These Wedgies are not IDists
by BradfordWhat can Darwin teach us about morality? is a brief piece which packs quite a bit into two paragraphs. Anti-IDists are fond of using stalking horse imagery and historic incidents to mold a public perception of a "movement" with ulterior motives. The ID movement is said to be a sociological and political one which uses biological design as a wedge to further a related agenda. In support of the charge quotes from Philip Johnson are often linked to as is the notorious DI wedge document. I've pointed out many times previously that if ID is a movement it is a very amateurish one that needs to takes a cue or two from the real movement- one that uses Darwinian biological concepts to spearhead an effort to advance sociological and religious views. This comment comes from the linked piece:
According to Hamilton and his fellow sociobiologists, altruism is real, but only to the extent that it is not in fact disinterested. What's left of morality in such a world?
HT: Clare
What's left of morality? Maybe it's a relativistic artifact of unidentifiable evolutionary developments. It becomes whatever contemporary molders of social values want it to be. In the legal field it can lead to concepts like living, breathing constitutions. In the sociological realm it can lead to diversity claims that one point of view is as valid as another as long as all such views accord with unspoken but powerful politically correct norms and supporting pillars of scientific consensus.
Skeptics of the consensus role of natural selection kindly withhold your doubts for a minute and assume mainstream views about it. Consider the argument that a behavioral tendency resulted from selected genetic changes. What does that tell us about broader moral issues? Nothing in my view for all sorts of reasons among which is the adage that an is does not dictate an ought. But there is another flaw in this ointment. If a trait did enhance reproductive survival at some point in natural history why is that presumed to be relevant to contemporary value systems? I think there is an answer to that but it is not biological in nature. Rather it is rooted in what kind of society advocating sociobiologists see as ideal. DI take note. Your wedge is not nearly so subtle or effective.
March 16th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Whaddaya know. We agree on a couple of points.
Agreed. Though oddly enough, there's still a non-zero chance that it can damage scientific education. Rust never sleeps.
A hypothesis consistent with the scientific evidence, including primate behavior.
Agreed. Again. Wow. People are what they are. And for most people, the respect of their peers and the love of their family are preeminent values.
Altruism is a real facet of human behavior. We might trace it to kin selection, or individual selection within the group, but the facet remains regardless of its source. If people see a sick child on the telly, they feel a kinship with that child, regardless of the evolutionary history of that feeling, even if that feeling is detrimental or maladaptive. So altruism, as experienced as part of the human condition, can be disinterested.
If you stub your toe, you are *connected* to your toe and feel pain and withdraw your toe from danger. If your child is hurt, you feel sympathy. You are *connected*, though in a different way, and you move to protect your child. If your tribe is in trouble, you help and the tribe rewards you with accolades, and you feel pride. You are *connected* to the tribe. These are all connections. Calling pain or sympathy or pride "illusions" is misleading. They are all aspects of the human condition.
Comment by Zachriel — March 16, 2010 @ 8:29 am
March 16th, 2010 at 8:36 am
The punch line is missing. Something that would tie morality to the global warming.
Comment by olegt — March 16, 2010 @ 8:36 am
March 16th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Maybe you could help out by delineating alternative uses of funding sourced to counter global warming and then explain the moral basis of your choice of options.
Comment by Bradford — March 16, 2010 @ 8:44 am
March 16th, 2010 at 8:53 am
In fairness to Ruse I think he would counter that pain, sympathy and pride evidence feelings that influence behavior but that they are not moral codes. But I would also differ with him about morality being an illusion.
Comment by Bradford — March 16, 2010 @ 8:53 am
March 16th, 2010 at 10:17 am
The problem is selection explains:
1. morality (Price)
2. lack of morality: Palmer and Thornhill argue on the evolutionary advantage of rape and David Buss on the evolutionary advantage of murder
There you have it. Darwinism explains everything.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 16, 2010 @ 10:17 am
March 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am
That's not quite correct. Price was a creationist! See the wiki entry:
Price then wrote on Science and the Supernatural
See: Death of an Altruist
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 16, 2010 @ 10:18 am
March 16th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Morality is an imposed set of rules, from a higher power to a lower power. Whether we're talking about the state over citizens or God over man. Regardless of origin of morality, Might Makes Right. Is there any other way to see it that doesn't have Might Makes Right as the ultimate basis?
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 16, 2010 @ 11:02 am
March 16th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Did Price leave a suicide note?
Comment by Bilbo — March 16, 2010 @ 11:05 am
March 16th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Salvador T. Cordova:
At the risk of taking you more seriously than you intended, it is true that an explanation that attempts to simultaneously account for both X and the absence X can not be an explanation for either as long as X and the absence of X are mutually exclusive conditions. However, morality and the lack of morality are clearly not mutually exclusive; in society, morality and immorality occur virtually side by side all the time. It is this existence and coexistence that these authors attempt to explain with evolutionary theory.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 16, 2010 @ 11:07 am
March 16th, 2010 at 11:13 am
The fundamental point is that in pure materialism, there is no logical basis for morality. Reasons are made up, but those reasons are no better than made-up religion because they are rooted in unprovable axioms.
Accepting unprovable axioms is fine. But let's not pretend they are empirical facts, or that even atheists are free from believing unprovable things.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 16, 2010 @ 11:13 am
March 16th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Michael Ruse has admitted that evolution leaves us with no foundation for morality and ethics.
David Hume argued that one cannot derive the ought from the is. Basically I agree with that. However, it appears that modern Darwinists, like Ruse, have taken Hume’s dictum one step further. If you cannot derive the ought from the is then there really is no ought but only the illusion that there is.
How can any society survive if it was based on a moral system that is basically illusory?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 16, 2010 @ 11:58 am
March 16th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
While this may explain why Zachriel hangs out in the swamp with his militant friends it doesn't explain anything about morality.
"Why is morality selected? Because it is advantageous."
"Why is morality advantageous? Because it was selected"
And the Darwin sycophants sit and scratch their pointy heads and wonder why so many people don't seem to find Darwinism as intellectually fulfilling as they do.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
What a dumbass.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
A mother nurses and cares for her young because she takes pleasure in her children.
We can show that this behavior can be an evolutionary advantage. Delaying independence means that offspring are larger, with larger brains, and have had time to learn about how to interact with the environment, which allows for greater intelligence and a wider range of adaptive behaviors.
