The Ethics of Intelligent Design
by MikeGeneThe following essay was written by Thought Provoker and the views/arguments contained within do not necessarily reflect the views of Mike Gene. Mike Gene hosts such essays simply to provoke thought and promote discussion and communication.
I am a critic of the Intelligent Design Movement. I am also a supporter of Intelligent Design science. In the past MikeGene has indicated this makes me "rather unique". Another "rather unique" aspect to my thinking is that I separate the concepts of "ethics" and "morality".
Plenty of people have told me the terms mean the exact same thing. I suspect dictionary definitions and word origins would generally support their contention, but I still offer there is a dichotomy. Here is a question that might help expose the dichotomy I see"¦
Is morality defined by God, or do practical ethics guide our behavior?
I suggest the answer is both, with morality being a metaphysical Truth and ethics being a scientific observation. For the reasons outlined by Gould's NOMA, I consider the two concepts separate.
For more examples of the paradoxical (and separate) nature of the two, consider"¦
Ethical prostitution
Ethical homosexuality
Ethical infanticide
In short, ethical immorality. If ethics and morality are the same thing, none of these examples should make sense (unless you think prostitution, homosexuality or infanticide is moral).
Ethical prostitutes exist and operate legally in Nevada. They engage in contracts for services rendered and honor those contracts. Homosexuality was expected and supported among Spartan warriors who prided themselves on adhering to their ethical duties. One of those ethical duties was to kill newborns that wouldn't make for good Spartan Warriors.
Absolute morality would be the same for all cultures past and present. I believe that if there is an absolute morality, it is metaphysical and separate from scientific study (although subject to philosophical discussion).
On the other hand, ethics can be, and has been, subjected to scientific study.
I consider Game Theory to be applicable to understanding ethical behavior. Game theory deals with the concept of cooperative and non-cooperative interactions. The typical situation is that if all (or most) players cooperate then everyone wins but the non-cooperative player is rewarded for misbehavior unless all (or most) of the other players also misbehave.
It turns out winning strategies for an individual player (even an ARROGANT one) is to mostly cooperate and punish misbehavior by responding with non-cooperation.
I suggest it is obvious that Game Theory demonstrates a rational for everyday occurrences. We instinctively respond to misbehavior with non-cooperation and, sometimes, aggression. We will even do this to our own individual detriment.
However, in order to respond to misbehavior, we need to be able to detect misbehavior. Consider the following problem"¦
Ebbinghaus disease was recently identified and is not yet well understood. So an international committee of physicians who have experience with this disease were assembled. Their goal was to characterize the symptoms, and develop surefire ways of diagnosing it.
Patients afflicted with Ebbinghaus disease have many different symptoms: nose bleeds, headaches, ringing in the ears, and others. Diagnosing it is difficult because a patient may have the disease, yet not manifest all of the symptoms. Dr. Buchner, an expert on the disease, said that the following rule holds:
"If a person has Ebbinghaus disease, then that person will be forgetful."
Dr. Buchner may be wrong, however. You are interested in seeing whether there are any patients whose symptoms violate this rule. There are four individual patents with the following incomplete information, you may ask for more information on two of them. Which two do you question?TOM "“ Has Ebbinghaus disease
DICK "“ Doesn't have Ebbinghaus disease
HARRY "“ Is forgetful
SUE "“ Is not forgetful
Now consider this problem"¦
Teenagers who don't have their own cars usually end up borrowing their parents' cars. In return for the privilege of borrowing the car, the Carter 's have given their kids the rule,
"If you borrow my car, then you have to fill up the tank with gas."
Of course, teenagers are sometimes irresponsible. You are interested in seeing whether any of the Carter teenagers broke this rule. Here is what the teenagers truthfully told you, you may ask for more information from two of them. Which two teenagers do you question further?TOM "“ Borrowed a car
DICK "“ Didn't borrow a car
HARRY "“ Filled the gas tank
SUE "“ Didn't fill the gas tank
This came from this scientific research that has been going on for the last 25 years. It appears brains (humans, chimps and, possibly, other animals) have specialized cheater detectors.
The above test was to demonstrate how easy it is for us to check a contractual agreement (ethical behavior) even though it requires solving a significant logic problem. The logic problem of the above two examples are identical, yet three times as many people correctly solve the teenage car problem as compared to the non-contract situation in the Ebbinghaus disease situation.
Ethical behavior can be studied and, possibly, explained scientifically.
What does all this have to do with Intelligent Design?
My previously hosted thread, The Magic of Intelligent Design, focused mostly on ID science. This thread will undoubtedly focus on more of what I consider to be the ID Movement.
The moral implications of "Darwinism" is often cited in the debate. Many people, including me, feel the moral imperative expressed in the wedge document is still the driving force behind the popular movement pushed by the Discovery Institute.
Many ID proponents suggest that morality must come from God. This coupled with a lack of consideration of a naturally occurring ethical code makes it a very relevant subject, even if it is tangential.
It also relates to a key factor in the Culture War, NOMA. Declaring the existence of an absolute morality is pretty much a declaration of an absolute Truth that is applicable both philosophically and scientifically. This is a rejection of NOMA.
There are culture warriors on both sides that reject NOMA. Hopefully they see it for the double-edged sword it is.
I don't think I need to say much more to provoke thinking and comments in this thread. I encourage active participation from both sides. Just keep the comments ethical. 
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Hey TP,
It looks like you are entering some deep theological waters. Not the kind of thing I'd expect from some one who ends most posts here with " lets do science". I would suggest you leave this kind of thing to the thousands of folks who spend their lives exploring it. Or at least do a little homework work first.
Anyone who has read the bible instead of just the summaries you get in Sunday school could think of situations when each of the activities you mention would be Moral and to not do them would be sin.
This observation does not negate the fact that morality/ethics is defined by God. In fact it establishes it. (Matt 22:36-40)
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Thank You Mike.
I hope others will be encouraged to submit Guest Hosting candidates. I think it would be a healthy practice for Telic Thoughts.
Naturally, I also hope this thread with generate interest and comments, especially by those who disagree with me.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
1) I don't buy the distinction between absolute morality and ethics. It is widely accepted that torturing babies is wrong – is this down to absolute morality or ethics? How would I know which? What difference would it make?
Similarly – I for one can see no moral problem of any kind with homosexuality. Did someone forget to tell me about the relevant absolute morality? How would someone show me that it was absolutely wrong? Why would I care if they did?
2) Games theory may partly explain how morality evolved i.e. it may be the cause of moral/ethical motives and desires such as compassion and fairness. But that does not entail that you can prove an action is right by showing it is great strategy in game theory. To prove something is right you have to appeal to the ethical motive. In a similar way we probably evolved an appetite for sweet things because they are source of calories – but our desire for sweet things is not a desire for calories.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 3, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Hi Fifth monarchy man,
You wrote…
I intentionally didn't want to wade too deep into theological waters. My mention of God was a public service so we didn't have to play the game of "…but I thought the ID Movement wasn't supposed to be about religion". Please note, I generally equate religion with philosophy.
I like debating science because it has rules. There is something substantial to talk about. While I think discussing and thinking about philosophy is important, it doesn't quite have the same enjoyment factor. I like playing Monopoly too.
You will note even this thread brings in some substantial scientific elements, though it is mostly in an attempt to differentiate it from the philosophical elements.
Besides, I didn't want people to think I was afraid to discuss philosophy.
I have made reasonable attempts to understand philosophical teachings that go back three millennia (e.g. Tao, Buddism, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Judaism and, of course, Christianity). While I wouldn't call myself a biblical scholar, I have read enough of it to appreciate it as a historical text that provides insights into the foundations of human philosophy. However, I don't treat it as inerrant words or consider it personal gospel.
Hopefully, this isn't too large of an obstacle for us to compare and contrast our different outlooks. I am trying to explain what I see as separate concepts. I am not wedded to the word "ethics". "Honest" might work too, but I think "ethics" is more inclusive.
You made reference to the golden rule (along with Jesus' commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."). So what do you do with those who care little for God or their neighbors, yet honestly and ethically keeps all their agreements and deals fairly on all things?
The "Ethical Sinner".
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Hi Mark,
You wrote…
If it was easy to make the distinction, this thread would be boring. While the thread might be boring anyway, I suggest there is a fundamental conflict between people who think morality is absolute and those who don't.
However, since the wise man knows he doesn't know the Truth, I can't deny the possibility of absolute morality, so I am explaining how someone who embraces NOMA can see two distinct concepts.
I like this. It shows you are thinking. This gets into the ability to learn and adapt which, to some people, is part of the definition of the word "intelligence".
Has morality/ethics changed over time?
A scientific analysis has no problem with this.
As far as being "right", science can only make hypotheses that are consistent with scientific observations. Embracing NOMA prevents me from suggesting that science could show this as Truth or Good. I can only say it is consistent with the evidence.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hey TP
How very tolerant and postmodern of you. For the most part I enjoy reading your stuff here but comments like this only go to show that you haven't spent much time in the bible. It is in my view impossible to really read the bible and come away with such a neutrally positive view. If you really understand it you either love it or hate it you don't
"appreciate it as a historical text that provides insights into the foundations of human philosophy".
I don't mean any disrespect with this. Yours is probably the dominant view today. It just goes to show you the sad shape of biblical literacy in the modern west.
Why not call it the "Law written on the heart" or "natural Law" in the original sense. We all have a sense of right and wrong and this is a perfectly reasonable subject of scientific inquiry.
What we won't be able to do is separate this moral sense from it's source. To try and do so is just silly
No I didn't. I made mention of the command to "love your neighbor as your self." The golden rule is defined as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
The two concepts are very different. One having to do with actions the other having to do with motivations. This is yet another example of why this an inappropriate forum for this discussion. Danger we are in over our heads.
Theology/Philosophy is a very rigorous undertaking and not for the faint of heart.
I might call them good citizens or maybe good potential business clients but I would not call them ethical or moral and if they honestly searched their own conscience they would not call themselves that either.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
TP:
Even those who know the implied morality is absolute (the early Hebrews) knew to establish courts of judges to interpret 'The Law' in practical terms. It's honestly not so difficult to self-justify an absolute – "Thou Shalt Not Kill" – with a relative – "unless your government or bosses tell you to, or unless that's the choice-of-moment, or because it benefits you financially, or…
We all know this reality is relative. We make our peace with what we don't feel competent to parse with precision. And try to leave room for human freedom while we're at it.
Absolutist notions don't get that far in the political realm, especially if there are interpretational fine-points. Compromise is the name of the political game. On the level of socio-politically recognized issues, ethics can't escape the demographics. Shouldn't try to do so.
Ethics/morality does change over time. It requires time. Duh.
Comment by Joy — September 3, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
[emphasis mine]
So there ARE two different concepts?!?!?
While I made an honest mistake (I noticed it after it was too late to change it), it helps bring out the distinction I am trying to make.
As far as dangers for thinking for ourselves, that happens to be something I like to encourage. I think the world would be quite a bit safer if more people engaged in independent thinking.
Ideas that can't be personally defended aren't worth having IMO.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I have a lot of respect for Jewish Law and traditions. Generally, there is room for interpretations and personal opinions. Questions are encouraged. You can question traditions all you want as long as you follow them. I get the sense that the Jewish faithful generally understand the practical aspects of their laws. There are some Christian dominations that teach similar aspects.
Its the subtle difference between thinking God says what he says because it is right (has practical value) verses thinking something is right only because God says so.
I am not surprised by your reaction. You may be right and everyone is going to agree that morality changes based on changes in culture and time.
Let's see what others say.
However, I thought you would be a little more understanding of the distinction I am trying to make. In an earlier thread when this argument came up you indictated an acceptance of a difference in a hypothetical I suggested. I didn't bother to try and find it, here is what I remember…
Just about everyone would agree that it is both moral and ethical to testify truthfully in a courtroom.
However, most people would think it is morally permissible (even obligatory) to deceive (even outright lie) in a situation where a kangaroo court is trying to railroad an innocent person.
Ethically, that isn't an option. You either refuse to cooperate and suffer the consequences or you tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Once again, I am not overly hung up on the terms to be used, but I see two distinct concepts here.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Sure there are. Jesus might call it the difference between Pharisees and disciples. The two are polar opposites. It's the difference between night and day. One is truly good the other can be very bad.
It would be more accurate to call your concept of "public ethics" anti-ethics. It's the very hypocrisy that we all hate to see from the religious right.
Real ethics/morals are not determined by the winning strategy in game theory or by evolutionary success, often they are detrimental to evolutionary success. Real ethics/morals are what you should do when no one would ever know. Real ethics/morals are laws that are either revealed to us or discovered by us in a way not unlike the physical laws that science discovers.
Why not spend our time exploring that fascinating subject instead of trying to explain away what we all know to be true?
I also like independent thinking. I do quite a bit of it myself.
It's just that when you pontificate here about stuff that you don't understand it takes away from what I believe this site does best. That is to discuss a certain scientific viewpoint that you don't often see in the popular science press.
Just so you know I get tired of posts about evil atheists too
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 3, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
TP, You state:
I believe that ethics and morality have separate meanings as well. However, I believe that ethics are connected to morality. In the scriptures we have "the golden rule" (do unto God, unto others, and unto ourselves)
It is a heirarchy that begins with "Do unto God." All of Western ethics really begin with this (while some may leave out the God part). Since some may leave out God, let me suggest that we form our morality from the "Do unto others and ourselves" parts. We treat others with human dignity, as well as other creatures with dignity. We treat ourselves with respect by honoring our bodies (and our souls and spirits).
Now when it comes to ethics, the highest of them is integrity. We don't lie. We don't cover up the truth. We don't steal. We don't bear false witness against another. As writers we don't plagiarize. All of these stem from our sense of morality – "Do unto others."
So while I agree that they are separate, ethics are not really governed by practicality, but by the moral law.
I think this is where we differ. Christian morality does not allow for lying at all. There are no situations where it is ok to lie. Ouch! That is harsh. And there are places even in the scriptures where good people lied in situations where they saw no way out. Human weakness in not seeing the outcome of situations almost necessitates that we lie. For example, a person hiding a Jew from the Nazis and telling them when they inquire that they are not harboring any Jews (such situations occured). But the moral law is that we do not lie. No exceptions for any situation. Does this mean that God is an unjust lawgiver? No, God understands our situation, and is merciful.
So the moral law is absolute. It must be so, because it comes from God. Ethics, on the other hand, may leave us with situations where we feel we must break the moral law and depend on the mercy of God. It is better for us to uphold the moral law in these situations, because ultimately God is sovereign, and His will is done. But I don't think we are necessarily condemned in situations where there does not seem to be a way out other than breaking the moral law. But the moral law nonetheless stands.
I give you the Christian position. Perhaps there are others who can give us their positions.
Comment by Randy — September 3, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
I disagree with the spin you are trying to put in this. I find it fascinating that you consider an adherence to the Golden Rule to be "anti-ethics". I can see it being anti-moral, which is why I see a distinction. It is moral to obey the speed limit because you love your fellow man. It is ethical to obey the speed limit because you respect laws even those you disagree with. It is neither ethical or moral to obey the speed limit only because you don't want to get a speeding ticket.
The lack of "real morals" is an accusation people make against honest, ethical non-religious people with the religious right leading the charge.
IMO, an acknowledgement of the practical aspects of ethical behavior is a more solid basis for a personal code than reliance on a metaphysical being.
I am ethical because ethical behavior is required for civilization and the general welfare. I can not expect of others to adhere to a code I, myself, don't. I find it easier to trust people who are ethically-based versus morally-based (using my terms). When someone, especially government officials, put morals ahead of ethics, their actions become unpredictable and uncontrollable. Promises are practically worthless.
Once again I am seeing the NOMA aspect of this. What are "real ethics/morals" Are you talking about a metaphysical concept? If you are, I don't know the Truth, do you?
Fair enough. I have had several Guest Hosts. This is the first one that didn't focus on a scientific topic (although this has science in it). I would be interested in your opinion ot The Magic of Intelligent Design.
In case you are interested. I was composing this for a response to Bradford, John A. Designer and RodgerRabbitt in another thread (link). When MikeGene opened up his offer for guest hosting, I thought this would be just about perfect for something that isn't supportive of the ID Movement yet wasn't radically contrary. To MikeGene's credit, he posted it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hi Randy,
I agree with most of what you wrote even the part where you said…
Yes, this is where we differ. If ethics is considered to be "governed by" moral law then moral law takes precedent. Even your tribute to Godwin's Law (Nazi example) can be seen as rationalization. I am not suggesting ethics is Right (cap "R"), I am just suggesting unethical behavior is unethical behavior. It is ok to recognize that morality and ethics can be in conflict and a personal decision needs to be made. Your rational leaves little or no room for doubt, morality governs all.
Please don't take this as a personal attack. Your position is quite rational and popular. I have a personal moral code along with what might be called a personal religion (even though most people would consider me an Atheist). It is consistent with my ethical code, but I wouldn't say one is subservient to the other.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
TP:
Well, I am saying that when a person violates ethics, he or she is in all cases, violating the moral law. Some people may believe that what they do is ethical when it may not be. You gave the example of the ethical prostitute. You are right that the prostitute in Nevada (where prostitution is legal in some counties), does not violate the law, but still violates ethics, which are based in the moral law. It is unethical to charge a person for a sexual act. It may be LEGAL in Nevada, but I can hardly see how it is ethical in Nevada or anywhere else. Particulrary, and I stress this, when a prostitute does not care whom she is providing the service to. She may be (and probably is), contributing to her trick's unethical behavior if he is married, or a number of other situations. So in this situation it is really unethical if my behavior affects the ethical decisions of another, and with prostitution it almost always does.
With the moral law, the prostitute violates the "do unto others" and the "do unto myeself" parts. While this part does not really enter into ethics, there are other ethical laws that she violates. I mentioned integrity as the highest of the ethical laws. If the prostitute has children, she is contributing to the corruption of a minor, which is unethical behavior. She is probably charging very high amounts of money for the act, which itself is unethical. I happen to know that many prostitutes in Nevada are very well paid for their services, and can make a 6 figure income. And she may be contributing to the poor health of her tricks by possibly exposing them to sexually transmitted diseases. Of course I would also say that the tricks are as guilty of the ethical and moral laws as well.
Consider if you will also that where there is prostitution – legal or not, there is almost always invariably corruption.
Comment by Randy — September 3, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hi Randy,
You wrote…
Then I am wondering where you see a distinction. It looks like, to you, ethics is more than a derivative, it is a subset.
Is there anything that is moral that is considered neutral as far as ethics is concerned? If not, I don't see a distinction in your definitions. It appears that you treat ethics and morality as the same thing.
