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