Comment by Zachriel — March 16, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Did you ever notice the ironic coincidence, that ToE claims to be a ToE? Let me translate. The theory of evolution (at least Darwinian evolution) claims to be a theory of everything. Not only does evolution claim to explain biological origins, but it also claim to explain the origin of everything else: mind and consciousness, religion, ethics and morality… etc. etc.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 16, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Of course you can. It's advantageous because it was selected. It is selected because it was advantageous.
We can say the same about animals that routinely kill or eat their young.
It is advantageous because it was selected. It was selected because it was advantageous.
Thank you, Darwin sycophant, for explaining exactly nothing.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Oh please. The majority of human populations with the greatest intelligence and the most resources for adaptation are currently exhibiting stagnant or negative growth. But of course, Darwinism explains why intelligent populations grow, and it also explains why they decline.
Junk DNA / no Junk DNA? Darwinism's got it covered.
Nurturing offspring / eating offspring? Darwinism's your answer.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Salvador T. Cordova:
Materialism would ground morality in biological behavior that makes humans form themselves into social groups. We like people. If we didn't, there'd be no such thing as society and no need for morality. So in that sense, morality is as logical or illogical as other biological behaviors like eating ripe fruit or not touching fire. It is no more illusory or less empirical than pleasure or pain.
Can we build a logical set of rules grounded solely on shared value for pleasure, whether that's food or human company, and shared avoidance of pain, whether that's physical or experienced by witnessing the pain of another person? I don't immediately see why not.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 16, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
It is painful to read an article so filled with serious errors as the one linked to in the OP, plus the one appended to it by Michael Ruse. The author of the original article got it seriously wrong in the very first sentence:
First error: George Price was an "evangelical atheist" as a young man, but as several commentators have pointed out, he became a fundamentalist Christian after becoming a mathematical evolutionary theorist and formulating what is now widely known as the Price Equation.
Second error: Price never became a "creationist". On the contrary, following his conversion to Christianity he became what could be best described as a "theistic evolutionist". That is, he believed that the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition has used evolution as His means for instilling morality in humans. He believed completely in all of the principles of modern natural science, but also believed that an "interventionist" God could (indeed, had) arranged both natural laws (including the one that Price had himself discovered) and guided history (especially Price's own personal history) to bring about His "ends".
Third error: Price was not a socialist. On the contrary, he wrote several articles on the application of mathematical game theory to the Cold War, suggesting ways in which the United States could "win" by applying some rather unorthodox methods. Reading those articles it appears to me that Price was closest to what would today be called a "libertarian".
Fourth error: Price didn't "discover" the early work of William Hamilton, it was the other way around. Price worked almost entirely alone, and made his most important theoretical discoveries without any input from other evolutionary biologists.
Fifth error: This one is by far the worst – Price's covariance theory for the evolution of altruism did not depend on genetic relatedness between altruists and their beneficiaries. That was Hamilton, whose theories of "kin selection" and "inclusive fitness" formed the basis for what E. O. Wilson came to call sociobiology. Price's mathematical theory explains how altruism can evolve without close genetic relatedness (indeed, without any genetic relatedness at all).
Anyone who could so badly misrepresent/misunderstand all of these points has no business writing about science at all.
As for Michael Ruse, he is most emphatically not an evolutionary biologist, and doesn't really understand how kin selection, inclusive fitness, and Price's covariance theory of the evolution of altruism work. Worse (and most egregious, since Ruse is supposedly a trained philosopher), Ruse believes that moral/ethical principles can be directly derived from the findings of evolutionary biology. This, as several commentators have already pointed out, violates one of the most basic principles of ethical theory: that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". The attempt to do so constitutes what is known in ethical theory as the "naturalistic fallacy", and is one of the foundational principles of modern (i.e. post-17th century) ethical theory.
While it is the case that some evolutionary biologists (including Franz de Waal, Mark Hauser, and E. O. Wilson) commit the same fallacy as Ruse, this does not mean that doing so is either universal among evolutionary biologists nor in any way validated by the science of evolutionary biology. On the contrary, anyone with even a passing acquaintance with ethical philosophy would know that attempting to do what Ruse does in his commentary is both invalid and pernicious.
That said, the very same thing can be said of those who try to ground moral and ethical codes in religion. We have already debated the Euthyphro paradox here, and so I will simply sum up my position on this question by pointing out that both Socrates and the overwhelming majority of ethical philosophers have concluded that any deity (including most versions of the Judeo-Christian god) is constrained to assert what is good by their nature as deities, rather than the other way around. That is, certain things are good in and of themselves, and not simply because God says so; God as God is constrained to proclaim what is good and abjure what is bad.
In sum: morality/ethics are justified sui generis, and any attempt to justify them via grounding in either science or religion is to commit the same fallacy: the "super/naturalistic fallacy".
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 16, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
P.S. The first book-length biography of George Price is coming out this summer:
The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness, by Oren Harman [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393067785/ref=oss_product]
You can read more about the Price Equation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson's book, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior is based primarily on Price's work. Indeed, Wilson's theory of group selection and its extension to multi-level selection theory is derived directly from the work of George Price.
Wilson has also written about the application of Price's theory to the evolution of religion in Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. The Price equation represents a fundamentally new way of explaining evolution, and is now being applied to many different areas of the social sciences, especially economics and political science.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 16, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Can't blame you for siding with Socrates. He was a smart fellow. But it seems to me that Socrates chose his answer to the paradox because it was the one which most fit human logical preconceptions. Not a very reliable guideline in my opinion for making judgements about God.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Allen MacNeill, thanks for the thoughtful comments and corrections. Even when and if we disagree I acknowledge the deliberations and sincerity that forms your viewpoints.
One of the problems with this is that morality is much more complex than balancing pleasure and pain. For example, the road to virtue frequently entails a willingness to bear displeasure and difficulty to secure future gains. A temporary and immediate sacrifice with something undesirable can yield fruit down the road. It's a mark of maturity. There are other difficulties as well in measuring pain and pleasure and dealing with situations when one person's pleasure entails another's pain.
That's a real concern. Amorality can be as dangerous as immorality. At least in the latter instance there is an acknowledgment of legitimate standards. The former makes opportunism and spin after the fact inevitable.