Why? Why isn't it just immoral?
Is it unethical to charge a person for a back and foot massage?
Is it unethical to charge a person to wash and cut hair?
I can see how you feel it is immoral. It appears to me that you are making philosophical/religious arguments, not scientific ones. Are you suggesting a philosophical Truth of absolute morality/ethics?
Again, the terms used aren't important to me. Would an "honest prostitute" be more understandable? A person who deals fair and square in immoral acts because of a personal code of
ethicshonesty?Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
TP:
Yes, I believe that it could be a subset of morality. A part of the moral law set in code. Let's look at the Old Testament, for example. It was considered immoral to work on Saturday, the Sabbath. Yet when we get to the New Testament we find Jesus healing others on the Sabbath, and the religious leaders protesting. Jesus was breaking a moral code, but not the moral law. There is nothing immoral about healing someone – no matter what day of the week it is. So for this instance, a moral code was broken in order to do what was moral – to heal someone in need. Yet Jesus was really doing what was ethical as well, because the moral law is written to supercede all laws and codes. So the religious leaders were stuck on the letter of the law, and not the heart of the law. The law is written so that one can keep the heart of the moral law, which is "do unto God, others and oneself." Where the moral code fails, the moral law succeeds. Ethics, to me is more like the moral code, that in certain circumstances can be broken in order to keep the heart of the moral law. But ultimately, all laws and codes are based on the moral law.
Now I realize that ethics in our modern time are more specific than the moral code of Leviticus. Lets just say that there is a heirarchy of morality of which ethics is a part. If my ethics do not allow me to be forgiving to others, for exampole, then in certain circumstances I may be willing to forego the ethical code in order to forgive. Forgiveness is a part of the moral law "do unto others." I can't think of a specific situation where this is a reality, but let's just assume that there is such a situation.
Modern ethics are exemplified in the modern workplace. There is protocol that is based on ethical codes. In most workplaces the protocol for complaint is to go to one's immediate supervisor before going to his or her boss. It is really unethical to go to the supervisor's boss without first going to the supervisor about a complaint, except in situations where the complaint involves the supervisor. Yet the reason for going to the supervisor first is related to the "do unto others" moral law. So ethics, you see are based in the moral law, but are much more flexible and situational.
Comment by Randy — September 3, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
September 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Hi Randy,
While I am disappointed that you didn't answer the majority of my questions, I'm not going to make a big deal about it. If there is anything else you wanted to ask me, please do.
Thank you for commenting.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 3, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Randy:
Actually you have done a good job of articulating one stream of Christian thought on this issue there is another stream that views all of God's law as moral but sees our ethical standard to be the law of Christ not some vague concept of "moral law".
I want it noted for the record that this intramural Christian debate on a science blog was brought to us as the result of a thread from a pasonate advocate of NOMA. LOL
TP
It's not the golden rule that is anti ethics it's the golden rule with the wrong motivation
Yes
Depends
Yes
I sense your tolerant postmodern attitude slipping a little
If by metaphysical you mean above physics then yes real morals/ethics are. But Natural laws are very objective everyone knows what they are and everyone recognizes unethical behavior when they see it. That's why the presence of an innate moral sense is something that materialists must work so hard to discredit.
Yep,
I'd love to introduce Him to you sometime but you must understand he does not reveal himself to someone until they really want to find Him
I think I've told you before I find your hypothesis fascinating. I would hope you could think of a prediction that could separate it from traditional ID but until you do that I will continue to reject it on historic and not scientific grounds
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 4, 2007 @ 7:24 am
September 4th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I wrote, "It is ethical to obey the speed limit because you respect laws even those you disagree with."
To which you responded with…
Depends on what? Whether or not you love God and his children?
That is what I would classify as morality. If you are hung up on my use of the term "ethics" think of "Alteristic Code of Conduct" or ACoC for short. It is the idea that counts, not word used.
Whether ACoC or Ethics the action is true if the driver is motivated beyond a direct punishment/reward basis. If the driver will act the same even if there is no chance of getting a speeding ticket, that is ideal version of the distinctive concept I am talking about.
Actions based on God's love (be it for reward or simple acknowledgement) is NOT an appropriate basis for the distinctive concept I am talking about.
Hopefully, you would agree that actions motivated out of fear of eternal damnation are neither moral nor ethical.
I didn't say my concepts were "very tolerant and postmodern", you did.
Don't let my embrace of NOMA fool you. I could easily be a foaming-at-the-mouth evangalistic Atheist. Believe or not, I could also easily be a foaming-at-the-mouth evangalistic Theist. Lately, I have been tempted to give Salvador Cordova a run for his money, but my Alteristic Code of Conduct prevents me from doing so in earnest.
Unless they are two different concepts.
Please note, in other threads I have indicated how amusing I fide the "materialists" label. You might as well accuse scientists of being "Sun Worshippers" because of the prevailing presumption of a heliocentric solar system.
I asked, "I don't know the Truth, do you?"
You answered…
See how easy that was. That is a very ethical answer, IMO. You and Richard Dawkins both believe there is only one OMA Truth that is applicable to all. It is both a scientific Truth and a philosophical Truth.
Based on knowing this Truth, its is both moral and right for our country to declare itself "One nation, under God", even if doing so violates man-made laws (after all, you would lie to Nazis, wouldn't you?).
It would be immoral to allow our children to be misled and lied to in public schools, if the Truth is the one and only Truth.
Children should be taught that Kangaroos once lived in the Middle East as a scientific because NOMA is a false compromise.
You end your comments with "Peace". Is that the practical motivation for not following up on the obvious implications of knowing the one and only Truth for us all?
You allow the rest of us to live a lie due to our ignorance because the alternative would get messy and. as history shows, bloody?
But what about what the non-religious among us call "Ethics"(ACoC)?
Is this something you can ignore and discard as meaningless because it doesn't come from God?
Peace comes from keeping agreements. I will agree to respect your concept of morality if you respect my concept of ethics.
Unfortunately, that doesn't work if you won't even accept the possibility of a meaningful concept of ethics.
I hope this hasn't been too provocative. This is a fundamental issue that I see with the ID Movement, a lack of respect for ethical consideration due to a presumption of moral superiority.
Talking ID Science is easier with fewer "dangers" (your word). Either the evidence and arguments hold or they do not. However, science is based on a presumption of ethics (ACoC). How can trust exist if even the concept of ethical agreements standing on their own merit is unpalatable?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Hey TP
You don't understand your concept is not ethics at all Imho. It is hypocrisy plain and simple.
To treat it like it's some neutral ground that we can all hold hands and sing politically correct campfire songs on won't work you might as well face it. Let it go!!!
From that book you spoke so highly of
quote:
"How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy-full of greed and self-indulgence! Blind Pharisees! First wash the inside of the cup, and then the outside will become clean, too. "How terrible it will be for you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs-beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people's bones and all sorts of impurity. You try to look like upright people outwardly, but inside your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.
end quote
Now let's get back to doing science.
the Truth is a person it's not a set of propositions to be imposed on our enemies.
You probably don't realize it but the hero and main subject of the "historical text that provides insights into the foundations of human philosophy" not only claimed to know the Truth but clamed to be the Truth (John 14:6)
The reason atheists are safe and happy is not because folks don't know the Truth anymore but because a few do. The reason that times were so bloody in the past and atheists were not as safe and secure is not because more folks knew the Truth but because not enough did.
Quite a paradox, the very thing that you hate is the thing that allows you to vocalize that hatred.
The reason I end my posts with peace is because I long for the day when true peace (shalom) will reign on earth.
In the words of a Preacher who also knew the Truth
I have a dream
now lets get back to doing science
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 4, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
You are mistaken in assigning to ethics a susceptibility to scientific analysis. Ethics are and always have been the purview of philosophy, of which science is only another subset. Certainly, with the philosophical bias you start with, which appears to be a form of utilitarianism that holds the contract supreme, scientific analyses may be possible, but you have not established that your particular utilitarian goal is actually the best goal for the study of ethics. In other words, your argument can only be valid (I'm not making a claim as to whether it is or not) if your assumption, that the goal of societal harmony of a particular type is true.
There is nothing you have said that establishes that an ethic of consistently breaking contracts is at all inferior to the one you propose. That people have a preference for your option, indeed, even an instinctive ability to spot violations, has no bearing.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — September 4, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
I want to thank you for your comments. You showed a willingness to discuss this topic in spite of the "Danger we are in over our heads". I am looking forward to others demonstrating their understanding of their positions on this, especially Bradford, RodgerRabbitt and John A. Designer.
I understand your desire to paint me as a hypocritical, hateful person that can't possibly have studied the Bible to any degree of thoroughness. It helps the rationalization process.
I can be passionate and even angry, but "hate" doesn't make sense in this situation. Besides, Atheists generally don't believe in evil.
If you change your mind and want to discuss the non-scientific aspects of this, let me know. I think this is a unique opportunity for you to thoroughly explore point of view that is significantly different from your own.
Meanwhile, it looks like Charles Foljambe wishes to discuss the scientific aspects of this thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Hi Charles Foljambe,
You wrote…
Ok, I am willing to consider that possibility although I am not sure of the word "susceptibility" in this case. Everything is susceptable to scientific analysis just like most things are susceptable to a hammer. That doesn't mean either is the right tool for the job.
With that statement, is there anything that isn't in the purview of philosphy? How about the philosophy of the game called Monopoly?
I like playing Monopoly. That doesn't mean I believe it represents the Ultimate Truth or the Ultimate Right. I view science is a similar vein. Science has rules. Science provides practical knowledge to science. Humans and some animals have traits that appear to be supportive of social harmony. That doesn't mean I believe it represents the Ultimate Truth or the Ultimate Right. It is just practical.
This is a matter of practical trust. Certain actions produce distrust. This isn't a matter of right and wrong, it is a matter of trust. When other people act it certain ways, I ethically give warning of my mistrust by calling attention to it. I hope others will agree with me and cause change.
I do not hold the contract supreme. I can see situations where I would violate contracts and I would ethically expect other to act similarly. Since I see morality as distinct from ethics, I also see them as potentially in conflict. In those cases, I would think a balanced review of both would be in order.
It is inferior if the goal is establishing societal harmony. This isn't about right and wrong. Science isn't about right and wrong. It is about obtaining practical knowledge.
Humans, and some animals, appear to be hardwired to act ethically. That makes it reasonable to expect others to have an ability and inclination to act ethically. This means getting more people to think and act independently should result in more, not less, ethical behavior.
Provoking independent thought is my agenda. That doesn't make it right, but it has some scientific basis for my expectations of the outcome I wish to promote.
Thank you for your comment.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 4, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I sense the reason that you feel that I didn't answer your questions is that we have differing ideas concerning morality and ethics. The Christian view is that the moral law supercedes all ethics, and all ethics are to be in line with the moral law. This is because the moral law comes from the character of God. God's character is summed up in what Paul called the fruit of the Spirit. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23)
Now there are different "ethics:" the Protestant work ethic, the Asian ethic, the ethics of the Arab East, etc., but there is also a Christian ethic, which comes from the moral law. Ethics themselves are not the moral law, but they come from the moral law. You are correct in saying that ethics and morality are different, because there is something above the Christian ethic, the Protestant work ethic, and so forth, and that is the moral law.
Ethics are a code. The moral law is not a code, but a principle. The principle of the moral law stems in the Old Testament from "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4-5) and in the New Testament from: "One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, 'Of all the commandments, which is the most important?' 'The most important one,' answered Jesus, 'is this: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is on. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."' The second is this: "Love your neighbor as yourself." There is no commandment greater than these.'"(Mark 28-31) And last, the command to "do unto others," which is essentially a part of the latter.
This is the moral law in a nutshell, because Jesus stated that keeping this law of love is to "fulfill the law and the prophets."
Now when we speak of ethics, we mean a code of conduct for an individual to follow. A code of conduct is a list of dos and donts. The Levitical code is such a code. There are other ethical codes that may have some areas of contradiction with another. The point though, is that ethics develop when certain codes are broken – then a new ethic is developed so that there are no loopholes. Someone here mentioned WC Fields when caught reading the Bible someone asked him what he was doing, he said "looking for a loophole." This is the problem with ethical codes. They are breakable. The moral law does not have a loophole.
Comment by Randy — September 4, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
TP,
One more point I would like to make that I think you will agree with is that one can be completely ethical yet still be immoral. However, one cannot be moral and unethical.
Comment by Randy — September 4, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 12:46 am
In fact, scripture addresses this. We are as Christians to praise whatever is good whether it comes from Christ or not, in order to win the hearts of unbelievers. This does not, however insist that we necessarily agree with everything that comes from the unbeliever.
Comment by Randy — September 5, 2007 @ 12:46 am
September 5th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Hi Randy,
Thank you for your comments.
You wrote…
This is the point I was trying to make in the opening post where I talked about Ethical Prostitution and general ethical immorality.
Then you wrote…
Which I think goes to the heart of what I see as righteous rationalization.
The defendants in the Dover trial lied, under oath, to the ACLU lawyers multiple times. They lied, under oath, in open court. Yet they still feel they did nothing unethical, because there actions were guided by faith in God's love and a moral imperative to protect God's children.
If you make the blanket statement, as you have, that morality supersedes ethics, the only difference in the Dover situation is they got caught and failed in their efforts. Had they succeeded would that have made their actions ethical because they were moral?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 8:15 am
September 5th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Thought Provoker
Can you explain why you think these are ethical in some situations but not moral? With regards to prositution, you seem to be splitting it into two parts; the business contract and the sexual act, and saying that the business contract can be ethical, while the sexual act is immoral. Why should we not say the business contract can be ethical (or moral), while the sexual act is unethical (or immoral)?
Personally, I think I would say ethics are what you hold to be the right and wrong way to behave, morality is the basis for deciding that, but it sounds like may be you are using the terms differently (not that I want to say who is right and who is wrong).
Fifth Monarchy Man
Could you give an example here? The best I could think of is if someone dies trying to say his pet cat. Is that the sort of thing you are thinking of (I suspect not).
Comment by The Pixie — September 5, 2007 @ 8:54 am
September 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Hi Pixie,
Not many people think a sexual act is unethical or immoral in of itself. It depends on the circumstances. Marital sex is usually considered ok. Sex for money is often considered immoral. Even if you could separate prostitution into two parts (signing contract verses sexual act), it is much harder to do that in the situation where a Spartan throws a baby off a cliff. He is doing his ethical duty and, possibly, engaging in immorality at the exact same time.
To me, a common form of morality is Right is defined by God. IOW, it is Right because God says so. People who hold this form of morality naturally question how an Atheist could possibility be moral. Religion becomes the practice of learning how to be moral by learning what God says.
A generalized, philosophical version of this is that an ideal Right exists in the Platonic world where reality is an imperfect reflection of the ideal. This would tend to imply the existence of an absolute morality. It is only our understanding of this morality that changes over time and under different circumstances.
Charles Foljambe brought up "utilitarianism". This is the pragmatic version for determining what Right is. In this version, morality can change over time and is dependent on circumstances. It is basically set by popular opinion.
I think of morality as what is held "to be the right and wrong way to behave" without necessarily having an empirical process for determining it. There is an infamous saying from previous Supreme Court Judge Potter Stewart. He indicated that while hard-core pornography was hard to define, he knew it when he saw it.
Therefore, by my definitions, you got it backwards. I see Morality is a threshold with Ethics being a definable process (e.g. creating a contract).
BTW, Judge Stewart used his personal threshold to rule to protect free speech in the particular case because he felt the pornography there wasn't hard-core. He later modified his stance to the legally accepted process defined in the Miller Test)
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 11:52 am
September 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Hey Pixie
How about three
1)The ovens of the Nazis were the perfect evolutionary strategy from the point of view of the genes of the Aryan who operated them
2) it would be much better from an evolutionary standpoint euthanize a child born with Downs syndrome and concentrate our efforts on those who have a strong chance of passing on our genes
3) the genes of a man would be better spread by serial adultery than life long marriage to a women who is unable to conceive.
I could go on but you get the point
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 5, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
RP:
I don't think most theists believe something is right or wrong based on "God said it," rather "it is in God's character to do such and such, so it ought to be in my character as well." Morality is not based on a set of dos and don'ts, but on God's character.
God does not lie, but always tells the truth
God does not bear false witness
God keeps his covenants and promises
God is patient, loving and kind
God lowered himself for our good
etc..
The Bible itself is not a rule book, but an historical account of God's works among human beings. God's character is discerned in his works so that we should know what is right and what is wrong.
Comment by Randy — September 5, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Agreed, I think.
I'm sure some people reduce at least a portion of their moral arguments to "Well, the bible says this". But throughout the history of Christianity at least (And other faiths, I'm sure – I'm just less familiar with them), a vast amount of writing and thought has been devoted to considering morality, considering acts both specific and general, personal and social, etc. Everything from sexuality to acts of war have been discussed (and the discussions continue even now), with arguments going vastly beyond and beside 'it seems God said this'. In fact, if I know some theistic Natural Law arguments well enough, I'd say it's argued that discerning morality is assisted by religion and faith, but by no means utterly dependent on it.
When, say, the Catholic Church discusses bioethics, you can bet they're not marching forward on the argument of 'In his letter to the Corinthians, St Paul addressed the question of whether it's moral or ethical to permit the development of human-cow chimera fetal development for study.'
Comment by nullasalus — September 5, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Thought Provoker Says:
Wow man! Like, that's profound!
BTW, have you ever managed to come up with a practical definition for what you call ethics, so we can cut through some of the fluff and get on point?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 5, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Hi RodgerRabbitt,
You asked…
I am glad you could join us so we can continue our long overdue conversation.
Your timing is just about perfect. We are pretty much in the same position this last time we started this conversation (link). Where you said…
You have now asked me on three separate occasions to provide my definition of the term "Ethics". I am now prepared to do that. It is my hope that you will ethically respect the fact that you asked for MY definition instead of the standard definition. I also hope that you will stick around long enough to finish the discussion. It would be the ethical thing to do.
Ethics: An altruistic code of conduct based on honesty and adherence to pronouncements, oaths, contracts and agreements. This includes implied agreements presumed because of a lack of objection or clarification. Obedience to unchallenged laws would be an example of an implied agreement. It is pursuant on all parties to dissuade false impressions of an agreement when there is none, especially in situations where there is a suspicion of misunderstanding.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 5, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
September 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Hi TP,
(I have been following the discussion for a couple of days, but I have been busy so I haven't had a chance to join in.)
