A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[seer]

You are assuming without supporting evidence the existence of souls, and the existence of God. The demonstrable fact is that we have developed ethically and the same applies to the behaviour of the other primates and higher intelligent mammals. They too have acceptable and unacceptable rules of behaviour, which is the precursor of a moral system. Clearly this is the consequence of naturalism.

Nonsense Tass, we have not developed like monkeys. Where is the monkey Plato? 14,000 years or so ago there was no known written language, primitive tools, primitive cave drawings, primitive dwellings, if any - we went from that to landing men on the moon. In the blink of a geological eye. Besides I was speaking to Shuny about the soul.

[Anomaly]

'As far as you know' does not reflect the evidence that other higher mammals as having documented primitive morals and ethics. They following is a little long because you repeatedly reject or avoid the actual objective verifiable evidence offered in previous threads with many references:

Scientists have been trying to "find" moral and rational properties in the higher animals for decades. How convincing should the evidence for moral behavior in animals be when it's conducted by people specifically looking for it? If moral properties are so apparent in brutes, why--after decades of sifting through data--are biologists just now "finding" it when those in other disciplines appear to have come up with nothing?

Practical evidence from life lessons is sufficient to inform those with common sense. Animals have no intellectual capabilities. Because all animals possess behaviors, if one studies them long enough looking for evidence of moral or rational properties, one will certainly find something that looks like them--if not in actuality at least by imposing the moral capacity of humans on behaviors that look similar in chimps or gorillas.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, we have not developed like monkeys. Where is the monkey Plato? 14,000 years or so ago

Where was the Stone Age Man Plato, or the Neanderthal Plato or the Homo erectus Plato or the Plato of ANY of the human species that coexisted on this planet 100,000 years ago?

there was no known written language, primitive tools, primitive cave drawings, primitive dwellings, if any - we went from that to landing men on the moon. In the blink of a geological eye.

That says no more than modern humans are more intelligent and capable of greater intellectual development than chimpanzees, just as chimpanzees are more intelligent and capable of greater intellectual development than monkeys...and so on down the evolutionary chain.

[Tassman]

Scientists have been trying to "find" moral and rational properties in the higher animals for decades. How convincing should the evidence for moral behavior in animals be when it's conducted by people specifically looking for it? If moral properties are so apparent in brutes, why--after decades of sifting through data--are biologists just now "finding" it when those in other disciplines appear to have come up with nothing?

[seer]

Where was the Stone Age Man Plato, or the Neanderthal Plato or the Homo erectus Plato or the Plato of ANY of the human species that coexisted on this planet 100,000 years ago?

That is the point Tass, homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years - and up to a few thousand years ago - basically nothing. Then we exploded, written language, architecture, art, religion, codified law.

That says no more than modern humans are more intelligent and capable of greater intellectual development than chimpanzees, just as chimpanzees are more intelligent and capable of greater intellectual development than monkeys...and so on down the evolutionary chain.

Yet for around the first 190,000 years of human existence we only had primitive expressions, not much higher than that of the brutes. We have accomplished more in 12-14,000 years than our ancestors did in 190,000 years. And no monkeys don't sit around contemplating Plato, and never will. Which means they do not think conceptually, which takes sophisticated language, which is necessary for moral reasoning, mere instinct does not get us there. So instinct can not be the basis for human ethics.

[seer]

You are reading human motives and ideals into animals. I doubt that monkey Bob is thinking, if I share my banana with monkey Joe, monkey Joe will share his banana with me tomorrow. Never mind the fact that monkey Joe is just as likely to steal monkey Bob's banana.

[Anomaly]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ty-not-animals

[seer]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ty-not-animals

Thanks for link Anomaly, good stuff!

[seer]

See above re genetic predisposition, instinct and higher intelligence accounting for the development of moral reasoning over time.

No Tass, does not chance the fact. You rail against white supremacists, Trump, neo-nazis, etc... yet, as you said, natural selection determined who and what we are. So when you rail against these men you are, at bottom, railing against nature, what nature created. So again, why do you hate nature so much.

[Tassman]

While some lower level psychological qualities have been documented in higher animals that are shared with humans, bold claims of their possessing morality in anything like the same sense found in humans always has been and remains today highly controversial, theoretical and largely unproven.

PRECURSORS do you not understand?

What your inclusion of such a dubious reference illustrates is the lengths those whose agenda is promote a supernatural origin for moral behaviours are willing to go. There is no credible evidence that human morality is the result of divine revelation. This is an act of faith. OTOH there is documented, observable evidence of higher primates displaying altruism, empathy, and gratitude within their communities. And, since these things all underpin moral behaviour they can be reasonably viewed as the precursors of human morality...especially given that we share similar brain biology and have similar needs as social animals.

[Tassman]

No Tass, does not chance the fact. You rail against white supremacists, Trump, neo-nazis, etc... yet, as you said, natural selection determined who and what we are. So when you rail against these men you are, at bottom, railing against nature, what nature created. So again, why do you hate nature so much.

If you accept, as you claim, that antecedent forces have a role in our decision-making processes then what you tout as Libertarian free will is in fact compatabilism, with which I have no quarrel. I have said this several times. OTOH, if you're touting LFW as the concept that man is an autonomous being, who operates independently of any antecedent forces then this is logically incoherent. So which is the position that you are supporting?

[seer]

If you accept, as you claim, that antecedent forces have a role in our decision-making processes then what you tout as Libertarian free will is in fact compatabilism, with which I have no quarrel. I have said this several times. OTOH, if you're touting LFW as the concept that man is an autonomous being, who operates independently of any antecedent forces then this is logically incoherent. So which is the position that you are supporting?

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.

[Charles]

You are reading human motives and ideals into animals. I doubt that monkey Bob is thinking, if I share my banana with monkey Joe, monkey Joe will share his banana with me tomorrow. Never mind the fact that monkey Joe is just as likely to steal monkey Bob's banana.

If "[...]monkey Bob is thinking, if I share my banana with monkey Joe, monkey Joe will share his banana with me tomorrow." then that is not really ethical thinking anyway, so your constructed example does not get you very far which seems to be on purpose. But it remindend me of a funny quote by Nietzsche: "Principle of "Christian love": it insists upon being well paid in the end."

[seer]

If "[...]monkey Bob is thinking, if I share my banana with monkey Joe, monkey Joe will share his banana with me tomorrow." then that is not really ethical thinking anyway, so your constructed example does not get you very far which seems to be on purpose. But it remindend me of a funny quote by Nietzsche: "Principle of "Christian love": it insists upon being well paid in the end."

It is rational reciprocity and "altruism" is seldom pure. And re-read my quote from Lewis in my signature, if being united with the thing you love is being well paid then I guess we are.

[Anomaly]

What your inclusion of such a dubious reference illustrates is the lengths those whose agenda is promote a supernatural origin for moral behaviours are willing to go. There is no credible evidence that human morality is the result of divine revelation. This is an act of faith. OTOH there is documented, observable evidence of higher primates displaying altruism, empathy, and gratitude within their communities. And, since these things all underpin moral behaviour they can be reasonably viewed as the precursors of human morality...especially given that we share similar brain biology and have similar needs as social animals.

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. 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.

Assuming the "dubious reference" was the bit about the person claiming the gorilla was baited until it "showed" empathy, I noted in last post couldn't remember the source and presented it as such. There is also a link to an account that lends credence to the story of this sort of manipulation by those pursuing an agenda. I hope you're not pretending the scientific community is pure as the driven snow in their individual or collective ethics, Tassman.

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.