Comment by Bradford — March 16, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
I agree with you. Morality and ethics are what we decide to do despite our nature.
Comment by don provan — March 16, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
See, Provan really wants to eat babies, but he exercises moral restraint.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Perhaps he's restraining himself from treating people with contempt and scorn.
Comment by Bilbo — March 16, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
It's just a thought exercise, Bilbo. One that reveals the logical ends of such an argument.
Why do suppose you refrain from eating babies, Bilbo? Is it because you are fighting against your nature – or is it a part of your nature?
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
chunkdz wrote:
Haven't you heard? It is evolutionarily advantageous to fight against your instincts, so those organisms who ignore their genetic programming and instincts are more fit than those who follow them.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 16, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Ask me when I am literally starving to death and all there is to eat is a baby.
Meanwhile, why don't you refrain from insulting people that you disagree with? Is it because you are fighting against your nature — or is it a part of your nature?
Comment by Bilbo — March 16, 2010 @ 9:06 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
woodchuck64 wrote:
Of course you don't see why not. You haven't gotten past Epicurus in your philosophy classes.
It's all about Sade now. No, not her. Him.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 16, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I dunno. Why don't you refrain from telling others what to do?
P.S.: You're just dead wrong. I don't disagree with Provan, and I wasn't insulting him. It was a thought experiment just as I said. Provan knows this is simply an extension of Socratic dialectic and that I don't really think he is a baby eater.
And I agree with you too – humans are all capable of the most despicable acts imaginable.
P.P.S.: But thanks for ruining the moment with your usual authoritarian control-freak bullcrap. I've a mind to write a global warming post in protest.
P.P.P.S: Did you find it ironic that you scolded me for calling someone a baby eater then later admitted that you might be a baby eater too?
Yeah, so did I.
P.P.P.P.S: I still think you are very insightful and enjoyable even though you continually try to passively censor me. Have a nice day.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Except that you have been genetically programmed to ignore your genetic programming.
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Hey, that's what I'm here for.
No! No! Anything but THAT!
No. At the time, you thought baby-eating wasn't in our nature. I pointed out how easily it could be.
Thanks for the compliment. I also find you to be insightful and keen-witted, often funny, but occasionally obnoxious.
Comment by Bilbo — March 16, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Bilbo, I try to behave better on your threads. Bradford tends to give me a little latitude.
Not true. It might have appeared that I was simply being sarcastic (and with my history who could blame you for thinking that), but I have long argued that humans are despicable creatures at heart and that it doesn't take much to reveal it.
Gosh, I was just trying to be all philosophical and stuff like Socrates did.
But then, look what they did to him.
(Must have been writing a dialog about Global Warming or something.) 
Comment by chunkdz — March 16, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Socrates: Let me tell you another thing about those idiot global-warming alarmists…
Jailer: Sure, Socrates. Right after you drink this.
Comment by Bilbo — March 16, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Actually, Allen, I agree with you here. “Religion” is basically a human invention (though I personally believe that there is a true religion that comes from God). Indeed, the reason that there are so many religions is because they are human inventions. On the other hand, there is probably a lot more common ground among the world religions regarding morality than there is regarding theology. For example, as a Christian I have to concede that other religions have there own version of the golden rule.
Well then, let me sum up my position. The Euthyphro paradox was a paradox for the ancient Greeks because their anthropomorphic theology was inadequate. Their “gods” were not necessarily morally good gods. Just read some of the Greek myths. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian God is by His very nature good. In my opinion that solves the dilemma. William Lane Craig explains it this way:
Remember Plato grounded morality in a transcendent “Good.” In Christian theology that transcendent Good is part of God’s personal nature.
So then, what are you really saying? That morality isn’t grounded in anything? How is that any different than Ruse’s belief that morality is basically illusory?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 16, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
March 16th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
JAD,
Far be it from me to speak for my fellow Quaker, but I think you may have hit on a close-enough answer just prior to this.
I think it's clear that believing in The Good/The One means materialism is abandoned (I think MacNeill here has said he's not a materialist. Then again, who is?) But here's the million dollar question: If you believe in The Good or The One, are you a theist?
For my money, they sure are hard to tell the difference between.
Comment by nullasalus — March 16, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
March 17th, 2010 at 1:48 am
Apparently some early Christian theologians, like Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-220) saw Plato and Aristotle as theists, or quasi-theists, and tried to incorporate aspects of Greek philosophy into Christian theology. I think on the question of morals and ethics, Jesus’ teaching in particular, was close to the virtue ethic of not only Socrates and Plato, but also of Aristotle. For example, Christians have no problem with Plato’s four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance (or moderation) and justice, though we like to add three more: faith, hope and love.
My problem with Plato’s concept of The Good is that it is too abstract and ethereal. In other words, you have moral goodness (The Good) that is totally detached, existing independently, from any moral person or agent. But that is not how we understand moral goodness. Moral goodness is the quality of a person that cannot be abstracted from that person thoughts, actions or life circumstances which are usually very “concrete“.
While Christian theism sees God existing transcendently apart from his creation it also sees Him a personal being that interacts with his creation, even entering that creation, via the incarnation. So we don’t have the abstractness problem of the Good or Goodness existing transcendentally, or independently. Goodness is part of God’s moral character in the same way we understand it is part of a human person’s moral character. That is one of the things that it means to be made in the image of God.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 17, 2010 @ 1:48 am
March 17th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Humans share many proclivities. They also know that they can sometimes delay gratification now for a reward later. A gatherer might leave a few plants behind, do a bit of weeding, knowing that next year the plant will regenerate. The eventual reward is food. But you really can't say it's against their nature to delay gratification because the gratification is there, only delayed. Indeed, sometimes a gratification delayed tastes sweeter! It may even be rewarded by pride and a higher stature among one's peers.
Is this process strictly abstract? The gatherer has an image in her mind: the pride of the mother who taught her; the memory of past success; the fear of starvation, the dream of her fat and happy children when they eat of the fruit next year; the thought of teaching her daughters the skills she learned from her own mother; her pride among her peers. So the gratification in the here and now is very real. Humans are motivated by images, projections of the future, dreams.