Okay let's compare some apples with apples: My apples with your apples. Here are my apples. Last Sunday I was present when a group of people, with whom I associate, presented a lower class single Mom with the keys to a brand new house that we had helped build for her.
A few weeks before that this same group of people gave a $50,000 to a leader of the Dalits, so that he could build a new school for Dalit children. Do you know who the Dalit are? They are Indians who are also called the untouchables. To this day, despite the fact that India is a democracy the Dalits, because of the caste system, are persecuted and discriminated against. Education is one way that Dalit children can possibly escape this dead end way of life.
This is just a couple of examples of real projects that others and me have been involved with. I could list several more. These are the kind of things that I choose to be committed to. Are these good things? Are they moral and/or ethical? Are they practical?
Here's my point. Many of the people that have been involved with these kinds of projects are non-intellectuals. I am not saying they are stupid, but most of them would not get involved in the kind of discussion we are having here. Do they have a real understanding of morality and ethics? I think so. So then, what is more important to have a profound philosophical understanding about ethics, or really act upon what you believe is ethically good and right and actually do some real good in the world? Aren't you decieving yourself if you do the former without the latter?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 5, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Hi John,
Thank you for your comment.
Unfortunately, I see it as apples and oranges. I am not suggesting my ethics as a replacement for morals (either mine or yours). Doing good is still moral and appropriate. There is no ethical agreement that causes me to help other people. Likewise concerning our family's charitable offerings (both labor and financial).
People don't need "profound philosophical understanding" to know whether they are adhering to agreements or not. In fact, it looks like ethical behavior may be instinctual with a built-in cheater detector. Unless we are talking about psychopathic defects, it takes some effort and rationalization to lie, even for a moral cause. The same goes for cheating.
I am presuming the defendents in the Dover case knew they were cheating in their depositions and testimony. They had to rationalize their actions. It is easy to see how they did it. Morality trumps all. They were trying to do what was right and good.
You made fun of my ethical "unethical behavior is unethical behavior" comment, but the point is that disturbing number of people easily rationalize unethical behavior based on moral sensibilities.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 12:30 am
September 6th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Thought Provoker Says:
Hey, we've got a start.
First, let me obtain a few clarifications. "[A]dherence to pronouncements, oaths, contracts and agreements" presumably means those I choose freely to enter into, correct?
I'm confused by this:
Does this mean that I'm bound by laws I agree with, but not those I object to? Can we add "ethical child molester" to your list? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying.
Now, as to honesty, you've pretty clearly fallen short here in your endeavors to label others as unethical. For example, with regards to Dembski and the Dover trial. Also, with regards to your claims about what judges and Dover participants were "thinking", unless you have some scientific evidence that you can read minds.
Now, in this thread you introduce "goals". Are those relevant, or irrelevant to ethics?
And finally, once you clarify those uncertainties, we are back to the initial question of whether there is some scientific difference with respect to morality vs ethics, noting in passing that you will have to define both morality and science to go there.
But maybe we can start with the definition clarification, and my comments upon what seem to be your own ethical failings.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 6, 2007 @ 6:11 am
September 6th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Fifth Monarchy Man: 1)The ovens of the Nazis were the perfect evolutionary strategy from the point of view of the genes of the Aryan who operated them
Not a particularly strong example. "Aryan" is not a well-defined genetic grouping, but more akin to fascist mythology.
Fifth Monarchy Man: 2) it would be much better from an evolutionary standpoint euthanize a child born with Downs syndrome and concentrate our efforts on those who have a strong chance of passing on our genes
This shows a very poor understanding of the root of human evolutionary success. Though the instinct of humans to care for one another may not always be beneficial to a tribe, it is more often a strongly adaptive biological strategy.
Fifth Monarchy Man: 3) the genes of a man would be better spread by serial adultery than life long marriage to a women who is unable to conceive.
Not necessarily. Human children require years of child-rearing. Human males have a significant biological interest in this process, and consequently strong bonding and nurturing instincts. Furthermore, human females tend to choose males who are seen as loyal, trustworthy, and otherwise perceived as good potential fathers and mates. Hence, overt philandering has limited reproductive success, and secret accommodation is more frequent"”a deception seen also in other apes. More game theory.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 7:40 am
September 6th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Fifth Monarchy Man
Okay, I see your point. I would suggest that real morality is a very complicated subject, and evolution can give us some ideas about where it came from. An individual gets his morality not just from what evolution has hard-wired into his brain, but also from his culture, and his own musings too.
Evolution thrives on diversity, so the Nazi ovens were a bad move for the race (interestingly the idea of racial purity appears in the Bible, in Ezra). However, evolution is all about survival of the individual and, in social animals, of his social group. Given that, wars, nationalism and racism are perhaps sadly inevitable.
Evolution has given us empathy for our fellow man, and that means that we care for them, maximising the survivability of the group. This is the basis, I suggest, of "do unto others"¦". We generally extend that to a child born with Downs syndrome, as in number 2.
Sure the man in example 3 would be better off sleeping around from an evolutionary perspective, but evolution applies to the population, so the "game strategy" has to hold for [i]all[/i] men in the population. Think about how he would have inherited the "game strategy" to be a serial adulterer.
Comment by The Pixie — September 6, 2007 @ 7:47 am
September 6th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Hi RogerRabbitt,
Let me start by an honest admission that I make mistakes. For example, I got who was whom mixed up in my reply to John A Designer. All we can do is our best.
You wrote…
The devil is in the details. Obviously, if someone forges your signature on an agreement, you aren't bound to that agreement. A similar effect would be in place if someone intentionally tricked you into signing an agreement you did not intent to make.
IOW, it would be perfectly ethical to challenge the existence of an agreement when there is no agreement. It is also ethical to retract an existing agreement as long as it is done in a timely and appropriate manner. The details of what is meant by "timely and appropriate" would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Retracting an agreement you didn't freely enter into would be ethically rather trivial by honestly stating the facts.
The legal aspect of this is the trickiest part. Is there an implied agreement with laws of a country/state/city you choose to live in? What if you have no choice?
Generally "child molester" implies someone who acts anonymously and hides his/her intent. This would be taking advantage of implied assumption of others of a general agreement. Therefore, that would be unethical. A child abuser would probably be a trickier example; especially if they made it clear they believe in a spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child axiom and actively work to have child protection laws repealed. Ethical actions can still be illegal and the legal system is ethically bound to carry out its assigned duty. BTW, I would also agree that child abuse is probably immoral and should be discouraged.
I feel I have given my honest assessment of situations. I may have "fallen short" of convincing you, but I don't see how that plays into my honesty. I could also be wrong in my assessment but that doesn't mean I was dishonest in making it. I try to use the words "I am presuming…" in situations where I think it is important to let people know this is an educated guess on my part. Sometime I use "IMO".
I am not hiding my honest opinions of Dembski, the Dover participants, etc.
This might be a good time to ask you to reveal your opinions on these subjects. Is it your opinion that the Dover particpants acted morally? If not, why not? Do you think they acted ethically (using my definition)?
Please note, I am not asking you for absolute knowledge, I am asking you for your opinion. Hint: the ethical way out of this one is to say "I choose not to share my opinion at this time" or the always popular "no comment".
I think you exaggerated on presenting my previous references to goals as an introduction. However, I will gladly discuss the relevancy of goals to ethics. I believe goals and intent are inherently tied to honesty. The shorter definition of ethics is simple honesty. An honest person would keep agreements. An honest person wouldn't have hidden agendas. An honest person would let people know what his/her goals are. If the goal is to deceive, then it is very relevent to ethics (as in making it unethical).
If the intent is to keep agreements only when there is a chance of getting caught breaking them, then that is dishonest and unethical.
Since I defined ethics, why don't you offer up your definition of morality?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 8:44 am
September 6th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Let us look at the Spartan, which may be more clear cut. Why do not think infanticide is immoral for the Spartan? Do you think he wuld see it that way? You seem to think he is ethical because he is following his code of conduct, but immoral because he is not following yours.
Agreed.
Surely this is a definition of your ethics (it describes what you think an ethical way to behave is), rather than your definition of ethics (it does not describe what you understand the word to mean)?
Zach, you beat me by 7 minutes!
Comment by The Pixie — September 6, 2007 @ 8:51 am
September 6th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Zachriel wrote:
That's the great thing about evolutionary sociobiology. Whatever behavior is observed can be explained by its being adaptive. And the adaptiveness of a behavioral trait is proven by its being observed.
See, that's science. You test hypotheses by formulating specific, distinguishing, empirical predictions deriving from the theory which would turn out false if the theory is false. Of course, whatever is observed must be, or have been, adaptive somehow or other. Naturally.
So the theory is always right, somehow or other. It just needs to be endlessly refined, that's all. But you can bet your bottom dollar that it will always yield the correct explanation if you just keep at the task of teasing out one speculative story after another of how the behavior might be adaptive. Somehow. Maybe. Possibly. And, indeed, perhaps.
That's science, you see. The science of Utterly Fraudulent Charlatanism Spouted By Utter Frauds And Charlatans.
Just ask Zachriel. He can teach you.
Comment by stunney — September 6, 2007 @ 9:05 am
September 6th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Hi Pixie,
Thank you for your comment.
IMO, it was very appropriate and quite thought provoking.
You wrote…
I presumed the Spartan would NOT see it as immoral or unethical. That is the point. However, I am open to the possibility that something deep inside even a Spartan caused him to hesitate at the thought of infanticide. An inherent conscious thought that this may be "wrong". Laws and rules are usually in place for a reason. I don't think there has ever been a law requiring citizens to breath in and out on a regular basis (but now that I mentioned it, there might be one).
This get back to the possibility of absolute morality. IF (big "if") morality is absolute and not subject to change over time and cultures, what is immoral here and now was immoral for Spartans. I think it is clear is wasn't unethical (at least by my definition).
I am not so sure everyone would agree with your "surely". There are some very adamant people out there who think abortion is always immoral regardless of the circumstances.
I agree that I skipped a step in my description of moral utilitarianism. It is useful to have morality based on a consensus. A moral code that isn't acceptable by a majority of the people isn't very useful. I think our experience during the prohibition era demonstrated that.
This makes no sense to me. Popular opinion changes over time. While there can never be "identical" situations across time, there can be very similar situations. Slavery and wife abuse (especially verbal) would be examples.
This was excellent. Unfortunately, I have to run. I will address it in detail later. For now, note I see ethics and morality as separate. I am guided by both ethics and morality.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 9:35 am
September 6th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Zachriel: Though the instinct of humans to care for one another may not always be beneficial to a tribe, it is more often a strongly adaptive biological strategy.
Let's consider first the maternal instinct in mammals. Mammals are active, large-brained animals. Each baby represents a significant investment. Few young are produced, and even though born live, they are generally still too immature to survive without assistance. The mother provides nourishment through special glands, and often an education in the ways of the world. Though the biological investment is large, the strategy is successful, and mammals have adapted to thrive in many niches.
A mother loves her children. This is an instinct. She can't help it, nor would she want to. That is what a mother is.
Nor could Romeo avoid bonding with Juliet. Nor would he want to. That is what lovers do.
We can see these instincts as adaptations due to the high cost of rearing children. A detailed study in game theory can help explain loyalty, honesty, adultery, deception, perception, and the entailed risks of discovery.
–
On deception, consider a flock of sheep. A single wolf will prosper. But if there are few sheep and many wolves, then the wolves will starve. There is a balance between honesty and cheating, again that can be explained by game theory. And there really can be honor among thieves. Predators may equitably share the results of their cooperative catch.
–
Consider now a small tribe, a story. Young hunters and their women. They migrate between the hunting grounds and the quarry for their flint weapons and tools. Along the way, the women collect herbs and vegetables in the fertile woods between. The tribe only moves as fast as the old medicine woman, respected because of her wisdom in the ways of plants and their healing power. And moving slowly, she can teach the younger women while collecting the fruits of the woods.
One of the men is a weak hunter, but tells fine stories and keeps the history of the great hunters of the tribe, a troubador that makes the other men proud of their adventures. Another man is strong, but near-sighted and misses often with the atlatl. Nevertheless, he helps with the hunt by tracking and his consistency, and is by far the best at chipping the flint into sharp edges.
The strongest hunter gets first pick of the meat, but always provides it first to the old medicine woman. This raises his stature among the tribe and helps bond the group. He is loved by the women because he clearly loves the children, most of whom are related to him. That's why this tribe has been successful; such leadership has avoided many of the problems of dissension and jealousy in the tribe. The leader's family thrives as the tribe thrives.
A severely deformed baby is born. The mother loves the child, but everyone knows that the baby will not survive. Everyone is sad and tearful, but a reasonable balance must be struck between necessity, compassion, and hope for the future growth of the tribe. The mother might prevail to keep the child by taking full responsibility in the hope that it might survive and eventually outgrow its problems and become an accepted member of the tribe. But in this case at least, the mother knows that the child is doomed. The baby is exposed and left behind.
One of the young hunters broke a promise with the medicine woman to provide some precious stones in return for her help with a sick child. She confronts him before the tribe and strikes him. He considers hitting back, but realizes that to do so would result in a fight with the entire tribe that he would certainly lose. The other hunters are suspicious and tell him so. How can they trust him during the hunt when the lives of everyone are at stake? He is shamed. He makes good on his promise.
One day, the best flinter falls during the hunt and hurts his leg. But the tribe must migrate with the herd. They love this man who also means so much to their success. They make a litter, and take turns pulling the litter. The wound never heals completely, but he can walk. He can't hunt any longer, but is respected for his ability with the flint, a knowledge he passes down to the younger members of the tribe.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 9:55 am
September 6th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Several specific correlations can be determined. In polygynous "harem-keeping" species, males tend to exhibit larger body size with delayed sexual maturity compared to females accompanied by aggressive adult behavior. Promiscuous species tend to have larger testes, competing with sperm rather than brawn.
In species where young require a great deal of care over long periods of time, especially when the "household" only has room for one female, then monogamy tends to be more consistent. Humans have moderate sized testicles and limited sexual dimorphism. Human offspring of socially monogamous couplings are typically 90-95% due to the monogamous coupling.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 10:55 am
September 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Zachriel wrote:
Likewise, we can see the instincts in favor of genocide and slavery as adaptations due to the high cost for racists and murderous ideologues of treating Jews, African-Americans, Armenians, Tutsis, and Cambodians not deemed useful by Pol-Pot, with justice, decency, and respect.
Similarly, we can see the instinct in favor of regarding Zachriel's asinine views with mocking contempt as an adaptation due to the high cost of pretending they merit a more favorable response.
Comment by stunney — September 6, 2007 @ 11:03 am
September 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Thank you for your comments. I think your presentation of game theory is very consistent with my understanding.
I hope you can continue to show patience with Stunney's remarks.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Hi Stunney,
You wrote…
as"¢i"¢nine1 : extremely or utterly foolish
2 : of, relating to, or resembling an ass
While I appreciate you providing an off-setting view to balance the discussion, please try to refrain from entertaining yourself with extreme rhetorical devices.
I can see you have a legitimate point to make and I would like to see you present it, but I also feel somewhat responsible for keeping this thread under control.
This thread has been surprising civil so far (considering the subject). I think it would be constructive and, possibly even informative, if we could continue the trend.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Thought Provoker: "I hope you can continue to show patience with Stunney's remarks."
Patience isn't required. I kill-filed him a while ago. From your following comment, he hasn't improved his argument since then.
Thought Provoker: "Another 'rather unique' aspect to my thinking is that I separate the concepts of 'ethics' and 'morality'.
Though the terms are used somewhat interchangeably, ethics usually refers to codes of conduct, while morality more often connotes the innate sense of right and wrong. Ethical systems are devised as cultural expressions of the innate sense of right and wrong. They are structured philosophically by reasoning from certain shared values, then balancing these various values to determine correct conduct in various situations.
Due to the complexity of the real world, ethical systems are inherently inexact and incomplete. This sometimes results in conflicts between doing what is required by ethics and doing what is right or just. But the value of maintaining an ethical standard is a good in and of itself, so one violates ethical standards only under dire circumstances.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
stunney, in his infinite wisdom:
Coming from a Bitter Unemployed Third Rate Deluded Philosopher, that's funny.
(sorry, TP, for unethically polluting your thread with such invective, but I couldn't resist)
On the topic of Game Theory, it's interesting to note that game theory, which was originally invented to analyze economic behavior of *rational* humans, has been far more successful in explaining behavior of animals other than humans. The reason, of course, is that humans often (seem to) behave irrationally, or in more technical language, the utility function maximized by humans with all their cultural baggage is very hard to identify while the utility function of other animals is simply their reproductive success.
Comment by Raevmo — September 6, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Hi Randy and Nullasalus,
Randy wrote…
Please excuse the belated response. I was cutting and pasting select biblical passages mostly from the Old Testament. You know, where God commanded this and that, flooded the Earth, turned people into pillars of salt, demanded blood sacrifices, directed his people to go to war and other Old Testament stuff. I lost all of my efforts due to pressing the wrong key. I don't think it is divine intervention, but I am not pressing my luck. Besides, I suspect you would have only pointed to the New Testament for your guidance. Here is a relevant passage from Mark 10"¦
I suggest this is actually rather a neutral passage. It shows that JESUS led by example. Three centuries after these words were spoken, a bunch of influential men (First Council of Nicaea) started the process of turning the man Jesus into God. However, it is obvious Jesus was talking about following God's commandments and that people should worship God not him.
I actually respect Jesus as a person. It is ironic, to some Christians, this makes me a heritic and dooms me to enternal damnation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Hi Raevmo,
You wrote…
At least you admit it was unethical. Go, and sin no more.
(can you tell I have been rereading the Bible?)
I suggest that human thinking is more susceptible to Group Think. While monkeys and other animals have the tyranny of the majority. Human communication skills can turn black into white and wrong into right. The cure is to encourage independent thinking. Do you, personally, understand what you believe? Can you defend it openly and honestly?
Ethics gets into the open and honest stuff too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
TP to John:
I think you're making things way too black and white to catch the real drift of human nature and behavior, TP. People can rationalize and self-justify ANY behavior you care to name – and humans are nothing if not inventive of horrors and cruelties to inflict on themselves and others – without a single moment's consideration of anybody's "moral sensibilities." Other than their own, which may or may not be in play for any given desire or deed. Or maybe they have none.
Surely you realize that in a secular society/world, which I presume you support, both morality and ethics are relativized into non-consideration for anything but the most heinous of crimes – and those are mostly social protection issues easily set aside for a price or for convenience to the system. For instance, America imprisons more of its population than any other nation, including China. Mostly these days for drugs, by a wide margin.
