degree of possible choices varies and is open to interpretation.

[Anomaly]

I don't disagree that evolution could produce precursory traits. Disagreement is in your interpretation traits, therefore physicalism. There is nothing in morality and abstraction that resembles material interactions. If there were, we wouldn't be participating in a thread designed to extract moral reasons from descriptive reality. We don't find them because epistemic boundaries here (as in all such dialog) are too tightly drawn, resulting in the circularity of insisting on answers from the one realm they don't exist. This aspect of the hard problem is still firmly unresolved.

I suppose it never occurs to a theist conspiracy theorist that primatologists and ethologists are merely investigating animal behaviour for the sake of advancing knowledge.

Behold the ever-present circularity of the naturalist. Theist explanations can't be true because I don't want and refuse to accept evidence that God exists. How is this any better than the Christian who says something is true because the Bible says it is? The main thing is, assertions of a 'done deal' that morality exists in higher animals is still highly controversial and not approaching anything like fact.

[Tassman]

I don't disagree that evolution could produce precursory traits.

I don't know...if I find a theist conspiracy theorist I'll ask her and get back to you. Of course some scientists seek unbiased answers.

So condescending! Most scientists seek unbiased answers; their goal is the acquisition of knowledge, not promoting an anti-theist agenda. They've got better things to do.

Behold the ever-present circularity of the naturalist. Theist explanations can't be true because I don't want and refuse to accept evidence that God exists.

How is this any better than the Christian who says something is true because the Bible says it is? The main thing is, assertions of a 'done deal' that morality exists in higher animals is still highly controversial and not approaching anything like fact.

[Anomaly]

Seems to me the reason you arrive at this...

So condescending! Most scientists seek unbiased answers; their goal is the acquisition of knowledge, not promoting an anti-theist agenda. They've got better things to do.

....is this....
The former expresses an opinion that naturally flows from the naivety of the latter. Prescriptive truth is the most powerful component in intellectual operation and human behavior. This kind of truth has nothing to do with factual truth except for the fact that it happens to reside in material configurations of humanity. To accept the relatively deterministic operations in intelligence and conduct of the higher animals produces narrow responses like the above. Bias is everywhere, a purely objective pursuit in any domain of learning including science is the stuff of fairy tales my friend.

God doesn't exist, therefore evidence for God's existence cannot exist, therefore arguments for God are invalid. This is circular. It's also an intuitively based statement which contradicts the intuitive evidences most atheists say are invalid for theists to use of their belief in God.

No-one is asserting that morality exists in higher animals, why do you continually misrepresent the argument? Once again: Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behavior, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion.

First, the argument that moral traits in animals = naturalist explanation of morality in humans presupposes the difference between them and us is one of degree, not kind. If so, then you stand corrected and the naturalist does in fact argue for morality--not identical to humans, but the same thing on a smaller scale--in animals. Second, a simple Google search reveals that the controversy is very often framed in the question of whether or not animals possess moral thoughts and express moral behaviors. You may not have stated the words explicitly but you might consider being intellectually honest and admit that you conveyed them implicitly, Tassman.

Despite your allusion to the contrary, research that attempts to place human morality proceeding entirely from a naturalistic evolutionary basis remains highly controversial and unproven today.

[Tassman]

Seems to me the reason you arrive at this...

....is this....

The former expresses an opinion that naturally flows from the naivety of the latter. Prescriptive truth is the most powerful component in intellectual operation and human behavior. This kind of truth has nothing to do with factual truth except for the fact that it happens to reside in material configurations of humanity. To accept the relatively deterministic operations in intelligence and conduct of the higher animals produces narrow responses like the above. Bias is everywhere, a purely objective pursuit in any domain of learning including science is the stuff of fairy tales my friend.

God doesn't exist, therefore evidence for God's existence cannot exist, therefore arguments for God are invalid. This is circular. It's also an intuitively based statement which contradicts the intuitive evidences most atheists say are invalid for theists to use of their belief in God.

First, the argument that moral traits in animals = naturalist explanation of morality in humans presupposes the difference between them and us is one of degree, not kind.

Correct! You have no substantive reason to think otherwise.

If so, then you stand corrected and the naturalist does in fact argue for morality--not identical to humans, but the same thing on a smaller scale--in animals. Second, a simple Google search reveals that the controversy is very often framed in the question of whether or not animals possess moral thoughts and express moral behaviors. You may not have stated the words explicitly but you might consider being intellectually honest and admit that you conveyed them implicitly, Tassman.

Nope I did not. The precursors to human morality are purely instinctive among the other primates. Only the human primate has the necessary intelligence to codify them into a formal system of moral law.

[seer]

Nope I did not. The precursors to human morality are purely instinctive among the other primates.

You mean the instincts to rape and steal and use violence to dominate?

[shunyadragon]

You mean the instincts to rape and steal and use violence to dominate?

Rape, theft and violence is more predominant in human cultures than other primates.

[shunyadragon]

Nope I did not. The precursors to human morality are purely instinctive among the other primates.

I believe the precursors of human and primate morality and ethics in the evolution of instinctive behavior, but 'being purely instinctive' is an over simplification. There is sufficient evidence that though simpler morality and ethics in primates, they are sufficiently similar to human morality and ethics that such clear distinction cannot be made.