To relate that to morality. People mostly share certain propensities; caring, pride, children, nurturing, planning. Sometimes these different propensities can be in conflict, and that's why choices can be somewhat problematic. But when tribes gather, they usually share certain principles. From this, they develop codes of conduct. That may mean delayed gratification, but that's already part of the human condition (something shared somewhat with related species). Codes are certainly abstractions, but people generally cooperate because they believe it results in eventual gratification. Their day in court replaces their thirst for revenge, and they dream of that day just as they once might have dreamed of blood lust.
Comment by Zachriel — March 17, 2010 @ 9:20 am
March 17th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Bradford:
I agree that the problem of deriving materialistic morality is difficult. We have to agree on whether pleasure and pain as outcomes is enough to ground moral rules or if we also need to consider the desires that lead to the outcomes. Then, can we quantify human feelings accurately enough, widely enough, and for a long enough length of time to properly evaluate the results? And what about non-humans?
Difficult, but these are all problems that I think can be solved incrementally, so I don't see a problem with materialistic morality as long as it is based on shared biological values. It will better serve those shared values as our ability to understand ourselves and gather information improves over time. It may never be perfectly in tune with our gut feeling about morality in every situation, but then what sort of morality is?
Morality as practiced today is based in part on shared biological values and in part on culture, tradition and religion. If we were to somehow remove or weaken the influences of the latter three, we'd still be left with the former — we'd still generally want others to be happy and generally want others not to experience pain — and we'd also have a considerable body of knowledge pointing to the benefits of cooperation. This would seem to me to provide strong social incentive to cultivate materialistic morality as I describe it above rather than devolve into moral anarchy.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 17, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
March 17th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Ahhh, ain't faith a wondrous thing?
Comment by chunkdz — March 17, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
March 17th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
And if we remove science and common sense we get impotent speculations like this.
Comment by chunkdz — March 17, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
March 17th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
And if we combine science and "common sense" we get Common Sense Science. Which does not make any sense.
Comment by olegt — March 17, 2010 @ 7:27 pm
March 17th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
woodchuck64 wrote:
What if inflicting pain on others is pleasurable to you and makes you happy?
There is a considerable body of knowledge that points to the benefits of competition, domination, and subjugation. Many anthropologists have hypothesized that we, Homo sapiens sapiens, drove our nearest genetic relatives into extinction in this way and became the lone hominid species. Even Darwin hinted at such a scenario himself in The Descent of Man.
And that's just in the last 100,000 years. Cruelty is a virtue in the natural world; nearly every species is a testament to this fact. Darwinian evolution's only real mechanisms are reproduction and death. Reproduction of the fit, and death of the unfit.
Why would we want to keep the weak and feeble around to consume finite resources that could be better utilized by the strong and able? What is their pain and death to us? We don't feel what they feel; they are subhuman – untermenschen – and like underdeveloped fetuses they can't really feel pain. They are useless eaters, and the quicker they are gone the better the rest of us will be.
To think otherwise is to be a slave, beholden to a slave morality. Only a fool would believe in such a repugnant, superstitious, infeasible, unsustainable philosophy, and such a fool would deserve to be subjugated by authentic, evolved humans.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 17, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
March 17th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
chunkdz,
All the nattering on about "materialistic morality" is a laugh – there is no such thing. On a consistent materialistic worldview there are no morals to speak of, period. On the other hand, there's also no persons being convinced by reasons. Hell, there's also no persons.
Though I do love all the near-idealistic talk about all the data showing the benefits of cooperation – as if there were not also tremendous data showing the benefits of lying, stealing, cheating, and using force to get what you want. I think folks have watched too much Star Trek.
Comment by nullasalus — March 17, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
angryoldfatman:
Psychopaths and sociopaths make up a fraction of society. An unchecked increase in their number would clearly be the death of any society. But what usually happens is that their behavior results in them being ostracized or excluded from society, regardless of moral law.
Could someone seriously make the argument that violent competition, domination and subjugation are better than cooperation in modern society? I doubt it. I'd say rather that technological advances have removed much of humanity's competition for resources, and media and information technology have brought people closer together allowing empathy to work better and on a more global scale. Cooperation has resulted in enormous economic success for the world's people. War, on the other hand, has had a really bad track record (at least war for the purpose of competition, domination and subjugation).
Perhaps if some sort of horrific disaster occurred, a meteor strike, for example, a violent conflict over resources culminating in extinction of group or groups of people could well be a possibility, I admit.
But in any case, Machiavellian is just not the norm for human behavior. Weakening of religious values doesn't mean that hardwired empathy suddenly vanishes or our sense of fairness suddenly flips.
You're not describing homo sapiens. Strong, intelligent, evolutionary fit individuals are not the only people we empathize with. We empathize with the feelings of others regardless of their capabilities as long as we view them as persons. And while it is certainly possible to dehumanize people such that empathy no longer applies, this is far more difficult in modern society than it used to be, thanks to the fact that morality has evolved and improved right along with every other human endeavor. If we wouldn't be expected to abandon computers and return to abacuses any time soon, why would we be expected to return to Stone Age morality and start wanton killing?
(Again, in a disaster scenario, anything is possibility and it's not hard to imagine horrible atrocities among survivors after, say, a nuclear holocaust. But I expect this could happen with or without religious morality.)
Your scenarios seem to assume that if religious values are weakened or abandoned, humanity will lose its sense of empathy while simultaneously forgetting everything we've learned of and gained by moral behavior to date. That makes no sense to me.
Comment by woodchuck64 — March 18, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Zachriel,
Our nature includes intelligence. That allows us to look ahead and work together and all those other things you speak of. Morality and ethics are specifically those places where we make rules for ourselves to follow even when we might want to do otherwise.
And, yes, it is also our nature to think those rules are good ideas. But we wouldn't even have the concepts of morals and ethics if it was a part of our nature to act morally and ethically.
Comment by don provan — March 18, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Though I disagree with what you think the origin of morality is, I think you just made a deeply profound statement.
Comment by Bilbo — March 18, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
What argument was that? The concepts of morality and ethics are precisely to instruct us to do things which are contrary to our nature. Whether eating human babies is or is not part of our nature — i.e., whether it should be considered unnatural or merely immoral — does not seem relevant in this context.
Comment by don provan — March 18, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
You've contradicted yourself. Morals are inextricably tied to intelligence. You can't say that intelligence is in our nature but morals aren't.