Prisoners in this country are routinely abused. Beaten, raped, denied medical treatment and prescriptions, etc. If you thought Gitmo might be bad, we've a centuries long history of torture and abuse behind us in this country. Meanwhile, violent criminals are routinely released to make room for the prisoners of the drug wars, going back into society to rape, pillage, plunder and murder with entirely predictable regularity.
Where is the morality or ethics in all this 'official' activity? We've all heard the U.S. has "The Best" medical care system in existence, but tens of millions of hard working citizens – including children – have no access at all. Tens of millions more have inadequate coverage and can't get primary care, the middle class is one major illness away from bankruptcy, and we're spending $20 billion we don't have (borrowing from China) every single month on a war of aggression in the Middle East that hardly anybody wants to fight. It's been more than two years since Army recruiters met their goals, so we're outsourcing (with more borrowed billions) to Blackwater, et al. Meanwhile, if disaster strikes we're on our own – a great American city has already drowned, it's staying drowned.
The poor are made poorer as the rich get richer, and how much 'moral' complaint about that have you heard recently? Morality and ethics – or even "justice" – has very little to do with government or economic policies in the modern world. If they ever had much to do with it. Religion didn't prove itself any better at these things when it had those powers, so we won't be going backwards. We're on our own, and this anarchy plays itself out every day in all corners.
Given that morality and ethics doesn't govern this Brave New World [Order], there's not a lot of reason for individuals to pay them any mind. So many of them don't. Greed is good, remember? What's a little lead paint on toys or poison in our dog food, so long as it's all cheap at Walmart? So long as DoJ and DHS are spying on and trumping up imprisonment charges against those nasty Quaker peace-mongers, all is well. N'est ce pas?
These things are relative, like everything else. You sound like you want absolutes, but there are none. Outside your own mind, anyway. You can't just insist that everyone embrace your standards. They won't, so it's a waste of time. Just like when religious people make the very same sort of assertions.
When you say that ethics is an altruistic code of conduct you assume all humans are capable of altruism. You also say it's "unethical" to obey moral/ethical precepts or laws because one is concerned about societal or personal punishments. Because I have met people who are devoid of the altruistic capacity (yes, most of them DO qualify as autistic under newer, broader definitions) – and because I've raised a lot of children who occasionally tested the rules – I've gotta say you're wrong here. If you can convince 'em that the risk of punishment isn't worth the promise of reward, it'll be good enough FAPP.
Comment by Joy — September 6, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Zach to Fifth Monarchy Man:
What biological 'strategy'? Humans' instinct for mass murder, interpersonal mental torture and general mayhem is every bit as strong as any supposed beneficial altruism to family/tribe. You do know that most murders are committed by family/tribe members, don't you? And how else would you explain the traditional purpose of science and technology being weaponry? The better to kill you (and yours) with, my dear. Up to and including our so-modern, so-'enlightened' WMDs? You know, the ones we can use to commit evolutionary suicide with, and hopefully sterilize the planet of life while we're at it.
Seems fairly evident to me that humans are evolution's fatal mistake. You just can't give outrageous intelligence to a carnivore/omnivore with a hefty in-house mean streak, then give 'em freedom of will to act out their nightmares on each other. That's not adaptation. It's enabling.
Comment by Joy — September 6, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Hey All
I have an ethical dilemma and I only have limited time so I need to quickly make a decision
Do I engage in a semi scientific debate with those who think that lifelong sexual faithfulness to a genetic dead end is a wining evolutionary strategy?
or
Do I engage in a theological discussion with someone who is completely unaware of the Christology of the early church?
Help me out. Which course is more likely to win in a game or spread my genes ?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Hi Joy,
I get uncomfortable when I find myself on the opposite side of you in an argument. It is the uncomfortable feeling of inadequacy. I can't even complain your aren't doing your fair share of political activism, since you clearly are (a google search brings up interesting insights).
The good news is that I share quite a bit of your observations and sensibilities. Our difference is in what makes for an effective approach. You wrote…
It all come down to FAPP (for all practical purposes) doesn't it? Do I think there is a chance in hell that it would be ok to quit handing out speeding tickets? no. I have no doubt speed limit signs would immediately become worthless.
My frustration is that I don't see a way out of the mess until we get back to basic agreements. Agreements are worthless when government leaders have the attitude that as long as we love God and America (in that order) everything will be ok. Ethics is being discarded along with "reality-based thinking".
If we, the American public, don't demand ethical behavior of government officials, who is going to do the punishing and rewarding? Unfortunately, the American public has shown the ability to actually believe we can lower taxes, increase spending, fight a "preemptive" war and not suffer any consequences. Bush's punishment? He got reelected. He may suffer a little bit in the history books, but even I don't see the benefit in trying to impeach him.
But back on topic…
Regardless of other people can we, in Telic Thoughts, come to an ethical agreement to be open and honest in our discussions for the altruistic purposes of demonstrating it can be done, even among people with differing religious, political and, possibly, moral outlooks?
Not everyone, just us, in this blog.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
Upon review, I feel I crossed the line in my comment. It is off-topic. For what it is worth, I am not going to object to a response to it (in fact I would like to hear it). However, if we get too far afield we may have to move to an open thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
TP,
I'm well aware of the examples of God's work in the Old Testament. I'm also aware that the OT is complicated both in historicity, interpretation, context, and particularly meaning – even (especially) for believers. But even with selective passages (and believe me, I've seen plenty before, including the famous 'infants on the stones' bit) it doesn't really trouble me; I see the OT as illuminating the history of a people with an important purpose, in a world that was necessarily harsh, demanding, and frankly complicated to say the least. But as you knew, at least with Christians, the example is Christ – the OT God's acts were not meant to be examples for man to copy, anymore than Christ said 'Alright, *I* turned water into wine. Now it's your turn.'
And what I find ironic is that, even when they don't believe, people take on the fundamentalist role of pointing at the bible and declaring what's obviously going on here and how this should be interpreted. As a Catholic, I respect that there will be a wide array of views regarding faith, christianity, Jesus, and otherwise. But when someone tells me how 'obvious' a point of the bible is, especially a critic of certitude (Do you know The Truth, TP?), I can't help but grin a little.
Anyway – again, the point has been that Christians, even we who claim responsibility for the actions of the wicked Council of Nicaea, do not as a whole leave our ethical and moral thought to the Bible alone. We engage in philosophy (cue a recoiling Dennett) to consider issues of culpability, moral law and duty, and otherwise. We look to science (cue a snarling Dawkins) for helping us better help ourselves and each other, as well as informing us about the nature of our world. And unfortunately, we meddle in politics (cue a howling Hitchens) to express and represent our views on how we should govern ourselves, and what qualifies as a goal for government and society. We also disagree amongst ourselves on a variety of topics under each three headings, to varying degrees.
Comment by nullasalus — September 6, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
This comment made the entire thread worth it. I thought I was the only one who thought that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Humans have a wide pallet of behaviors that can be adopted depending on the environment. Let's consider a mother's love for a child. A mother loves her child by instinct. And sometimes this love will be detrimental. But overall, it is an effective biological strategy for active and intelligent organisms, such as mammals. The desire for popular acceptance can also lead to detrimental effects, but overall is an important aspect of social cohesion.
Humans have many countervailing instincts, such as for food, mates and pride. Tension between various forces are typical of complex biological systems. Passion, pain, disappointment, triumph are all emotions tied to the expression of these instincts. In sparsely populated hominids, these instincts have molded successful behaviors. But in modern humans, unthinkingly striking out with increasing amounts of firepower threatens the destruction of the very things humans find valuable. Two rams butting horns for a harem is a successful reproductive strategy. Two rams with advanced weaponry may threaten the survival of the herd.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Evolution doesn't care any more than gravity cares. Despite the name of the blog, evolution is not a telic process.
Humans can think, though, and can modify their behavior based on learning.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
TP
Ah, when you said "He is doing his ethical duty and, possibly, engaging in immorality at the exact same time." you confused me. I thought you were trying to show the difference between ethics and morality. Can you explain exactly what your point was?
So could we have a universal, absolute ethics? I think not. It seems that ethics are by their nature localised to a social group, while morality might and might not.
Let us suppose an absolute morality (and I tend towards that position), is it possible that the Spartans are right, and we are wrong about that morality? How could we tell?
Sure, I meant that most moral systems accept that situations change the morality of at least some acts. People who are adamant about abortion may accept that killing in war, or in self defence is okay.
Just to be clear, utilitarianism is not based on consensus (according to my understanding of it).
I am not sure what a morality that is not based on a consensus would mean. We must be talking about the morality of the society, rather than the individual. And if the majority of the people reject that morality, then in what sense does the society have that morality.
Prohibition was an unpopular law, not an unpopular morality, I would suggest.
If we apply the rules of utilitariam is to similar cases today compared to 500 years ago, the result should be the same. It does not matter what society finds acceptable, what matters is the aggregate hurt. Utilitarianism will find slavery and wife abuse wrong every time, because the anguish of the slave or wife easily outweighs any possble benefits.
Comment by The Pixie — September 6, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
I LOVED your comment!
Grin away, you earned it. Allow me to squirm a little bit about the term "obvious" being a qualifier meaning "very probable based on observation" (yes, it's weak).
Your discussion concerning internal and external conflicts is encouraging. It is what philosophy is all about. We don't know the Truth.
Meanwhile, can we agree to act ethically and agree to honest and open agreements while we engage in dueling metaphysics?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I don't see how one relates to the other. Why should we expect species to last forever even if evolution is a telic process? The more I read about it, the more evolution does seem to be telic – and this, without IC structures. Someone else may have a different view, but I can say 'evolution is a telic process' with every bit as much backing as you can say the opposite.
In fact..
Which in turn can influence, even direct, evolution.
I've always found that to be an interesting potential argument – namely, that evolution was not a telic process until humanity arrived on the scene. And now it can't help but be telic, because our continually expanding ability to control and organize our environment and other organisms is itself telic.
I imagine Intelligent Design itself could make a similar halfway claim: Humans make choices, and thus human evolution (and the evolution of that which they affect) is certainly purposeful. Now we just have to prove that what preceded our purpose was purposeful too.
Comment by nullasalus — September 6, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Zach:
And to what do you assign the complete lack of mothering "instinct" in women? I don't know about you, but I've certainly met some women who shouldn't have been mothers. Especially in an age when society doesn't support the institution of pair-bonding for life, but puts the entire child-rearing onus on women who must work 2 or 3 jobs just to provide food and housing, while their one-time mates are busy every night seducing women in bars and NOT supporting any of their far-flung children. Would you like statistics? I could find some…
They both committed suicide shortly after eloping, didn't produce a single child. How is that "adaptive?" And didn't their parents disapprove heartily enough to motivate both elopement and suicide? How is that "adaptive?"
I think you're assuming instincts when free hearts and minds have much, much more to do with things.
How do you explain doves? Their offspring require no greater investment than any other bird's, yet they mate for life. They won't mate again if their partner dies, either. Yet single doves live a relatively long time. I've a female who is 14 years old now, still lays an egg every couple of weeks (but never enough for an omelet!). I think you could find enough outliers in your Anazi Tales to make them questionable at best.
Comment by Joy — September 6, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
This is good.
I better hurry before Joy jumps in talking about EAM.
It makes for an interesting paradox. If human evolution is now considered intelligently designed because human are conscious, then the same would be potentially true of any conscious organisms that exists in nature.
Is chimpanzee evolution intelligently designed by chimpanzees themselves? (they make choices of who to care for and who not to care for)
Once ID has the foot in the door, it is no longer a question of if intelligent design exists, it becomes a matter of how prevalent it is.
Is now a good time to point out the Penrose-Hameroff Orch Or model suggests even singled-celled organisms have consciousness based on their microtubule system?
P.S. Ethically I should delete this comment since it is off-topic for the thread.
Instead, I will provide yet another link to the Third Choice summary.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
What we observe is a vast numbers of branchings, most of which lead nowhere, no crossings between those branches, and ad hoc, opportunistic adaptations throughout. This is not a telic process, but a stochastic one.
You can say it with as much personal certainty, but not with as much (scientific) backing.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Of course it can, and has. Chapter 1.
That directly contradicts your previous stance which concerned the record of species extinction over geological history.
Not until very modern times. Birds use their brains to make choices, for instance, by selecting the most attractive mates. This use of intelligence is part of evolution, but is not telic evolution. Human choosing mates is not purposeful evolution. Nor is traditional animal breeding telic evolution, but just another method of selecting for traits.
Only the ability to foresee and plan for evolutionary change would be considered telic evolution"”such as direct genetic manipulation. And this type of evolutionary change looks much different than what is seen in natural biology.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
TP:
You entitled this thread "The Ethics of Intelligent Design." You've asked pointed questions, presumably in the attempt to demonstrate that your 'consistent universe' would embody some form of absolute morality, and some coherent system of ethical valuations, without the necessity for there to be an intent behind any of it.
I don't see it. As a fan of Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy" – the thought that we should accept the empirical experiences of hardwired sensory percepts even if they may (logically) necessitate further dimensions of conscious reality – I am also one who has critically examined the "Great Origins" hypothesis juxtaposed to the "Humble Origins" hypothesis. I look at things top-down, not bottom-up.
Maybe it's because I'm not hardwired like everybody else. Maybe it's because I've seen and experienced the genuinely miraculous. Maybe I'm just terminally hard-headed, and won't dismiss the evidence of my own eyes, heart and mind. Doesn't really matter, does it? If I'm not amenable to the program, the program's designers will just have to go on without me.
I have said all along – for years now – that intelligent/telic design in life and nature is entirely evident to me. It hasn't lessened my curiosity for detail, or made me reject any of the fascinating science out there every day seeking real answers to open questions. Of course, I also believe there's a reason for our ability to grock things on such abstract and universal levels. Something that's not illusion. And that *must* be a top-down phenomenon because bottom-up simply makes no sense.
We can try to be rational. That doesn't require avowals of faith in assumptions, it requires using our minds. There are some fine minds around here – that's why I like to hang out in these environs. I sometimes think we've more in common than we have to fight about. When we're not believing we've good reasons to go to war, that is… §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 6, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Hi Pixie,
You wrote…
That ethics and morality are different aspects of a given action. It would be like demonstrating heat and light are different aspects by finding examples of something that is hot but does not shine light "at the exact same time".
I think there we had confusion due to the presumption that just because the Spartan thought he was being moral, it doesn't mean he was.
I think we are in agreement here.
I don't know the Truth. That seems to be the way with philosophical subjects. That is why I think morality is philosophical/religious and ethics is scientific.
I only brought up utilitarianism as one of many examples of moral philosophies. I suggest it isn't worth arguing about its details.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I don't suppose any evolutionary biologist has considered that intelligence might be subject to natural selection, or that organisms might use their brains to select a suitable mate, or cooperate for the common good, or to teach their offspring how to hunt for food.
You're confusing the instinct with the evolutionary origin of the instinct. Human males don't choose attractive women because it might lead to long-term biological success over geological timescales.
The Spartans valued their children. They were trying to balance their desire for children against the problems of surviving in the ancient world. From their point of view, they were acting very morally and very ethically.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
TP
I'm glad we can agree as to the ethical/moral thing to do in this situation. Lets stick to the science
I would love to talk to you about this strange desire of yours to read the bible again. To me theology is just like monopoly is to you except when you get it wrong it's a mater of life and death and not just a wasted afternoon. Just give me a sign if you'd like to take this off list.
I do find it ironic that the passage you quoted not only demolishes the thesis of this thread but contrary to your commentary is a striking example of Christ's own claims to deity. (hint: read it again only slowly this time).
Zach
Evolution does not, indeed can not care about overall benefits. It is only concerned with my genes verses yours. "Overall" Evolution will always reward skilled ethical cheaters.
Suppose a group of 10 stone age men nine of which believe that lifelong monogamy is always ethical and one who believes that the ethical thing to do is to cheat as much as possible as long as you don't get caught .
Who's genes will dominate in the long run?
I rest my case
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Maybe I need to understand more about Huxley's suggestion. As it stands, I am not sure if or where we have disagreements. I don't know the Truth, therefore I don't know whether or not there is an absolute morality. If I were forced to guess, I would guess there is not. I talked about the possibility of an absolute morality because I thought it would be an effective way to communication my ideas to a target audience that was likely to think in those terms.
To me, ethics is subject to scientific study in a similar way the fight or flight reflex is.
You continue with your top-down view and I will continue my engineering bottom-up view, if and when we meet in the middle, between the two of us it might portend a significant level of understanding.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Ignoring environmental influences, we *expect* biological variation.
I thought we were discussing the evolution of instinct, not modern society.
Again. Though the mothering instinct can sometimes be detrimental, most of the time it is adaptive in mammals. Though the bonding instinct can sometimes be detrimental, most of the time it is adaptive, especially in organisms who rear their young over long periods of time.
Without an instinct for love, there is no love. It's innate.
Monogamy is common in birds. In the case of doves, the male is generally as attentive to the young as the female"”as expected in a strongly monogamous organism.
I think you still have troubles with the idea of biological diversity allowing adaptations to varying niches. Some birds form stronger pair-bonds than others. When they do, they often share child-rearing duties.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Again, there's that disconnect. You talk about a large number of branches most of which lead nowhere, no crossing between the branches, and (to you) opportunistic adaptations throughout. And then, 'this is not a telic process'. The former has no bearing on the latter; it implies that teleology requires perpetuation of every species to be the case. But that's simply not the case.
My belief is unpopular with the NAS? Goodness. Also, meaningless.
I'm not referring to 'creation science'. I believe in a Big Bang, Old Earth, Common Descent, and I'm not even all that convinced about IC structures (Though who knows.) So even what you quote doesn't touch on teleology as far as I'm concerned; maybe it speaks against a particular sliver possibility of teleology. But that's surprisingly weak for talk of 'scientific backing'.
"Teleological from inception" and "teleological from a certain point onward" are distinct, yes. I wasn't advancing both ideas as one and the same – just having some fun here.
Really now? How arbitrary. But at this point you're splitting hairs; either telic evolution has been in play for thousands of years (a looser definition of teleology than you want to allow) or it's in play only recently. Either way, you end up saying that teleology is becoming or has become quite a force in natural development. Kudos to you, I suspect some would rather choke than admit as much.
Me, I don't believe it's that easy to figure things out one way or the other – too philosophical and difficult to discern. We have computer programs now that 'harness the power of evolution' to make designs that we have severe trouble figuring out, even when they succeed. But I'd best be quiet, don't want to tick TP off in his own thread.
Speaking of which…
TP,
As I said above, I think it's a tremendously difficult problem to answer decisively – you get into how much focus is present, conscious and subconscious goals, prior design (if I design a designing program, did I design what it designs? Etc). The problem I have – in fact, what drew me to ID – was that some people seemed downright decisive about teleology not being present in nature, at all. Maybe you've seen this with regards to Penrose's views. I can respect someone who doesn't think there's teleology there, as well as someone who sees a different teleology than I do. But declaring – as seems to be the case above – that science has discovered that there is no teleology in nature? I don't need a masters in philosophy to know that's a con.
Who knows though – maybe there's consciousness way down to the level you speak of. Panpsychism kind of view, yes? I think a strong case can be made that we humans are strange and singularly special, but I see no reason to immediately rule out some kind of experience down at the most basic levels. I'll read the link.
Comment by nullasalus — September 6, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Your children share half your (distinguishing) genes, as do your siblings. Your cousins also share a proportion of your genes. If you live in a primitive tribe, then you probably share genes with the majority of its members.
If the cheater is caught, he may be beaten, killed or chased away. His known offspring may be killed or ostracized. Fellow hunters may repudiate him as unreliable. Other females may reject him as untrustworthy or because of that ugly scar. His partner in cheating may similarly be punished.
The tradeoffs, such as risk of discovery, possible rewards and punishment, can be analyzed with game theory. Nearly all monogamous species have some cheating.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
TP:
You quoted from Mark, now I quote from Matthew:
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.'" (Matthew 28:8-10)
And Luke:
"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.' When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continueally at the temple, praising God." (Luke 24:45-53)
I find it odd that the disciples were enlightened first about the resurrection, and after that fact they worshiped Jesus. I think your interpretation of the Mark passage is misplaced.
Comment by Randy — September 6, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
You're just waving your hands. We observe precisely the pattern we expect from a process of ad hoc evolutionary adaptation.
My comment had nothing to do with popularity. It had to do with your claim of scientific support. The National Academy of Sciences is a valid authority, but I would be happy to provide as much additional support as you may require to verify the importance of the Theory of Evolution to modern biology. You could start by reading a few scientific journals, such as Nature or Genetics.
Ignoring the equivocation, there is no evidence of teleology in evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — September 6, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
TP:
Yet you agreed with my observation that humans are evolution's fatal mistake. How can anyone justify expanding science to governance over all human pastimes and propensities, when it exists – and always existed – just to gift human power-mongers with newer, better, more efficient means to mass genocide/suicide? They're working on bioweapons right now aimed at particular ethnic groups. If they invent them, someone will use them. That's how it works.
If you can imagine the worst possible application of any science, engineering and/or technological breakthrough, I promise there are labs way ahead of you on all possible nightmares and horrors to be accomplished with them. "Trust" science? Why in the world should anyone do that?
If… if. If there is rhyme and reason. If there is purpose and goal. If there is a place we should be aiming for with all this excess intelligence and outrageous fortune, shouldn't we try to seek it out? Grasp it? Maybe understand it? This to me is the whole of the emotional dichotomy being played out in these debates, as well as in the public lynching of any scientist who dares speak of such things. The power of the dark side is strong. Don't fight it, Luke…
Science can't offer humanity anything but techno-goodies most can never afford, or death. They deal death in spades (though I admit my experience with those scientists has been more military/NS than academic). Meanwhile, humanity lives and dies as it always has, doing the best it can, believing in something more, hoping always for a step up the ladder. Even knowing how those at the top kick and bludgeon (or just enslave) those below. We all hope our children will do better, even though we know from the facts of life here and now that they won't. There is no room at the inn.
In this, the richest country the world has ever seen, we can't even get our cuts stitched or our bones set at the Emergency Room anymore. People are really, truly going to JAIL for not being able to pay their medical bills. Not bankruptcy, not charity. Jail – debtor's prison. The insurance premiums people pay every month go not just for multi-million dollar executive salaries and occasional minimal health care, but also to pay people to do nothing all day long but decide if you get to live or die based on what the spreadsheet predicts. Is marrow transplant an effective treatment for cancer? Not if you're a regular working stiff. They'll sentence you to death without a second thought, knowing there's a cure. I've called it a futures trade in human suffering more than once. That's precisely what it is.
But wait… there's more! (since I'm on a rant) No human rulers – be they religious or atheist – have EVER demonstrated that "life is precious." Not a one of 'em. Young women are told they must endure 9 months' worth of pregnancy and produce a baby they don't want or need and can't possibly raise, because that fetus is somehow more "precious" than any living person's existence, including her own. Babies for the state – we've seen this, in Sparta. Though unlike Sparta, we also insist she bear total responsibility for any deformed or otherwise compromised child. If the child is healthy, it's future fodder for the cannons and land mines and missiles and bombs and bullets… or just poverty and despair. Each life worth less than the money and science it took to fabricate the weapons that killed them in the end.
Religion won't save humanity, and science was never designed for that task either. As I said, we're on our own. There are no Big Answers to Big Questions here. There is choice. Within strictly enforced boundaries natural and unnatural. That's all we get. For a good many, that's not enough either. They usually check out early one way or another. Hardly anyone misses them.
My mother once told me in a particularly lucid moment as she was busy dying that she wished she'd been born a moron. If she weren't so smart, she said, she'd never have expected anything more than whatever she got. And she'd have been happy with it, too. Alas, she was not so fortunate. That's evolution's fault, and yet another illustration of why human beings are evolution's fatal mistake.
Scorn
Comment by Joy — September 6, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Yet that does not come close to stopping cheating it happens all the time.
You forget the payoff in this case is only for the skilled cheater our hypothetical cave man believes that cheating is only ethical if you don't get caught. A caught cheater would be considered immoral and therefore selected out in our example. Only the skilled cheater passes his genes on and it only has to happen once for our Bedrock Casanova to win the evolutionary sweepstakes and every generation is another opportunity to get it right.
Of course there is cheating despite the risk it's what you expect from evolution that does not make it ethical and therefore it supports my case.
We are not talking about what happens we are talking about what is considered to be ethical and adultery even skilled adultery is universally considered to be unethical in spite of ourselves.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 6, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Generally people don't seem to understand me when I say I often consider intelligence a curse. I think I would have liked your mother, I am glad I got a chance to "meet" you.
This is impressive (Scorn)
but you knew that didn't you?
Since we are on depressing subjects. I just got through reading a report on the state of banking industry. You know, those special no-nonsense reports put together exclusively for executives (which I am).
The full impact of the credit crisis hasn't hit yet. Things are going to get a lot worse (but not so much for the rich).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 6, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
raevmo wrote:
After you, Zachriel, keiths, and mtraven have had the piss and the shit royally ripped out of you by me time and again for months, much to my enormous amusement, I perfectly understand your need to resort to such desperate measures.
And rest assured, I'll still be rolling on the floor laughing my ass off at your unparalleled comedy troupe in my luxury house in the Santa Cruz Mountains next summer.
Be merciful, TP. He's very weak willed, and even weaker of intellect. Want proof? Here, read this, er, horseshit:
Amazing, eh? Yup, Raevmo is using human 'cultural baggage' to interpret the behavior of non-human animals as rational while simultaneously decrying humans as plausible candidates for possessing rationality. Which kinda makes it hard to know how humans could judge the rationality of other species. In other words, the science of charlatanism rears its soft and very empty head yet again.:lol:
TP, it's your thread, so it's up to you to determine how much self-refuting incoherence you're prepared to permit on open display from the indescribable 'bright' mob before it gets too embarrassing.
Clearly, in itself, it knows no bounds. But it's your call.
Now excuse me while I contact my personal assistant about depositing my hefty monthly paycheck, have her purchase some more superb Belgian beer, and ponder whether to open the single malt Jura for my nightcap, or just stick with the Johnnie Walker Red Label.
Nah, I'll just finish off the Chivas Regal. It will go nicely with my Dutch cigars.
Comment by stunney — September 6, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
September 6th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
TP:
She'd have liked you too. She was always adopting strays… as if her five weren't enough. She once had three apartment block bodyguards who were flaming gay, she made them homemade dinner and showed them how to grow tomatoes, they kept the druggies well away from her door.
Since we're on the subject matter, I already know it's worse. I'm not a big credit person – or even a reliable consumer. But I do know it's those at the bottom who get screwed. It has always been thus.
The coming recession won't deal with the debt at all. That's something we're pinning on our children and grandchildren, when those bills come due. We managed to get the best end of the deal for Bush-Daddy's Gulf War, because the Japanese bought the rhetoric and the chits. Then we screwed 'em on real estate 'bubbles'. The Chinese aren't that foolish, though they're a lot more unscrupulous. As my Daddy-Pop (grandfather) used to say, "There'll be hell to pay."
Funny… I don't think hell has any money, or that money means a whole lot anywhere but here. Heaven and hell deal in much more tangible assets.
Comment by Joy — September 6, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Thought Provoker Says:
Actually, we can do considerably less than our best. You seem to grant yourself and your allies the benefit of the doubt in this respect, but not your opponents. Where is the scientific justification for this in your definition of ethics?
I still stand behind my "honest" opinion that what you like you label ethical, and what you don't is labeled unethical. Very common, but not very profound, nor very objective nor very scientific. Nor thought provoking.
By whom? And on what basis? These are the decisions you wish to reserve for yourself. Nice work when you can get it.
Whoa! Now one is bound by the "implied assumptions" of others? Like when the "implied assumption" of folks in a certain neighborhood is that no one will sell their home to a black family, to do so would be unethical? Or when the implied assumption in Nazi Germany was that no one would hide Jews, to do so would be unethical? Were the folks that hid Anne Frank unethical? You're digging yourself in deeper, I fear.
So? Maybe Dembski, the DI, and the ID Movement "feels" the same. So, POOF!, they are now all ethical. But for some reason, you don't grant to them the same authority to speak for their "feelings" that you grant yourself. Why is that?
First of all, you haven't defined moralty for us, nor what or whose moral code we will use. As for your definition of ethics, you seemed to abandon it even before the ink . . . er, I mean . . . the bits were even dry. You start throwing in your feelings and the "implied assumptions" of others. And interestingly enough, it all seems to be convenient to your prior bias. TP (Calvin) Ball, as it were. You haven't come close to give me the tools to objectively apply your definition in a real world situation.
But since you seem obsessed on getting an opinion, I'll give you one on an issue discussed here a while back. Ken Miller (and maybe you, can't remember the actual participants) seemed to think Dembski "unethical" for "backing out" of the Dover case. But the evidence seemed to show that Dembski didn't back out, but was dismissed by the lawyers for the Dover schools because Dembski insisted that his employer (publisher of the Pandas book) be represented by seperate counsel. Now, all published reports I've seen dealing with the facts seem to indicate that indeed Dembski was dismissed, and didn't "back out". And looking out for the interests of one's employer could be termed an "ethical duty".
So, who acted ethically? It seems Dembksi did, to the best I can determine. I don't know about Miller. He seems to have, at the very least, gotten the facts wrong. Whether that was the "best he could do" or not, I don't know. That might have been his "honest opinion". But that means little to me. What I can deduce is that he doesn't seem to be a reliable source. I don't feel the need to go further than that.
More later as time permits.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 7, 2007 @ 6:41 am
September 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Of course not. That's the entire point. It happens with monogamous doves. It happens with monogamous humans.
Which is why cheating persists but doesn't prevail. Though cheating may result in occasional babies, babies are more common between monogamous couples due to the frequency of contact. In human socially monogamous populations (before modern times), ~95% of babies were the result of the monogamous coupling.
I'm not sure what your case is. You said, "Who's genes will dominate in the long run? I rest my case," implying that cheaters would overtake the population. This is incorrect. Rather, there is a balance due to the various factors, a cost-benefit analysis within game theory. A game that lovers and doves play to this day.
As for ethics, cheating is a type of deception so is frowned upon. It leads to marital breakups, disruption of the family, and causes friction within the tribal community. The punishment and scorn of getting caught breaking social strictures is the cultural cost of cheating.
Comment by Zachriel — September 7, 2007 @ 8:10 am
September 7th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Hi RodgerRabbitt,
You wrote…
Who are my allies? Who are my opponents?
In telic thoughts, MikeGene and I have both agreed and argued. With Joy, I tend to mostly agree, but occasionally argue. Keiths and I have argued just about as much as we have agreed. Zachriel and I have gone back and forth also. I don't remember arguing with Doug although he is often frustrated with me (though I may be just not remembering correctly).
You are entitled to your opinion. I thank you for having the guts to participate in this thread.
I wrote…The details of what is meant by "timely and appropriate" would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
You responded with…
As per the usual posturing for shield bashing, it looks like you want to suggest I am offering absolutes (you also mistakenly did this the first time we argued about that). I am not. I do not know the Truth. I am making observations and communicating my independent thoughts. I try to sprinkle "I suggest" and "obviously" and, even, "IMO" in my comments to communicate that. I also, quite often, state "I don't know the Truth." The question is, "Do you know the Truth?". Fifth Monarchy Man indicated he thinks he does. That was an honest admission on his part. Now, do you think you know the Truth but hide that opinion for tactical reasons?
Fear or not, you appear to be getting closer to understanding my definition of ethics. Yes, it would be unethical to secretly sell you house contrary to an implied agreement. Now, if you had clearly voiced your opposition to that implied agreement before hand, there would have been no agreement. Likewise with the examples confirming Godwin (Nazi). I am not offering absolutes. As with most things, it is a balancing act, balancing ethics with morals. Sometimes the moral thing to do is act unethically. But that concept only makes sense if you can envision more than one concept guiding behavior.
Because of evidence they are not openly and honestly speaking their feelings.
No, I asked you to offer your definition of morality for us. It looks like you didn't do that. My embrace of NOMA makes it difficult for me to suggest a philosophical Truth. I tend the think the Oracle of Delphi was correct in implying that a wise man (like Socrates) knows he doesn't know the Truth.
People have been working this issue for millennia, I think it is safe to assume there are no easy answers.
Sorry, but I have to run. As you said "more later".
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 7, 2007 @ 8:32 am
September 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Hey Zach:
I didn't think you understood my point. Let me rephrase it. We are not trying to explain cheaters evolution does a fine job of that. What needs to be explained is
Why is skilled cheating not considered ethical?
If a mutation for this trait were to occur it would quickly dominate the gene pool. Skilled cheaters obviously have more offspring.
We see plenty of cheaters in society yet no one who thinks skilled cheating is the right thing to do. Why is this?
I hope that clears it up. If not I'll just chalk it up to a genetically predisposed tendency to misunderstand others on your part.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 7, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Let's make sure we are discussing the same thing.
Zachriel: Though the terms are used somewhat interchangeably, ethics usually refers to codes of conduct, while morality more often connotes the innate sense of right and wrong.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy, not a genetic trait.
If you are referring to sexual cheating in monogamous organisms, I have repeatedly explained why cheating may not come to dominate a gene pool. In some organisms, raising offspring requires a great deal of time and care. A monogamous couple can therefore gain an advantage by providing a higher level of care than a single parent can.
But the male contribution only makes sense if he can reasonably assure paternity. This can be done by aggression, domination or the watchful eye. A cheater might still gain a big advantage. Not only does he have a chance to reproduce, but someone else does the work. His chance of success is limited by opportunity under the watchful and possibly aggressive eye of the monogamous male. Keep in mind, this is a balance of countervailing forces and the exact result depends on many factors.
A cheater has little reason to help raise offspring that quite possibly might not be his own. If everyone else is a cheater, then a strongly monogamous couple will have the best cared for offspring. And don't forget that in many monogamous organisms the female is the chooser, looking for traits during courtship that indicate a reliable partner.
Game theory leads to specific empirical predictions. Yet even after repeating the explanation, you keep saying that cheaters will necessarily dominate the population. This is untrue.
Some people have no moral qualms about cheating. How many times have you heard it said, he wasn't sorry except for getting caught. And cheating an out-group is considered ethical in many societies.
But I'm still confused as to whether you are trying to make a point about ethics (philosophy) or instinct (biology). I would be happy to discuss either in more detail.
Comment by Zachriel — September 7, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Hey Zach,
This will be the third time I've tried to explain myself. and I'm getting bored but I'll give it one more shot.
The subject of this thread is how biology and game theory supposedly determines our ethics but not our morals
Just because humans can rationalize any behavior and some humans might be genuinely psychopathic does not change the fact that skilled cheating is unethical
The first thing we need to establish is that adultery even skilled adultery is universally (in all societies) considered to be unethical. The first time I heard this fact was in the early nineties in Steven Pinker's book The Langue Instinct. I spent minute trying to Google a quote but no luck.
If you don't agree with this contention I can try and locate my copy and give you chapter and verse.
Once that scientific fact is accepted. We can move on to the more important issue of why this is so given the obvious evolutionary advantage of believing skilled adultery to be a good thing.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2007 @ 7:31 am
September 8th, 2007 at 9:33 am
That's fine, but you should avoid making demonstrably inaccurate statements concerning biology. Whenever monogamy is reproductively advantageous, then it can be *observed* that a balance is struck between fidelity and cheating resulting in mixed behaviors as modeled by game theory.
The specific question is poorly phrased. (I read Thought Provoker's definiton several times to no avail.) Let's consider ethics as the public view of behavior, morality as the personal view. Let's add to this mix a variety of observed, relevant instincts; love, lust, hate, compassion, empathy, etc. Nearly all mammalian mothers love their children. And social mammals also often exhibit empathy and compassion.
Among social primates, though, there are a few additional adaptations. A sense of fairness is observed in monkeys. Give two capuchin monkeys a piece of cucumber each, and both are happy to perform tasks to earn their food. Give just one a grape, and the other will refuse the cucumber, and refuse to perform tasks. Reciprocity, caring and giving are observed behaviors in primates.
Now concerning deception. It is observed that apes are capable of conscious deception. They'll cheat by hiding food. They'll hide and watch others in the act of deception. They'll cheat by hiding for surreptitious couplings or hiding signs of their arousal for their paramour from the suspicious mate.
Apes have a primitive theory of mind. That is, they can model the thoughts of others. When conflict occurs among apes, third parties may intervene to restore peace in the tribe. In other words, apes have a variety of behaviors that enable and ensure continued cooperation and group cohesion.
On group dynamics, individual primates will often incur short-term personal cost for the long-term benefit of the group. This is where the sense of fairness comes into play. Freeriders are derided and ridiculed by the group. They are refused the benefits of the cooperative effort of the group. They are ostracized.
Humans have a strong instinct to be accepted by their group, family or tribe. And many behaviors are oriented to this goal. Being ridiculed by valued friends, or a stern word from a parent, is often enough to mold behavior in humans for a lifetime. Being caught cheating leads most people to a sense of guilt, of having let down their group.