Comment by chunkdz — March 18, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Wrong. Morals and ethics also instruct us to do that which is in our nature.
ie: caring for offspring.
Comment by chunkdz — March 18, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
People institute moral codes because it reinforces moral impulses which are continuously being juxtaposed against other, selfish impulses.
Moral codes can be seen as guides to moral behavior in a complex moral world (along with vestiges and spandrels).
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 7:06 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Yes, morals are inextricably tied to intelligence. That doesn't make them part of our nature. Indeed, the very term itself is meant to contrast with our nature.
Comment by don provan — March 18, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
What's the difference between a moral impulse and a selfish impulse?
Comment by chunkdz — March 18, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
William Lane Craig makes an interesting argument. He argues that the existence of “moral evil proves that God exists.”
“For in our discussion of the axiological argument for God's existence,” he explains, “we saw that it is plausible that apart from God objective moral values do not exist. But then we can employ the atheist's own premise as part of a sound argument for the existence of God:
13. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist.
14. Evil exists.
15. Therefore, objective moral values exist. (from 14 by definition of 'evil')
16. Therefore, God exists. (MT, 13, 15)"
What Craig is basically doing is agreeing with Ruse’s argument that if moral values are the result of biological evolution they are illusory and subjective. He then takes that argument and inverts it.
In other words, if moral values are real, objective and universal how did they come to be that way? According to the evolutionists like Ruse moral values cannot possibly be objective.
Of course, I realize there are evolutionists who think they can wiggle out of this dilemma. The point is, they have to find a way to wiggle out of it.
(Here is a link to Craig’s lecture “How Can a Good God Allow Suffering and Evil?” which he gave before an audience at Cambridge University.)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 18, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Generally, one that involves others, such as by helping someone (sharing), or by taking actions to increase group cohesion (acceptable mating behavior) or success (rallying).
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
So morals are not natural, they are supernatural?
Comment by chunkdz — March 18, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
It seems he is saying that they are abstractions (artificial), which moral codes certainly must be. But moral sensibilities are not abstractions. Watching a child suffer can be painful. So most people would consider action to either prevent or assuage the injury—even if it meant planning instead of napping, or worrying instead of sleeping, or otherwise sacrificing some personal comfort.
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Exactly!
Super (above) natural.
I feel quilty when I violate my moral code.
Since moral codes effect moral sensibilities is this a case of the supernatural effecting the natural?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 18, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
How about exterminating the weaklings. Is that a moral impulse or a selfish impulse?
Comment by chunkdz — March 18, 2010 @ 8:16 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
The word "artificial" has a different meaning than "supernatural." Astroturf is artificial, not supernatural. A ghost is supernatural, not artificial.
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Actually both Astroturf and Angels are supernatural (I'm not sure about ghosts). because they are both above nature.
Artificial is a subcategory of supernatural like mammal is a subcategory of animal and verb is a subcategory of word.
This is not hard Zach
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 18, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Your use is clear and clearly wrong. You should choose a different word, or at least use scare-quotes.
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Is it painful to watch a child suffer because of our morals? Or do we have morals because it is painful to watch a child suffer?
If you think the former, then we disagree about what "morals" means.
Comment by don provan — March 18, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
supernatural
a moral abstraction clearly belongs to an order of extence beyond the observable universe
a designed object clearly transends (is above) the laws of nature
This is not hard.
Never the less I've learned not to try to reason with those who are only pretending.
carry on
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 18, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Yes, semantics. That's why the repeated use of the terms "moral code" and "moral impulse." We're probably not in actual disagreement.
Take a simple case. People suffer in sympathy with others. They act to reduce this sympathetic pain, even if it means they suffer other forms of discomfort. We call such an act a moral act. So,
It's painful because of sympathy. The moral impulse is the desire to do something about it.
Social groups develop moral codes in order to achieve moral goals. They reward moral behavior to reinforce moral behavior, that is, "selfless" behavior.
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
You're actually attempting to argue that a chair transcends the laws of nature and that astroturf is supernatural.
There's nothing to reason about. You're using the terminology incorrectly.
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Ah, so the eugenics movement was moral behavior.
Comment by chunkdz — March 18, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
No, I disagree. I would like this to be a universal truism, but it is not. Sympathy only extends to one's family and tribe (in the absence of God), and only on a case by case basis (situational ethics). The Nazis had little sympathy for the suffering of Jewish children. Joseph Stalin had little sympathy for the people he sent to the Gulag. Radical Islam had very little for Danny Pearl's children, who are now fatherless.
Comment by David S — March 18, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Modern society has redefined "tribe" as city, city-state, ethnicity, culture, nation, and perhaps world. People will die for their country, or even an idea.
Which demonstrates the point. Nazi Germany was a nation, not a tribe. Communism was class warfare. Islam is a religion. Each group is far beyond family or tribe. People will fight for their football team or their gang colors. (By the way, Nazi death camps were invented, in part, because young Germans soldiers had emotional troubles gunning down helpless and innocent people.)
You are certainly right that humans are highly flexible in their behaviors, and the determination of the in-group is important. That doesn't mean people don't share certain propensities, though.
-
If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. — E.M. Forster
Comment by Zachriel — March 18, 2010 @ 10:22 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
No, I don't think so. Tribe is simply a loose term meaning group of connected people. A big tribe is a nation, a small tribe is a villiage.
You implied that there is some universal moral code of sympathy in humans. I dispute this — in a Godless world, there is some measure of sympathy towards members of one's tribe, but mostly awful, dreadful, cruelty and indifference towards people (or animals) outside the tribe.
I don't think there are morals without God. There is only subjective belief that varies from person to person and tribe to tribe, and which sometimes may coincide and/or overlap with traditional monotheistic values
Comment by David S — March 18, 2010 @ 10:42 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 7:53 am
A tribe is usually considered a traditional grouping of related families. But if you use the broad definition of a collection of people with a common interest, … but you might have just said so originally. A tribe, then, can include all of humanity, or even all of life, depending on the individual and the social context. All men are brothers.
Not sure how often the distinction between "moral impulse" and "moral code" has to be made before it sinks in. Nor would a review of our statements indicate that all people have exactly the same "moral impulses" and therefore draw the same balance when "juxtaposed against other, selfish impulses."