Ethics are defined for within the group. Deception of the in-group is always frowned upon. Freeriders must be ostracized to maintain group cohesion. This is an evolutionary necessity. A variety of behaviors have developed to ensure group cohesion, such as the sense of fairness seen even in monkeys.
Again game theory provides modeling of the countervailing influences. Cooperation is an advantage to the group. Freeriding can be an advantage to the individual, but apes have large brains, good memories, and a skill-set to help determine personal reliability. Tribal culture is a complex adaptation.
Comment by Zachriel — September 8, 2007 @ 9:33 am
September 8th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Fifth Monarch Man
Why is skilled cheating not considered ethical?
Is think there is a logical confusion here. Why should it be? We have evolved a number of motivations – some are moral e.g the desire for fairness. Others are not – e.g sexual desire. Our actual behaviour is a balance of these motivations. Skilled cheating is a consequence of desires that are not moral.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 8, 2007 @ 9:37 am
September 8th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Hi All,
I don't want my unusual quietness in this thread to be misconstrued.
I am enjoying the discussion. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Thank you Zachriel, Fifth Monarch Man, Mark Frank and others.
Please continue.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 8, 2007 @ 10:10 am
September 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am
TP says:
Absolute knowledge is your red herring, not mine. Objective criteria is what I'm trying to decipher. Without that, your claims about what science can and cannot investigate, justify, etc., are without substance.
And again we have you setting yourself up as the ethical arbitor, defining the "ethical" responses for me. Let me make it clear that I am not offended. Indeed, it just confirms my suspicions that when we scrape away all the unsupported claims you are making about ethics and science, your working definition of "ethical" is what you like, and "unethical" is what you don't. In contrast to Mike Gene, I don't see you as anything close to unique, and certainly not thought provoking.
"An honest person would keep agreements" is a statement without support of any kind offered. I could enter into an agreement fully intending to honor it, and later change my mind. At all points my pronouncements could be my "true feelings" and "honest opinions". Just because you might think that both dishonesty and breaking agreements are unethical, it doesn't follow that they are equivalent. Unless, of course, you choose to define those words in a different manner than their general usage, in which case the onus would seem to be yours to make that clear and provide your alternate definition.
I think probably the main sand pillar of your case is your obsession about "honesty" and "hidden agendas". It makes the altruistic punishment you refer to in game theory impossible to implement, because most people can't read minds. Game theory concerns itself with observing behavior, not reading minds. This whole way of looking at the issue is a fool's errand, as Scalia points out in Edwards v Aguillard.
I don't need to know your goals or hidden agendas. I'm perfectly happy addressing your arguments, which are pretty weak.
Now, let me emphasize again that I have no problem that you adopt this particular ethical code. I'm just here to point out that it doesn't apparently have any support or justification in what most folks consider science, and that when you label arguments or people as ethical or unethical, it doesn't hold that meaning which most people assign to those terms.
LOL! This directly contradicts your position above that "An honest person would keep agreements". Certainly some folks would honestly "feel" that they've changed their minds and are only honoring the agreement because of the consequences of breaching it. You've painted yourself into another logical corner.
Because that makes no sense. It was you who made claims about ethics, morality and science, so those claims can only be defended from your perspective of what those terms mean. Now, I'll be happy to provide a link to a definition of morality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
It doesn't advance the conversation. I'm not one of those who thinks the point of internet discussions is to proclaim loudly my powers to be the sole arbitor of what words mean. I find it rather boring. YMMV. I'm trying to get at what others mean when they use words in non-conventional senses, to see if there is something thought provoking hidden deep within.
That doesn't appear to be the case with you, but hope springs eternal.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 8, 2007 @ 10:25 am
September 8th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Zach:
You keep telling us evolutionary Anazi Tales about 'why' humans do this and that, referring often to primates and bandying about the terms "advantageous" for behaviors and "game theory" to tell us that cheating is *always* unethical (to explain why cheaters never prosper, I think).
Yet last time I checked, biologists still consider bonobos to be primates. As closely related to humans as regular pan-trogs. Bonobo group dynamics are quite different from the male dominated social organization of chimps, where we observe infanticide, gang murders and other nasty, lethal forms of aggression.
Bonobos play a lot and have a lot of sex. They also stage frequent orgies, nobody really knows who daddy is (does it matter?), and are notable for their general cooperative peaceable-ness. Thus it looks to me like primate behavior is as culturally determined as human behavior, which has very little to do with what might be the best "evolutionary strategy" and a lot to do with dominant individuals' personal interests and how much physical power they can use to make everybody else submit.
Bonobo Handshake
Social Tolerance Allows Bonobos to Outperform Chimpanzees
Comment by Joy — September 8, 2007 @ 11:53 am
September 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
TP says:
Well, some of your opoonents are clearly delineated in that very post:
These appear to be your whipping boys, amongst others. And although I couldn't find the discussion involving Miller and Dembski "backing out" of Dover, I did find another involving Miller where you accuse Mike Gene of "carrying water for Dr. Dembski (and Discovery Institute)" because Mike thinks Miller is mischaracterizing Dembski. You didn't seem to want to review the evidence, but seemed to jump to implying that there was something unethical about siding with Dembski vs Miller, irrespective of the facts. So, I think Miller can be considered an ally who gets the ethical benefit of the doubt from you. More on that thread a little later.
I'm not sure what you mean by shield bashing, other than it is apparently meant as an insult / criticism. But again, the absolute red herring is yours. Never asked for that. I'm trying to establish some objective criteria beyond your opinions and biases. Because without that, your appeal upthread that "can we agree to act ethically" is easily answered: No. Because the rest of us have no idea what the criteria for "act[ing} ethically" are. Only you can make that determination if you cannot supply us with some objective criteria. And even if you could, I'm not confident that most would agree with your "goals", which you claim are integral to the process.
Agreement and assumption are two different words, with different meanings to most. And then we have "implied". One person can imply something, with others not seeing the implication. Others can infer things not being implied. A bigger can of worms would be hard to imagine if we are gonna try to claim some kind of scientific justification for this whole mess.
I don't think there is any more evidence of that for them, than their opponents. You only seem to be more attuned to that criteria in them. Your "ethical" detector seems to be nothing more than a "bias" enforcer.
Yes, because as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to my challenge to your claims. And I'm not obsessed about labeling folks ethical, unethical, immoral or moral. That's your game.
Yes, but you claimed to have found the answer and that it could be scientifically demonstrated. That's why you suffer my challenge.
Getting back to the thread I mentioned earlier, it is pretty funny to read the exchanges by you:
http://telicthoughts.com/miller-misrepresents-dembski/#comments
After insulting Mike Gene, you show you are capable of dishing it out, but not taking it. Then we have this gem:
Careful with you words? Just like Clinton? What happened to open and honest. Well, that would ignore your pre-existing bias against Dembski and for Miller. That's not really a hidden agenda, or at least not hidden very well.
But not, by your own admission, of Miller. Isn't that less than open and honest? Isn't that the same charge you make of others?
So, again, he gives himself and his biases the benefit of the doubt, but his opponents get the skeptical treatment. Is it really any wonder that TP sees himself and his allies as ethical, and his opponents as not.
To most of us, that isn't even close to what we would consider ethical in public discourse.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 8, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Cheaters do prosper, sometimes. Even among doves.
You still miss the dynamics involved. Having defined ethics as public attitude towards behavior, then violations of publicly held behavioral expectations are unethical by definition. The question then become the source of these public expectations and the public response to cheating.
Even monkeys can have an expectation of equity and fairplay.
It doesn't matter to the bonobos. But it does matter to evolution. Bonobos have the (proportionally) largest testes of any primate. The sperm compete. Gorillas have small testes. But the males use their great bulk to secure a harem.
Comment by Zachriel — September 8, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Roger Rabbit to TP:
This is the problem when your system of ethics is based on arrogance or egoism. You become the end and your fellow man becomes a means. However, this becomes something of a problem in a society full of egoists. What reason would one egoist have for following the ethics of another egoist? The egoist's ethics is a self-serving one based on domination of his fellow man.
Notice, furthermore, that the egoist doesn't really need to do anything altruistic; all he needs is a little pretension, a little posturing and lots and lots of pontification. Of course that is exactly what we see going on in this thread. Look at all the atheists who have shown up waxing eloquent about the "Spartans throwing their unwanted babies off cliffs." I wonder what Ethics 101 textbook they got that illustration from? Do any of these know- it-alls have a real life example from somebody living in the real world today (Sept 2007)? Do they have, maybe, something actually from their own life? Oh, I forgot these people are trying to get a life. I wonder what they did before the Internet?
Earlier I asked TP:
The point that I was trying to make, which TP conveniently dodged, is that knowledge + reason about ethics and morality does not equal being ethical or moral. In fact, have knowledge about ethics and morality and not bothering to live ethically or morally is itself unethical if not hypocritical.
I would go on further and argue to simply pontificate about ethics is itself dishonest and unethical. At best it's a kind of self-delusion. At its worse it is lying. Is doing your best here really gain you anything?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 8, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Zach:
LOL!!! How big are your balls, Zach? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet. Testes don't "compete," they just hang there getting chafed. I'm sure female bonobos aren't measuring ball size and being exclusive on that basis, and the first sperm to the finish line wins, always. Heck, the sperm of a totally monogamous partner 'compete' with each other for the prize. This explains exactly zip about socialization and culture, or why humans have historically been more chimp/gorilla like than bonobo like.
That has changed a lot in the last few decades, though. It's beginning to look like human primates may be starting to make the transition to a more bonobo-like culture. That's always going to cause reactionism from some hard core corners, but now that promiscuity is acceptable and nobody really cares who daddy is, it will change.
See, logically it never mattered who daddy was. It's plain for everybody to see who the mother is. Apart from social position and inheritance rights. That's entirely dependent upon a male-dominated social structure, and societies don't have to be organized that way. Women now uniformly participate in the bread-winning roles, so relative equity on that scale will eventually come around. Women have always been more able than men to function as necessary in whatever roles best ensure survival for themselves and their offspring. Takes awhile for laws, mores and organizational entrenchment to come around.
Valuation of females will come as females demand to be valued. That's happening. And the size of your balls won't make a lick of difference in your ability to play their game, or to control the destiny of your offspring (you may not even know who they are).
Besides (aside humorous note I earned from daughters and others busy playing the games I left behind long ago…), the most macho, best looking, brawny type guys are very often the most gay these days. Their sperm isn't competing for any kind of evolutionary prize.
Comment by Joy — September 8, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Hi RogerRabbitt,
I am impressed and honored that you would take the time and effort to look for previous transgressions of mine. I'll give you a hint, you could probably find more embarissing examples of my comments in other blogs like Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula.
I am not overly proud of how I acted in reaction to the MikeGene getting involved in the Dembski verses Miller situation. I thought MikeGene made a mistake. I still do. However, I think I could have handled it better.
It was interesting that when I asked you to give me your opinion on the "Dover participants" you started talking about Miller and Dembski. I wasn't thinking of either of them. I was specifically thinking about the Dover school board, administration and science teachers. Earlier in the thread I was talking about the defendants. I probably should have made myself clearer.
It is also interesting that you would consider Miller to be an "ally" of mine. Other than having similar attitudes in NOMA, how does Miller help me (ala the Third Choice)?
Yes, I think more highly of Ken Miller than most ID proponents and have said so. I also think rather highly of Doug which is why I mentioned him. I would think most people know my opinion of Joy.
Am I biased?
yes. I am human.
What I mean by "shield bashing" is posturing to be on the defensive side of the argument and painting the other side as the aggressor. A common example is to publicly declare a status of being a victim while suing. Militarily it is a very effective tactic. If you can force your opponent to attack you when you are in a defensive position, it usually goes badly for the attacker if it would otherwise be an even match. In debates, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Sometimes it gets to the point that the shield bashing opponents will try to force the other side to present both sides of the arguments (including definitions) so they can yell "Red Herring" or "Strawman". It is very easy to throw stones and make up arguments from a defensive position.
Picture a "fair" fight between a guy with a knife and someone with a buckler (medium sized shield held/attached to one arm). As they approach each other to start fighting the guy with the shield says "no fair, I am unarmed". In the moment of confusion, the shield-wielder lifts up his shield obscuring the vision of the other while protecting chest, neck and other vital areas and hits the knife-wielder with the shield/forearm combination. If the shield-wielder is appropriately experienced, he will know how to put his entire weight behind it while not exposing himself. The force of such a blow will likely cause the knife-wielder to be knocked off-balanced and maybe even knocked off his feet. This will inevitably lead to the knife-wielder moving his arms to regain balance or getting to his feet which would allow the shield-wielder to apply a devastating blow to the head. Even if the first blow isn't fatal, it would cause disorientation. Eventually, the fight will be over and the "unarmed" participant the winner.
BTW, bucklers were sometimes made with sharp edges and a spike.
Does this mean this is a case of my side verses your side?
Who are your allies ("rest of us")? Who are your opponents?
What about thinking for ourselves?
I have offered the suggestion that trying to be open and generally adhere to agreements would be a constructive way to behave.
What is your suggestion for the establishment of rules of behavior?
Let's start small. Rules of behavior in Telic Thoughts.
Hint: some of us are disinclined to trust faith and Group Think.
P.S. Thank you for your comment. As to your other queries into discussing my ethical behavior, I would normally be quite willing to get into it with you. But I like how the thread is going otherwise, so I have chosen not to respond to them. Maybe some other time.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 8, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Hi John A. Designer,
You wrote…
I am assuming you are addressing this to me. It looks like you set up the problem more-or-less the way I would have (with your spin).
What is your answer? You continued with…
Further continuation of describing the problems involved.
What is your answer to the problem you propose? You continued with…
This is more evidence supporting your view of the problem. What is your answer to a society full of egoists?
Let's start small. What is your answer for Telic Thoughts?
I hope you don't want to start banning all the people who call themselves arrogant.
I have offered the suggestion that trying to be open and generally adhere to agreements would be a constructive way to behave.
I realize that you wish to classify what I am doing as pontification, it helps the rationalization process (and yes, I realize this statement is pontification). However, I have been quite consistent in suggesting science is about the search for knowledge, not Truth. And since, by my definitions, ethics is scientific then I see it as something we can learn about through experimentation. It isn't a convenient dodge on my part to hold ethics in the same vein I hold the animal instinct of fight-or-flight.
I think ethics is instinctual. I think having children is instinctual. It is my philosophical opinion that we should not work too hard to fight either instinct.
Are these instincts correct and "moral" in all situations?
I don't know the Truth, do you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 8, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
TP to John Designer:
Well, flattered as I am by your expressed fondness, I'm going to have to question you on this because I don't credit "instinct" in human beings as much as you and Zach obviously do. If we're rational critters, then allowance must be made for rationality and its faculties for arranging things according to its own nature.
If ethics (or morality) are "instinctual" then there would be no excuse for The Law. As Paul noted long ago, no one is justified by The Law. Laws exist in human society because morality and ethics are NOT instinctual. The implied contract is broken quite regularly, so we institute and empower authorities who can exact punishments for breaking it. One man's justification is another man's tort or crime. Always dealt with after-the-fact. This is human nature, and it's always contingent on however a given society has ordered itself (arbitrary) and in what institutions it invests authority (a power game).
Having children isn't the least bit instinctual for humans. It's "normal" in a world without birth control, but truth is it's a physically inconvenient side effect of sex. Which *is* instinctual – hardwired as it is to our brain's pleasure and addiction circuits.
I know many monogamous, happily married couples who decided not to reproduce. What's wrong with that? In an over-crowded world, that just might be the most conscientious option, and there are plenty of children who have no one to love them. People don't evolve, populations do. Thus evolution means exactly zip to real live people just trying to live a happy, somewhat successful life in time.
Then there's gays. If they're increasing in number in the population these days (and you can bet your bippy their parents weren't gay), it just might be a sort of "lemming reaction" to overpopulation more than it's a peculiarity of transient cultural fads. Gays like sex as much as the next guy or gal. They just don't "instinctually" want to reproduce.
There it is. I don't believe either morality or ethics are "instinctual." I think they're entirely relative to social and cultural norms. Nor do I believe that having babies is "instinctual." I think that's entirely relative to women's knowledge and power, as well as to social and cultural norms per the wealth and power deal. That's political, not instinctual. Truth is (and I know you guys don't like to hear it), birth control and abortion have been around as long as humans have. I know at least six different herbs that grow in these mountains – in what I call "lady-meadows" that will do the trick. I may be among the last of the wisdom-women, but I sure wasn't the first.
P.S. There will always be enough babies to keep the human racket going, TP. There are 6.5 billion of us now, and it keeps increasing despite all natural and unnatural attempts to put a lid on it. Life will find a way, even if we do make good on our suicidal tendencies and make ourselves extinct in one fell swoop with all those nifty technological weapon-wonders…
If indeed humans are evolution's fatal mistake, we will go away in time. And life will produce something else – perhaps better, perhaps worse – to take our place. Evolution doesn't care about us. That is really an important point to keep in mind. We're the only ones in this reality who care about us. If all we can manage to do is make ourselves extinct, we're just trash to the overall scheme of things. No one will miss us when we're gone.
Comment by Joy — September 8, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
Just because I like you, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
I think I would start to get worried if we agreed on too many things. By all means question away.
My position is probably somewhere between you and Zachriel. I had purposely opened up the question of whether "having babies" is instinctual verses "wanting sex", because I see this as the same situation as ethics.
I also used the concept of "not fighting it" rather than suggesting it is right.
I find it difficult to believe the knee-jerk reaction to dishonesty is culture driven. I notice how people will easily act to their determent on principle. People will drive 100 miles round trip for nothing more than principle if a store attempts a bait-and-switch for an item with a $20 difference in price.
Then there is the cheater detector I mentioned in the opening post. I think it provides support for the idea that it is more than culture driven. However, I could be wrong on this.
Do I think I am "right" because I raised four children and support them raising their children? Not really. Raising children is something that I accept as natural for me to want to do. Philosophically, I have decided to go with the flow and allow it to guide my behavior.
Do I think I am "right" because I get angry at seeing unethical behavior? Not really. Reacting to unethical behavior is something that I accept as natural for me to want to do. Philosophically, I have decided to go with the flow and allow it to guide my behavior.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 8, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Zach:
I never said otherwise. It's always important to remember that failure to comprehend on your part does not equal dishonesty on my part.
We in this thread are talking about what is ethical and not what is "observed"
I'm sorry but I'm unwilling to concede this point to TP or you. There is no difference between the two what is wrong in public view must be wrong in private or we are dealing with hypocrisy not ethics. That is what the whole discussion of skilled cheaters is all about.
Once again this assumes the point that we are debating. Ethics are universal and objective.
For example adultery and murder are always wrong in every group ever. What changes is only how we define those terms in different cultures.
Mark Frank
I'm not talking about the desire to cheat. You can make a good case that this desire is genetic. I'm talking about the mental breaks that keeps ethical people from following through with this desire even when there is zero chance of getting caught.
If you like I can also talk about the strange phenomena that causes some of us to cease having that sort of desire all together. Despite our genes
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 8, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
TP:
You shouldn't conflate ethics with instinct, because these are entirely different things. You can't place blame on people for doing what instinct tells them they must do. All you can do is place lauds on people for NOT doing what instinct demands. If your ethics demands denial, that is. It doesn't have to. You should recognize that too.
Strangely (or not), our significant differences with our primate brothers include semantic language facilities they don't have. I've often thought language was invented so that we could lie effectively. Every other critter has signals and postures and sounds that transmit certain knowings and warnings, but we're the only ones who lie. Physical deception in lab-raised chimps doesn't really count on this level. That's just the deception that gifted us with inherent lie-detectors. Language goes well beyond that.
Oh, I know from raising young'uns. Did that, do that. It never ends. Yet my Godparents (who were Jews, and made a sterile couple due to horrors you don't want to know about) "raised" me. And my siblings. And kept up with me even after my marriage and the births of my children. I've raised more than my own. Still at it, I don't expect ever to be exempted from the role since I've played it so long. With relative success. That's okay with me. Kids keep you young…
It's all okay, so long as the history gets passed. It's when the history is grossly distorted that there's a problem. In my experience, there is usually aberration wherever there is gross distortion. And yes, I've dealt with that too. It's my life, they come to me and I deal with them. So do you, and you're nowhere near old enough to call it quits. We do what we do, per our nature. It's a mistake to presume our nature is the same as everybody else's.
Deal is, I don't expect all of humanity to "instinctually" know that I'm right, particularly when they're wrong. I remember Hitler. Pol Pot. Mao. Milosevic. Whoever. They don't share my concerns, they have/had way more power than I'll ever claim. Yet they were human too, just like me. I know that all I control is my little sphere. I try hard to make it work. I don't pretend that the whole of humanity thinks or acts like I do, and I don't really care about that. I just do what I do. So do you.
That's enough, I think. At least, if I ever see God face-to-face, it's my excuse. He'll have some explaining to do too, so I'm honestly not that worried… §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 8, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 9:49 am
fifth monarchy man: Suppose a group of 10 stone age men nine of which believe that lifelong monogamy is always ethical and one who believes that the ethical thing to do is to cheat as much as possible as long as you don't get caught. Who's genes will dominate in the long run? I rest my case.
fifth monarchy man: Why is skilled cheating not considered ethical? If a mutation for this trait were to occur it would quickly dominate the gene pool.
This is an incorrect statement. It is not predicted by the Theory of Evolution, by Game Theory, or by empirical observation. Whenever monogamy is reproductively advantageous, then it can be *observed* that a balance is struck between fidelity and cheating resulting in mixed behaviors as modeled by game theory.
This is reminiscent of your other misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.
That's a definitional problem. It's not something to be conceded. I have provided two definitions directly to you of "ethics", one based in philosophy and one based in behavior and expectations.
Okay. So we are dealing with ethics as a branch of philosophy. Even then, they are not universal. Like all such philosophical systems, we start with agreed axioms. If we share these axioms, then we can reason together to reach valid conclusions. Most humans share a belief that life is better than death, that loss without gain is bad, and that people are more valuable than rocks.
Nevertheless, only if we accept similar axioms will we be likely to reach similar conclusions. There is some evidence that the reason humans share many such axioms is because of their biology. Even monkeys have a sense of fairness.
Adultery is "wrong copulation" by definition, but adultery is defined by various cultures and people to mean different things. And murder is "wrong homicide" by definition, but homicide is not always wrong or unethical. (In other words by using the word "murder", you have assumed your conclusion. Of course, murder is wrong: that is its definition. But homicide is not always wrong, not always murder.)
Couples bond. Birds do it. Romeo and Juliet did it. Meanwhile, others suppress lesser urges for grander benefits.
Comment by Zachriel — September 9, 2007 @ 9:49 am
September 9th, 2007 at 10:05 am
The first sperm to the finish line wins. With a promiscuous female, which sperm will be the likely winner? The male who makes the most sperm will have the greater chance of success. Think it through. This is something that leads to specific empirical predictions relating behaviors and the size of testes. Here are a few cites; insects, birds, mammals and fish.
Experimental evidence for testis size evolution via sperm competition (flies): Sperm competition theory predicts increased spermatogenic investment with increased sperm competition risk when competition is numerical. There is ample correlational evidence for this relationship in a wide range of taxa.
Sperm competition and the evolution of testes size in birds: monogamous taxa had smaller testes than taxa with multiple social mates.
Sperm competition and the evolution of male reproductive anatomy in rodents: Sperm competition is a pervasive selective force in evolution, shaping reproductive anatomy, physiology and behaviour. Here, we present comparative evidence that varying sperm competition levels account for variation in the male reproductive anatomy of rodents, the largest and most diverse mammalian order… We demonstrate a positive association between relative testis size and the prevalence of within-litter multiple paternity…
Sperm size of African cichlids in relation to sperm competition: we found that polygamous cichlids had significantly longer sperm than their closest monogamous relatives. In addition, sperm length was significantly related to relative testis size.
Comment by Zachriel — September 9, 2007 @ 10:05 am
September 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
TP says:
Sorry to disappoint, but I was only looking for an exchange over Miller, Dembski, Dover and ethics, which I couldn't find, when I stumbled upon this thread, much to my amusement.
And that's consistent with your pattern. Start with your "opinion", but have no rationale or argument to logically explain it. You reach into your bag of rationalizations, and come up with "That was a year ago. Old news.", not letting show even a minor blush over the fact that you had just made hay about a creationist conference that Dembski attended 10 years ago.
I find that extremely amusing. To be honest, I shouldn't be so hard on you. That seems to be the curse of the information age. Lots of data out there to rationalize almost any position, but few (none?) commonly held principles on which one can build a logical and intellectually consistent position.
You should have, since my response was consistent with the context of this blog and prior discussions here, whereas the minor players are folks who I have no clue about and have no opinion to offer. Maybe the one exception being the school board member who supposedly tried to obfuscate the source of the funds used to purchase the Pandas book for the library.
But beyond that, its not a game I spend much time playing. I don't try to formulate such conclusions of who is moral or ethical from afar. Now if one guy stands up and says, "I don't like ID / ND", and stabs his opponent in the chest, I may jerk my knee and say that appears immoral or unethical. But a bunch of people squabbling, in and of itself, doesn't prompt a need to reach such conclusions. That's a pretty big difference between me and you.
I said nothing about the 3rd Choice. That you are allies, is pretty clear from you actions in threads where he has been discussed. I didn't say you agreed on everything, only that you grant him the benefit of the doubt where you don't others.
And of course, that has never been the issue. It's the fact that you try to fashion some kind of "scientific" and "instinctual" ethical code from your own biases that most folks don't share. There's a famous Biblical quote, "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Does that mean we should never judge? I don't think so. I think it means judge on shared values, and not petty and arbitrary personal biases. It's the opposite of what you seem to do.
Wow! What has any of that have to do with my postings? You have this elaborate imagination, assigning strategies and positions to me that never even occur to me. I couldn't care less whether somebody labels me the victim, the oppressor, the aggressor, the defender, or even the French maid in the skimpy skirt. Those are your obsessions, not mine. I'm trying to discuss the issues you raised.
The only thing even remotely relevant is the fact that I have asked you for you to define those terms you are using, because of your own statements that you view those terms differently than most, including dictionaries. The only way we can explore any meaning in the assertions you are making here and in prior threads, is for you to tell us what you mean when you use those words. That's not "sheild bashing", but basic logic.
No, it's you against everybody else who doesn't accept your pronouncements as the truth. As you say, "Deal is, I don't expect all of humanity to "instinctually" know that I'm right, particularly when they're wrong".
I have no clue where this is coming from, but it seems to conflict with your ethical code, since I would have to let you do my thinking for me if I want to be deemed "ethical".
You've gonna a lot farther than that. And you also seem to want to ignore the obligation to be open that you judge other people upon. When you fail, it is "I'm only human". When opponents fail to be open, it is confirmation of their unethical behavior.
A hint out of nowhere, except the dark recesses of your mind. Seems like somebody who feels an ethical obligation to be open would explain what the significance of that was. I'm not sure what is intended by "establishment of rules of behavior". Let me just return to the supposed subject of this thread: ethics.
What you call ethics seems to be a 180 degree contradiction of what modern liberal democracies consider ethics. Conventional ethics depends on some objective criteria which an individual can use (or not) when choosing a course of conduct. There can be folks arguing about all manner of issues, and all being completely ethical. It doesn't assume that one TP knows the truth and the rest uf us are wrong.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 9, 2007 @ 10:37 am
September 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
For the record, I have never accused you of dishonesty. I indicated you were "making demonstrably inaccurate statements concerning biology".
Comment by Zachriel — September 9, 2007 @ 10:37 am
September 9th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hi RodgerRabbitt,
I wrote… "I thought MikeGene made a mistake. I still do."
You wrote…
It is interesting that you turn "I still do" into a rationalization that I consider it old news. I was being polite and not belaboring an old transgression of MikeGene's. After he made the post, it turned out that it was the BBC, not Ken Miller, that caused the misrepresentation. Which makes Mike's thread title "Miller misrepresents Dembski" more than just a little misleading. Here is what Mike offered to end the discussion…
"Thus, the perception of misrepresentation was entirely justified. What I can do later tonight, if you want, is write up a short blog linking to Miller's letter and letting readers know that the BBC misled a lot of people." link
Do you really want to continue discussing MikeGene's proclamation? I will if you wish. I don't know what you are talking about claiming I made "…hay about a creationist conference that Dembski attended 10 years ago."
Maybe Miller was making hay about it, but I don't think I was. But I could be wrong. Note, the conference I was talking about in MikeGene's thread occurred at SMU this year.
I will grant you that your response was consistent with the general Group Think. Recently, I had a discussion with someone who claimed to be an expert with the Dover case. He claimed Judge Jones made a legal error when he ruled the Dover participants tried to hide their religious motivations. You see everyone knew they are religiously motivated so how could they try to hide it? Because they did, repeatably, under oath.
This brings up a relevant point for this thread. Did Judge Jones act ethically? Many people feel what he did was wrong. They feel it was immoral of him to make a ruling that didn't take into account the greater good. Both sides of the suit asked him to rule on whether or not ID was science. The definition of ID was clearly laid out in page 99 in the ID textbook being offered. IMO, Judge Jones acted ethically.
Ignoring the details is easier for people who are more interested in what the "rest of us" think as opposed to formulating and defending an independent opinion.
To my rather detailed description of "Shield Bashing" you responded with…
In the previous comment you wrote…
I suspected you had a pretty good idea what I meant by the term and this was a tactical maneuver on your part. So I took advantage of your probable pretense to provide a fairly lengthy explanation of what I meant. This should dissuade you and others from trying to pretend ignorance in the future.
Not unexpectedly, you immediately took offense and accused me of being aggressively obsessive. Thus demonstrating the debate technique I was talking about.
You may have to take this up with Joy, those are her words, not mine. Or is she supposed to be on my side too? I wouldn't mind having her support, but in this case she and I seem to disagree more than we agree.
I am making my case as to the practicality and appropriatness of balancing ethics and morality when making behavioral decisions.
Frankly, I don't see it as me against everyone else, because I think most people are afraid to attempt to explain their position because of the susceptibility to being bashed with a verbal shield. Philosophers attempt this, but have you noticed how most philosophical arguments are nuanced dances dealing with something no one knows? I don't know the Truth, do you?
I wrote… "I have offered the suggestion that trying to be open and generally adhere to agreements would be a constructive way to behave."
You responded with…
I openly admitted that I am biased. I like to think I am open, arrogantly so. When you suggest I am hiding my definition of "shield bashing", I explain it, fully. When you suggest I am hiding my definition of "ethics", I explain it, fully, with examples. I tried to explain why I don't have a good definition of morality but, frankly, I feel discussing my morality would just get deeper into a religious argument with me repeating over and over "I don't know the Truth" and "I embrace multiple Truths".
I have been openly answering your requests for information, you have not been reciprocating.
Do you know the Truth?
I thought I was being quite obvious with the hint. If you need it spelled out, I think it is inappropriate and dangerous to have behavior controlled exclusively by religious dogma or majority opinion. It leads to mob rule. My personal philosophy is to be independently self actuating. I trust interpersonal conflicts. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. In fact, I get nervous when no one disagrees. I don't trust Group Think. So when I get into discussions where the other side is talking about how the "rest of us" think one way and, therefore, it is right, I get concerned. I tend to be rather vocal about my concerns.
Now, what is your personal suggestion for how we should determine appropriate behavior in Telic Thoughts?
Do you know the Truth?
Please, prey tell, how do the "rest of us" determine what is and is not appropriate behavior?
Do you know the Truth?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 9, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Hi TP,
So I was misled by the BBC. Is it really a "transgression" to be misled by a major news organization?
Comment by MikeGene — September 9, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Hi Mike,
Obviously, I agree it is appropriate for you to stand up for yourself.
Rather than rehash this too much, let me ask you a simple question.
If you knew then, what you know now, would you have still posted the Miller misrepresents Dembski thread like you did?
P.S. I wrote "I am impressed and honored that you would take the time and effort to look for previous transgressions of mine. I'll give you a hint, you could probably find more embarissing examples of my comments in other blogs like Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula.
I am not overly proud of how I acted in reaction to the MikeGene getting involved in the Dembski verses Miller situation. I thought MikeGene made a mistake. I still do. However, I think I could have handled it better."
I also made mistakes there too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 9, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Hi TP,
No, I would have posted "The BBC Misrepresents Miller."
Comment by MikeGene — September 9, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Zach:
So what? I don't get it, Zach. First sperm to the finish line wins. That's true in monogamous pairings as well as in promiscuous species. Bonobos are apparently quite like humans in their propensity to have sex regardless of whether the female is likely to get pregnant. A waste of sperm, but a fun activity. If a female does get pregnant from the orgy, one of the sperm from one of the males got to the finish line. Obviously.
The guy who deposited the most sperm may have a better shot at paternity, but he doesn't care and neither does bonobo Mom. But then again, the guy who deposited sperm more regularly has just as good a chance due to the timing.
Though I'm not sure how this serves evolution. A bonobo with big balls is still a bonobo. Life forms reproduce – that's one of the definitional terms – always have. And most of the life forms that ever existed are now extinct anyway. Moreover, individual life forms die. All of them (which is why reproduction is important to the continued existence of life). Who has ever denied this?
What are you trying to convince me of with this whole ball size thing? Have you ever seen the size of the balls on stud bulls or hogs? Mmmm… lamb fries!
Comment by Joy — September 9, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
That's easy. As well as motives that tempt us to cheat we have also got moral motives to play fair and be nice to others. Often the moral motives win out – even when we know we aren't going to be caught. It just what we want to do.
I believe those moral motives evolved because they benefit our fitness (ability to pass on our genes) but that doesn't mean they are a motive to pass on our genes. They are genuine motives to be honest and nice. Just as a motive to eat sweet foods probably evolved because sweet foods tend to be high calories and in general high calories are good for out fitness. But it is not a motive to eat high calories. It is a motive to eat sweet things. This becomes clear when eating sweet things is no longer good for our fitness as in most Western societies.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 9, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
TP says:
I didn't. "T still do" was part of an opinion. The rationalization comes in here:
This was your rationalization for why MG was "carrying the water for the DI". I was willing to concede that maybe you're the type that doesn't like to rehash the past. But there you were making hay over a creationist conference in 1996.
MG didn't seem to see any ethical problems in discussing past events, but you fault him for doing so. Yet you exempt yourself. Most folks would consider you unethical for trying to force quirky rules upon others that you yourself don't honor.
That's the difference between being driven by principles, and rationalizing positions you find convenient. If you take to heart in no other words that I have written here, think about those. because I think they capture your failings.
I don't worry that you have biases. I worry that your biases prevent you from grasping anything close to an objective view of what is happening around you. Lacking that, what value can your pronouncements about ethics have?
I wasn't discussing that. I was discussing your responses. It doesn't matter whether MG was arguing that 1 + 1 = 3, one can still evaluate your arguments as well.
http://telicthoughts.com/miller-misrepresents-dembski/#comment-80487
You can follow the link.
I'll venture that what you are now calling "Group Think" most others would call being context appropriate. Or would you have been more impressed if I had answered your query about the Dover participants ethics with my excellent recipe for Rabbit Meat Loaf.
Was that a rhetorical question? I have no significant information either way. I do disagree with some of his rulings, but that doesn't imply anything about ethics.
LOL! Hadn't a clue what it meant. Did a quick search on Google a while back, and didn't pick up on anything on the first page, which mostly seemed to relate to literal explanations involving video games. I had assumed that maybe it was some obscure logical fallacy that would show up on one of the lists.
Now, if asking what somebody means by an obscure phrase that you don't understand is a "tactical manuver" in your book, I guess I'll have to plead guilty. I assure you it wasn't pretend ignorance, but ignorance arrived at by the old fashioned method. And it certainly won't dissuade me in the future. I didn't see anything in there that even remotely related to my posts, with the exception I mentioned about definitions, which didn't seem to fit into the "shield bashing" analogy.
But maybe somebody else can comment on whether they see any relevance.
As far as taking offense, nothing could be farther from the truth. I think my words were,
And I never said anything about "aggressive". If you knew me in meat space, you probably would within a half an hour understand that your conclusions were way off base. I'm right-brained to the point of extending into the autistic spectrum. These constructions that make sense to you aren't part of my personality or the way I look at social exchanges such as these.
But if it makes you happy imagining such machinations from me, go for it. It doesn't cost me anything. But it does, like all ad hominems, subtract from the logic of your argument. That's the price you pay. So you decide.
You're correct. My mistake.
But that isn't the point. You use it as an excuse for you to bail out on your own ethical code, yet continue to try to impose it on others. When you say:
I see you saying it is natural to dislike that which you dislike. Probably true. But what you are trying to characterize as ethics, most would view as a lack thereof.