Awful, dreadful, cruelty and indifference towards people exists in a God-ed World too, and often perpetrated by theists.
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians… I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
There are morals without belief in God, or even in defiance of religious belief in God.
Now you got it. We *know* that moral impulses are expressed quite differently, depending on the social context. That doesn't mean there isn't some commonality. Indeed, the desire to be thought well-of by one's peers is one of the strongest motivating forces, even more than sympathy in many cases. All these impulses are balanced within the individual mind and social structure.
Comment by Zachriel — March 19, 2010 @ 7:53 am
March 19th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
It's hard to tell. When you say "moral impulse", do you mean anything other than "it's our nature"? If so, it seems a remarkably confusing way to express the thought.
If not, I have no idea what it means.
Yes, sometimes our morals agree with some people's natural tendencies, perhaps even all people's natural tendencies. The fact that morals sometimes agree with natural tendencies doesn't change the fact that the entire point of the class "morals" is to call for us to do things which may not be our natural tendencies.
Is the moral impulse that desire, or is the natural impulse that desire, and we have merely included that natural impulse in our morals?
I'm not sure what you consider important in this statement. Moral codes aren't exactly developed, but societies do have them because they successful drive the group towards goals which one could label "moral" if one wanted to. Moral behavior is normally controlled by punishment, not reward. And while we typically think of morals as selfless, there's no conceptual reason why a moral code couldn't demand someone be selfish in a case where their normal tendency would be to be selfless. The Nazi baby eaters might be an example: could it be that we do naturally not want to eat babies, but it was the Nazi moral code that demanded that they eat babies even if they didn't want to?
Anyway, this is all tangential. The bottom line is that morality directs us to behave in a way we might not naturally behave. It is besides the point that we sometimes would naturally behave in the way called for by morality. That merely shows overlap, not equivalence.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
What did you mean when you said, “I don't think there are morals without God”? Did you mean that there are no morals without belief in God? Or, did you mean that there is no explanation for morals unless God really exists? I disagree with you if you mean the former, but I agree if you mean the latter.
In point of fact, even the New Testament argues that people who don’t believe in God are capable of moral beliefs and actions.
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” (Romans 2: 14 & 15)
Paul is arguing here that all human beings have an innate moral sense or conscience.
On the other hand, they have no good explanation for this innate moral sense. Modern evolutionary theory is in that same boat. Any naturalistic explanation for morality falls short of really explaining morals, because human morals are not reducible to animal instincts.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 19, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 10:11 am
A "moral impulse" is far more specific than "it's our nature," though the word "moral" clearly has more than one meaning. It might refer to a selfless act, or it might mean conforming to the prevailing social standards. It might be easier to consider cases.
-
A woman sees a child threatened by a wild animal. She begins to rush forward, then pauses to consider the danger. She grabs a tree branch and interposes between the child and the animal, saving the child. The child's family is grateful and praises her actions. The woman's family also praises her action. Per their social custom, the child's family gives the woman a goat. She tries to refuse, but relents and accepts the gift with pride. This leads to a new relationship between the families with the selfless act being a proxy for the quality of the tribe. Marriages ensue.
We see the woman's action as a conflict of two impulses; the impulse to intervene and the impulse to safety. Empathy is an almost universal response to others; laughter, pain, sorrow, are all emotions that can be commonly transferred through closeness. Society rewards the selfless act, helping to create and maintain bonds. This creates an increased likelihood of other selfless acts.
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.
-
A man's daughter wants to marry a poor tailor. He refuses and wants her to marry the rich butcher. The daughter is seen with the tailor, so the father punishes her. The beating doesn't sting so much as the loss of the esteem of her father. She doesn't understand his actions. The father, being wiser, worries that she'll starve if she marries poorly. The daughter obeys her father, a moral act, but works to change his mind.
We see the daughter's action as moral because she puts her duty of obedience ahead of her desire for the tailor. Yet it isn't the simple fear of pain that drives her actions, but her father's approval she desires more so. Sometimes, people will spend their entire lives trying to please a mother, long dead—or prove their father wrong. Such is the human condition.
There was nothing, or, rather, there was everything but my mother.
-
A man's son hangs out with gamblers. Within the group, the son is generous and honest. The father, a simple man, only knows that gambling is against the moral code his family has always lived by. One day the son is obviously being cheated at bones. He loudly objects, and is beaten and robbed. His friends, to whom he was loyal, shame themselves and run away. This confirms the father's belief in his moral code.
So we see how a moral code might encasulate the wisdom of long experience. Sometimes, of course, that wisdom becomes outdated, especially in modern times.
Times are changing, Reb Tevye.
If by punishment, you mean the whip, then pride and shame are among the most powerful motivators among human beings. They will often risk death rather than shame.
Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς
Sometimes, but they are not uncorrelated. Rather, there is a balance between empathy, pride and immediate gratification of base desires that are always being weighed. (Pride is often defined in terms of meeting the terms of the moral code, however it is defined. That moral code may include vestiges, spandrels, or arbitrary signals.) As people want to belong to the group, and as they have empathy for others, then they will often act towards the betterment of others in the group, even in the absence of a moral code. Conformity to the code of conduct is often considered moral even if the code itself includes arbitrary or obsolete requirements. Again, people balance the stability and latent wisdom afforded by the code, the desire to belong to the group, against their own moral impulses. Neverthless, moral codes tend to reinforce the behaviors that lead to social cohesion. This might mean rewarding a hero, shaming a disobedient daughter, or retelling the story of a wayward son.
All right, then, I'll go to hell.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 10:11 am
March 20th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I mostly mean the latter. I would say there are no morals, unless God really exists.
Totally true. There are many people, who don't believe in God, yet act as if there is a God and they believe in it.
Conversely, there are many people claim to believe in God, yet do terrible things.
Yes, he is and I agree with this. And, in my view, it tends to support the existence of God.
JAD:On the other hand, they have no good explanation for this innate moral sense. Modern evolutionary theory is in that same boat. Any naturalistic explanation for morality falls short of really explaining morals, because human morals are not reducible to animal instincts.
I fully agree. I think nature can account for a strong survival instinct (avoid danger); a strong hunger instinct (get food); a strong sex instinct (get a mate) and some broadly defined, amorphous tribal instincts (don't stray too far from the group).