Where do I start. You seem to value "openness", I'm unimpressed. You seem to dislike hidden agendas. I'm unconcerned. I had an excellent Small goup discussion course in college, where we had a role playing segment on hidden agendas that changed my outlook considerably. I'll just say, IMHO, it is a fool's errand to obsess over hidden agendas. But we all get to pick some of the errands we want to run in life. Do as you wish. But I reject any ethical judgement based on "openness".
You seem to disbelieve simple claims I make about things I think, when those would seem to be the very things where I would be the best source of information. You want me to comment from afar on people I don't know and on whom I have no source of credible information. That type of thing makes no sense to me.
Having said that, feel free to dedicate a post to asking me questions. But when you give me stuff of the form "Do you know the Truth?", don't expect much in response, cause I really don't know what capital "T" truth means. You've gotta put some effort into your questions, if you want me to put some effort into the answers.
I'm not the one trying to do that, you are. I'm just pointing out that most people adopting personal ethical codes believe those codes bind them, but not others. You seem to have flipped that on its head. Beyond the hypocracy, it seems very impractical to implement.
Good luck with it.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 9, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
That's right. And the evolutionary effect over generations is that bonobo males have the largest testicles by body size of any ape. This correlation is found in a wide variety of taxa as noted above.
They don't have to. The evolutionary result is independent of what bonobos want (sex).
You took it upon yourself to reject my previous statements, first calling it an Anazi Tale, then by waving your hands saying, "That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet."
For scientists, it is the details that provide us the information we need to reach valid conclusions. Mating behavior and the size of testes are closely linked. As this thread has entailed discussions of monogamy and cheating, this was a pertinent fact.
Comment by Zachriel — September 9, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Zach:
I never said mating behavior and testes size wasn't related. The more you use 'em, the more they are required to produce. I also know that mating behavior (having babies) greatly increases the size of human female breasts. Sans silicone!
Thus promiscuous males will have bigger balls than those who only ejaculate in their sleep occasionally. Was this truly a big surprise to you guys? Lactating females – those with proven reproductive capabilities – have bigger breasts too. Does that explain the human males' obsession with large female breasts?
The Anazi Tale was about why humans are unethical monogamists. When it seems fairly evident to me that humans aren't particularly monogamous by nature at all, that's just how we've arranged things, here, in the last few centuries. Via our cultural valuations. And those are rapidly changing into non-monogamy again (how positively bonoboan of us!) as we speak.
Don't forget that Solomon claimed 300 wives and 700 concubines (and a similar number of horses, who apparently enjoyed more regular sex), and that polygamy is still practiced in some parts of the world, cheating is practiced in all parts of the world, and the practice of "serial monogamy" is just another cheat strategy with social sanction.
The most ridiculous thing I've heard yet was your introduction of bonobo testicle size. As if that has anything to do with the ethics of human sexuality.
Now, are you going to explain to me the 'importance' of bonobo testicles to me and why they've got you so het up? Does the fact that bonobos have big balls make them promiscuous, or do they have big balls because they are promiscuous? Are big-balled bonobos a different species of bonobo from small-balled bonobos? Are baby boy bonobos born with adult-sized balls? I still don't get it, Zach. What are you trying to convince me of?
And about the implication you've insinuated that big bonobo balls produce 'fitter' sperm (i.e., longer, bigger heads, longer flagella, etc., as in a species of African fish), there is no scientific evidence to support that connectiion in mammalian biology – including bonobos and humans. Big balls produce a lot of sperm, but not necessarily better sperm. Though I'm not sure how you'd quantify 'better' in that particular job, given the amount of offspring mutations that arrive by those means generally. Are you suggesting that bonobos are rapidly evolving into some kind of animal that's just a giant testicle (or maybe just a giant sperm)? Because they're promiscuous? Are you expressing envy or disgust?
Or are you suggesting that we could catch the cheaters among us supposedly monogamist humans by measuring the size of guys' balls? Or forgive the cheaters among us BECAUSE of the size of their balls? Throw me a bone here…
In the end, evolution doesn't need or care about any of it. All it needs or ever needed was raw material – life. Evolution doesn't care about the size of any individual life form's testes or have any inclinations in any direction about who does the reproducing, or how, or how many offspring are produced, or what genes get into (or get weeded out of) the pool.
It's a process, not a thing. It's not material, it's not alive, it has no form, it is not conscious, it harbors no desires, goals, dreams, wishes, instincts, appetites or cares. Complex living beings – the products of the process – harbor such things. For whatever they're worth to that living being, who is mortal in time and who does not evolve.
Comment by Joy — September 9, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Since Zach and Mark Frank still don't seem to be following my line of thought maybe I'll start slowly with a question.
Would it be evolutionary advantageous for me to believe that skilled cheating was ethical (a good thing)?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 9, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
You're still having difficulties with the concept of evolution. We're not talking about changes within a lifetime, but genetic change over many generations. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty with the concept.
That is often due to people using different definitions of terms. I have provide two definitions, and then used these definitions to discuss aspects of the problem at issue. I didn't see your definition of 'ethical', but you did say "Ethics are universal and objective," implying that you are treating ethics as a branch of philosophy. I discussed the use of shared axioms (values) to develop ethical systems in my previous post.
Ethics as a branch of philosophy is not a biologically heritable trait. I would remind you also that evolution concerns genetic changes in populations, not individuals.
As to human behavior, cheating is largely subject to chance and circumstance. In studies of traditional monogamous societies, ~95% of children are fruits of the monogamous relationships. That's because through much of human history, monogamy has been a significant reproductive advantage.
If you want to try and move the discussion forward, you might provide a definition of ethics, and you might want to look at my previous post again.
Comment by Zachriel — September 9, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Zach:
No, I'm not having any difficulty with the concept of evolution. I'm having difficulty figuring out your bonobo cojones fetish. Sort of a chicken-egg thing. Bonobos have big balls. Which they use to generate the jism that allows them to occasionally impregnate one of the females they have frequent sex with. That's what most mammals do with their testicles, so… what?
Elephants have trunks and whales have flippers and humans walk on two legs. All these things are the result of evolution. Which is the result of descent with modification – accomplished by reproduction. I presume bonobo balls came about in much the same way as elephant balls and whale balls and human balls. Bonobos, elephants, whales and humans all reproduce sexually, thus males of their species have testes and most of those produce sperm. Right whale balls can weigh in at 1100 pounds apiece. THAT is impressive. Bonobos, not so much.
The subject is ethics, and the sub-subject is cheating (polygamy/promiscuity versus monogamy). The size of bonobo balls just doesn't seem to have a lot to do with any of that, though it might have something to do with fifth monarchy man's question about whether cheating (being polygamous/promiscuous even though one pretends to be monogamous) is a good evolutionary strategy.
There's all kinds of animals with all kinds of features and traits they all earned by virtue of having been born with the equipment (or the means to acquiring the equipment in development). Why are you so hung up on bonobo balls, and what does it have to do with human mating habits/sexual ethics?
Comment by Joy — September 9, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
September 10th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Happy to play along with this. Unfortunately the answer is "I don't know". My guess is probably yes.
I would add that I have never come across anyone who did believe this.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 10, 2007 @ 1:36 am
September 10th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Hi RogerRabbitt,
If you are happy with yourself over your attempts to turn the Miller versus Dembski thread into something it was not, go for it. You are now quoting me talking to Lutepisc where he brought up the ten year old quote.
Like I said earlier, you could find better stuff to use against me on other blogs.
I asked… "Did Judge Jones act ethically?"
What basis do you have to disagree with the Judge's ruling? Is it more than just disliking the outcome?
Judges are ethically bound to follow legal precident and base there opinions on what was presented in the case.
I have studied and understood this case. I am quite confident that Judge Jones made a correct and ethical ruling. Here is a link to the case records. I could defend my opinion on the Dover case. I think I could do it quite well. Could you do the same?
I said… "I openly admitted that I am biased."
I disagree. I very much try to live by any and all rules I expect of others.
There is the majority Group Think meme again. Most people believe in God too. Does that mean the Truth is that God exists and decides what is right and wrong?
That has become apparent.
Some simple questions for you to be open about…
Do you know that God exists?
Do you think that God's word defines what is right and wrong?
Do you think that one must believe in God in order to be moral?
Do you think that one must believe in God in order to be ethical?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 10, 2007 @ 2:23 am
September 10th, 2007 at 2:29 am
With reference to my post above. I thought about this a bit longer and I don't think there would be any evolutionary advantage to for me to believe that skilled cheating was ethical.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 10, 2007 @ 2:29 am
September 10th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Oh? Your spouse been reading your blog posts again?
Comment by Zachriel — September 10, 2007 @ 8:25 am
September 10th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
TP says:
The Dover issue opens up a lot of questions not appropriate to this thread. If you wish to move those questions to an open thread or some other blog where they wouldn't be off topic, I'll be glad to engage in a brief exchange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Amongst the many valid criticisms one could have of my posts directed towards you, Group Think isn't one of them. Group Think does not mean majority opinion. (I know, I know, that's the Group Think version of what it means).
In the spirit of openness, let me relay a brief story, that I may have told here at TT before, to help provide a framework that might help you put my answers in context.
A few years back, when Dennett and the gang introduced their new religion in the editorial pages of the NYTimes, after some thought, and a lot of laughter, I decided to help the Brights out. Because, you can't be an Official Religion (TM) without a Schism, I declared myself an honorary member of the Brights for long enough to break away and start my own branch called the Dims.
Since I'm the only official member, I can let you in on the official Dogma without having to put up with a lot of theological haggling.
We Dims don't actively believe in God. We don't actively disbelieve. We don't know that God can be known. We don't know that he can't be known. We don't know that he has or hasn't communicated with humans. In short, we don't know very much. Hence the name.
Feel free to keep that in mind when evaluating my responses.
No.
Well, that assumes he exists, and he has given us the rules (word). In that case, viewing God as the traditional all-knowing all-powerful, I guess so.
Probably not if God doesn't exist. If He does, and that's the rules he makes, I guess so.
Assuming a secular definition of ethical, no.
Again all those answers are using assumptions about the meanings of God, moral, ethical, word, etc that are familiar to me. My answers really don't tell you anything profound. It's like giving me some simple arithmatic axioms, and proving simple theorems using logical steps. That process can never say anything about the objective nature of the axioms themselves.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — September 10, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
September 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Mark Frank
I find your answer to be very enlightening. It seems to me that the answer is obviously yes. Someone who can skillfully cheat with out any of the physical side effects of gilt would have more offspring. Duh!
Not to mention the fact that someone who viewed such behavior to be ethical (a good thing) would be looking for every opportunity to engage in it, an obvious plus for his genes.
I can't see how you could deny it. Unless you are just unwilling to concede any point to your opponents
Zach:
I've already defined ethics/morals as "What you should do even when no one is watching" even in the question itself I defined an ethical act as "a good thing". I'm not sure what more you want here. This also seems to just an attempt to keeping from conceding even one small bit of ground to those who you disagree with.
Your mentioning of the Behe discussion brings up a good point. These two subjects, ethics and the lack of evolutionary change in observed species are actully related in that they attempt to connote an edge and therefore give science a great opportunity to advance.
Let me give an illustration to help show you what I mean:
Inflation theory is by all accounts a profound success in cosmology. In one fell swoop it explains both the flatness of the universe and it's uniformity on large scales with out resorting to cosmological ID (the anthropic principle).
Recently however we have discovered that inflation might explain things to well. Scientists were surprised when they discovered that a huge area of the universe is devoid of matter
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/824/1 .
Inflation which predicts that the distribution of mater will be smooth and uniform at large scales suddenly seems incomplete as an explanation.
Notice that we did not hear demands for an alternate theory before this fact was brought to light. We did not hear concerns about giving IDers additional ammunition. The new observation was just noted and science moves on
Keep in mind this startling bit of information does not mean that the final explanation will not include inflation, it surely will. It only means that inflation is not all the story.
This "edge of inflation" is the same sort of thing that Behe documented in his book and the same sort of thing that I'm pointing out when I say that according to evolution skilled cheating should be considered ethical. I only wish that Darwinists could take the same attitude as cosmologists when faced with evidence that conflicts with their foundational theory
Keep in mind ID does not mean that the final explanation will not include RM/NS it surely will it only means that RM/NS is not the entire story.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — September 10, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
September 10th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Cheating always entails a risk of exposure which could be detrimental. And cheating requires the participation of a second person who may have quite different motivations than the male.
People learn when other people are unreliable. Humans, as well as many other animals, have elaborate courtship rituals. In humans, this includes complex societal communications concerning the character of potential mates. It is not an infallible system, but largely serves to substantially reduce successful cheating. And successful monogamy results in children having the benefit of a stable family and tribal community.
That's is a factually untrue statement. Populations can be shown to evolve over many different time-scales.
The Theory of Evolution has been dramatically and continually revised. This process continues.
Comment by Zachriel — September 10, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
September 11th, 2007 at 1:37 am
You asked me to consider the situation where skilfil cheating was ethical. Remember that we already have non-ethical motivations for skilful cheating, lust etc, and people indeed do cheat skilfully because of it. I interpreted this as having a duty to cheat skilfully (which is a very odd idea). In this situation you would feel bound to cheat even when there was no advantage to you as an individual. It is really hard to imagine that situation – which is why I said "I don't know". You would probably be inclined to cheat more – because your conscience would not limit you – but there would also be situations where you felt duty to bound to cheat when this was bad for fitness e.g. it was a major distraction from bringing up your own legitimate offspring. I decided that on balance it would probably be bad for fitness – but mostly it is just hard to see how it would work.
I think you interpreted "ethical" as just "not thinking it was wrong". i.e. your basic motive for cheating remains the same but the constraint of conscience is removed. In that case I would think there probably is a slight fitness gain for you as an individual – although not necessarily for your genes which are of course to be found in many other members of the immediate community.
Next question?
Comment by Mark Frank — September 11, 2007 @ 1:37 am
September 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Actually, it's a very common idea among groups of young males who rate one another by their sexual exploits. However, it is generally not the most successful reproductive strategy, and many eventually bond (Alas poor Romeo! he is already dead; stabbed with a white wench's black eye; shot through the ear with a love-song; the very pin of his heart cleft with the blind bow-boy's butt-shaft) and settle down to raise families. Some end up in shotgun weddings and dabble in cheating, but most of their children are fruits of their monogamous relationships. The rest mostly end up as old hasbeens. Women have a significant long-term incentive to establish lasting relationships.
A study of birds, who often form monogamous couplings, allows an understanding of these relationships without the interference of human culture. Courtship helps establish the credentials of the male to the female. Constant access to the female and watching your chicks grow is a significant advantage. Nevertheless, there is occasional cheating. A variety of strategies are available to limit this, e.g. a male may defend his territory or keep a close eye on his mate.
Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2007 @ 10:01 am
September 11th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I see your point. It raises an interesting question. What makes us call one motive moral and another ammoral? Compassion; a sense of fair play; keeping promises; all these are moral. I am not so sure about a youth maintaining his street cred. I think the answer is that "moral" has no simple definition. Like Wittgenstein's "games" it is a word with a number of overlapping criteria none of which are necessary or sufficient.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 11, 2007 @ 11:00 am
September 11th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I think you will find it nearly always has to do with the in-group v. out-group. So, it may be quite okay to steal a horse from another tribe, but not your own. Or to kill in battle for the sake of national glory. Don't inform on your crew. Burn the witch. Workers of the world unite! Honor among thieves.
Family. Tribe. City. Nation. We are the World. The definitions of in-group and out-group have changed over time. Greater social complexity has led to an expansion of in-group. The emergence of nationhood is a case in point. Globalization is a later manifestation.
Romeo and his Bros roam the streets of Verona like a neverending Mardi Gras. Someone's going to get hurt. What has become of today's youth!
But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever. (MP3)
Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2007 @ 11:39 am
September 11th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I am not so sure. What about Friar Lawrence (admittedly he is a disaster in practice, but he does act out of compassion for the lovers and and a hope of stopping the fighting)? What about the Prince who seeks peace and justice? I don't see any in-group or out-group motivation there.
In-group / out-group is incredibly powerful but there are other strong moral motives.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 11, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
September 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Christians have explicitly extended the in-group to be all people, or at least all Christians, a radical and counterintuitive ideal. But I don't doubt that even ancient peoples might feel compassion or a sense of fairness as applied to strangers.
I admit my first sentence above is an overstatement, but the principle might still be explanatory for many such effects. In some cases, it may also be one of degrees of separation. God, family, country.
Comment by Zachriel — September 11, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
September 11th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Zachriel Says: You're still having difficulties with the concept of evolution. We're not talking about changes within a lifetime, but genetic change over many generations. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty with the concept.
As if, Zachriel, there was such a thing as the concept of evolution.
When you say "we" you mean you, yourself, don't you? Because when I talk about evolution we are talking about changes within a lifetime, and both genetic and non-genetic change occurring at any time, within generations (lifetimes) and also extra-generational change.
You're ideas about evolution are certainly interesting, but your ideas are not the only ideas about evolution, and I'm sure Joy (like yours truly) thinks a bit differently about evolution than you do.
My view of evolution is significantly broader (and I know Joy's is too–but not the same as mine), and not just by the inclusion of within-generation change, but also by including (not neglecting) non-genetic change as a (significant) factor in evolution.
(It's a bit of Neo-Darwinian babble to insist that evolution occurs over generations of populations, while excluding the obvious observations of evolution occurring within individuals and within generations (lifetimes). Neo-Darwinists have always had significant problems in articulating their theory to the noncognescenti: Evolution does not occur in individuals but in populations"¦ of individuals. LOL)
"Ethics as a branch of philosophy is not a biologically heritable trait. I would remind you also that evolution concerns genetic changes in populations, not individuals."
And what if I believe that ethics are heritable (and maybe sometimes strongly genetically heritable) and evolve, and that evolution is about changes occurring in individuals?
Insofar as ethical behavior is some subset of all behavior and since there is a genetic component associated with many observed behaviors (I presume all), the ethics could be (I believe is) heritable and consisting of both genetic and non-genetic components (both heritable). I have no problem with evolutionary ethics, the idea that there is a genetic bases for learned ethical behavior (like all other forms of behavior) and that ethics evolve.
The principal problem I see is defining that ethical subset of all behavior. Trivially, it is a socially elicited or enforced conformity of behavioral patterns, with much context sensitivity and many exceptions.
Comment by Rock — September 11, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
September 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?
Comment by Zachriel — September 12, 2007 @ 11:42 am
September 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
LOL, Zachriel. I know I can count on you to tell me the right answer to that question. And an impeccably orthodox theorist to supply further authority to your answer.
Comment by Rock — September 12, 2007 @ 12:36 pm