I don't see naturalistic explanations of morality, yet I see many moral acts of selflessness and cooperation and sacrifice. These are the things that, for me, tend to support an objective standard of morality that derives from a Creator aka God.
Comment by David S — March 20, 2010 @ 10:59 am
March 20th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Of course. But neither are they equivalent. Your examples stress where they coincide closely, but the true nature of morality is seen where they coincide least.
Comment by don provan — March 20, 2010 @ 11:27 am
March 20th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Morals are human inventions. We can see that because they vary from place to place and time to time with little or no corelation with the gene pool.
Having morals, on the other hand, could be something that naturally arises in intelligent beings with herd instincts.
Comment by don provan — March 20, 2010 @ 11:36 am
March 20th, 2010 at 11:39 am
The *true* nature of morality? Would have thought the woman protecting the child would have been considered a clearly moral act. Certainly, most people involved would. There were examples where the lines were less clear cut. The daughter who obeys, but that was in response to her conflicting loves, the tailor and her father. And the wayward son, whose simple father only knows to live by the arbitrary moral code that was passed down to him.
Loyalty to the code of conduct can be considered a good in itself. It adds to social cohesion, such as wearing arbitrary gang colors, or flying a certain flag. It's not just punishment that instills unity, but the pride of being accepted in the group.
Just don't see it. Sometimes, arbitrary codes conflict with "natural behavior," but often as not, people live by arbitrary rules, such as flying a certain flag out of pride and a sense of belonging, that is, monkey see monkey do. They like to do it. They'll even wear cheese on their heads in order to belong.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 11:39 am
March 20th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Which would mean that they are intelligently designed. I agree with that but question whether mankind is the sufficient explanation for his own morality.
So you are claiming that morals are not universal? What about murder, rape and incest?
It seems you want to have it both ways. Morals are intelligently designed, but arose naturally. Which is it?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 20, 2010 @ 11:52 am
March 20th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Murder is unjustified homicide, so is immoral by definition. Homicide is allowed under nearly all moral codes, though allowable justifications vary. Spousal rape is fairly common. Incest has been culturally preferred in some royal families.
A lot of allowances involve in-group out-group distinctions. You can rape your own wife, but not someone else's. You can kill strangers, but not your own kin.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 11:59 am
March 20th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
So if a particular moral practice is accepted by a society that makes it moral?
For example, the caste system, as part of Hindu society, has been in place for thousands of years. Though discrimination has been outlawed in modern Indian society the are generally not enforced. Discrimination against the Dalits (or Untouchables) continues sometimes very openly even today.
Do we accept the oppression of a certain class of people by a priveledged elite because it is part of their religion, culture and society– because it has been accepted and practiced? Or, is freedom from discrimination and oppression an universal human right?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 20, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
John, moral standards clearly evolve with time. A mere couple of centuries ago it was OK to marry off girls at the tender age of 12 (source), but that practice would be considered immoral nowadays.
You can declare freedom from oppression a universal human right, but it clearly wasn't seen that way in the US two hundred years ago, slavery being fairly widespread.
And what about women's suffrage? It wasn't considered a universal right in the US during the first half of the 19th century.
Societies change, and so do societal norms.
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
olegt,
Do you think that the oppression of the Dalits in pre-colonial India was morally acceptable? (Not morally acceptable now, but morally acceptable back then.) Are morals then simply a matter of convention? German society before World War II decided that ethnic discrimination and oppression of people of Jewish descent was morally acceptable. If morality is simply a matter of convention then it is hypocritical of us to condemn the Germans for being conventional. Isn’t it?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 20, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
John,
I am not a history buff, so I can't comment on the details of the social attitudes among Indian castes. However, if social practices and laws are a reflection of a society's morals (and on a long-term time scale they usually are) then there is every reason to believe that treating the Dalits as outcasts was considered moral.
Anti-semitism in Germany has deep religious roots. Some religious leaders (e.g., Luther) even promoted it outright.
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
An individual's moral beliefs may differ from the society. As olegt points out, moral views have changed considerably over time.
Comment by Zachriel — March 20, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Zachriel,
So you and olegt are arguing that there is nothing intrinsically or objectively wrong with discriminating or oppressing other human beings based on race, social class or gender. It is all culturally relative. Is that correct?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 20, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
March 20th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
That's a loaded question, isn't it, John? My answer would be that societal norms are established by people, not given to them on a tablet.
Comment by olegt — March 20, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 1:49 am
I think it is a rather straight forward question. Either you believe in objective moral values or you don’t. Which is it?
I would argue that morality is the result of an innate moral sense or conscience that is uniquely human, which cannot be easily explained as some kind of evolved animal instinct. Animals are not capable of the moral acts we are capable of, whether they be good or evil, because animals lack a moral nature.
Earlier, I quoted the following verse:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” (Romans 2: 14 & 15)
Notice there is no mention by Paul of literal “tablets.” His point? Man’s innate moral sense (conscience) preceded, both logically and historically, codified law.
Modern evolutionary theory falls short as an adequate explanation for the origen of the moral nature of human beings.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 21, 2010 @ 1:49 am
March 21st, 2010 at 8:34 am
Morality is not objective, but subjective.
The usual way to justify oppression is by treating the out-group as lesser than the in-group, or that you are bringing them the benefits of civilization, or that slaves are better off than in Africa, or that it is due to the necessities of living in an imperfect world.
Yes, though of varying degrees of development in individuals.
Other primates have a rudimentary sense of fairness.
Brosnan & de Waal, Animal behaviour: Fair refusal by capuchin monkeys, Nature 2004.
We have established intermediates in other primates. Interestingly, the related behavior of deception, indicating a theory of mind, is part of simian social structure.
Matsuzawa, Tomonaga & Tanaka, Cognitive development in chimpanzees, Springer 2006.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 8:34 am
March 21st, 2010 at 9:15 am
JAD wrote:
I'm afraid it's not that straightforward. In my view, it's a bit of both.
Societal norms are objective in the sense that different individual agree upon them. However, unlike physical constants, morals vary both in time and from place to place. That would be consistence with the hypothesis that morals arise within human societies and were not hard-wired once and for all. In that sense, they are subjective.
Comment by olegt — March 21, 2010 @ 9:15 am
March 21st, 2010 at 9:41 am
Agreed. The moral impulse is subjective. The relationships between individuals can have an objective basis. We can talk of the greater good, a discusson that depends on an agreement on the principles of what that greater good might be, but people can often find some common ground. Consider my statement modified.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 9:41 am
March 21st, 2010 at 10:45 am
hey Olget,
I curious would you consider this to be true of the golden rule as well?
In other words do think it possible that the principle of "do to others what you would what them to do to you" might become evil in the future or might have been immoral in the past?
If so could you give an idea as to how this would happen and what a modified version might look like.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 21, 2010 @ 10:45 am
March 21st, 2010 at 11:14 am
The Leaden Rule, Do unto others as others have done unto you , forms the basis of codified justice. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 11:14 am
March 21st, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Zach,
Thanks for once again demonstrating your ability to wax eloquent on topics adjacent to but having nothing to do with the actual question asked.
Nobody does it better.
Now care to answer the question I posed or do I take your little rabbit trail to mean you have nothing of value to say about it?
To refresh your memory I asked Olget if morals could evolve so to make the principle we call the golden rule immoral and what such a change would look like.
that's all
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 21, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Yes, and the argument can be made that the Golden Rule is impractical and irresponsible, and that accountability is essential for achieving a stable and just social system.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 3:57 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Once again your comment is eloquent but has nothing to do with my question.
That is unless you are saying that "be responsible and practical" is a higher moral imperative than the golden rule and it therefore somehow makes this principal evil.
Is that what you are saying?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 21, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 6:10 pm
That wasn't your own question, which was whether "morals could evolve so to make the principle we call the golden rule immoral and what such a change would look like." One possibility is a moral structure based on the Leaden Rule whereby the Golden Rule is seen as undermining accountability and leading to increasing corruption. Another is the Iron Rule, Do unto others before they do unto you, whereby it is a moral imperative to attack the enemy rather than show weakness, thereby allowing the enemy to gain strength, and leaving your people vulnerable to future attack. In such a philosophy, the Golden Rule is seen as a betrayal, a fifth column.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 6:41 pm
As per usual it takes Zach three posts to even address the issue.
Oh well better late than never.
Are you saying that a moral person in such a structure would not want to be held accountable for his actions?
I would argue that if actions that increase accountability are seen as highly desirable to do to others I would desire them to happen to me as well in the same situation.
That is unless I’m a sociopath.
That is the golden rule in a nut shell
Would a person who lived is such a society respect as moral those who attack him rather than show weakness?
If so the rule is preserved if not this is mearly a rationalization to violate the rule and not a modification of it.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 21, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 7:52 pm
I'm talking about what we mean when we use the term "morality". I'm not that interested in "the nature of" morality. I'm not even sure what that means. Whatever the nature of morality is, when we speak of morality, we specifically mean a class of edicts followed for reasons other than because we'd naturally follow them. We can debate whether or not we would naturally follow any particular moral all day long, but that's tangential to the topic of deriving morals from biology.
Sure. This helps us understand why we follow morals — why morality works, if you will — but is irrelevant to determining what the morals should be.
Comment by don provan — March 21, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Sufficient for what purpose?
Why did you pick easy ones. What about homosexuality? Would you say its moral position is universal?
You are confusing having morality with following specific morals. Some animals live in herds because of their genetic makeup, but where the herd goes is not controlled by genes.
Comment by don provan — March 21, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 8:47 pm
It was addressed in all three comments. The Leaden Rule is an extant philosophy that argues that the Golden Rule lacks accountability leading to increased corruption and social instability.
The Golden Rule does not hold others accountable. That's because someone's behavior is not the guide to how you will treat them.
Strength often admires strength (though often the out-group is not given any moral consideration).
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Incorrect,
Your mistake is that contary to the rule you are looking at "others" in the abstract. When one considers "others" their actions and nature are part of the total package.
I would not give a drowning man a glass of water but I would give one to someone who is thirsty.
Simply because that is how I would want to be treated given the same circumstance.
in the same way
If accountability for ones actions is a desired moral trait then I will desire that steps are taken that make me accountable for my actions
Therefore the golden rule would require me punish others in order to promote their own accountability.
This is the golden rule. plain and simple
So we agree that this approach does not negate the golden rule it only rationalizes it’s violation.
Back to my question I asked Olget if morals could evolve so to make the principle we call the golden rule immoral and what such a change would look like.
Unless you provide an actual example I will assume you do not know and rest my case.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 21, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 9:44 pm
The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Except that when used in that manner, it's indistinguishable from any reciprocal rule, including the Leaden Rule and even the Iron Rule.
So we agree that Attila the Hun practiced the Golden Rule when he plundered cities.
Comment by Zachriel — March 21, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
March 21st, 2010 at 10:48 pm
What we mean when we claim that moral values are objective is that they are valid and binding whether anyone believes in them or not.
Here is a news story about the gang rape of a 12 year old Dalit girl.
Is the gang rape of this girl objectively wrong? Is it intrinsically wrong for any culture or society, any time in history, to permit the rape of young girls? As a lower caste of Indian society Dalits have been abused for centuries. That was the societal norm. Indeed before the imperialistic British imposed there rule on India that the rape of a young girl like this would not have been considered immoral in that culture. But was it intrinsically immoral? I would argue yes it was.
If such values are not objectively real then there is no moral justification to reform or improve society. What is there to improve if there is no right or wrong in the first place?
Furthermore, there would be no basis for democracy or human rights.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 21, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:43 am
The way the golden rule plays itself out varies greatly depending on what you would have other do unto you. That is not at issue what is at issue is whether the rule itself evolves.
Clearly it does not. What changes is our understanding of the effects of our actions and our understanding of who the other is.
As with any law the better our information the better our execution of the law.
That depends on whether he would want others to plunder his city if he was in the same situation.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 22, 2010 @ 6:43 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 am
Yes, Attila was a practitioner of a type of meritocracy. If he was weak, he would expect to be destroyed. He wouldn't blame the strong, any more than he would blame a lion for killing its prey. That was his ethic. Hence, he was practicing the Golden Rule when he plundered cities and raped their women.
Yours is not the usual interpretation of the Golden Rule. As mentioned, it is indistinguishable from any reciprocal ethic, including the Leaden Rule or the Iron Rule.
Is reciprocity necessarily moral? In some ethics, only within the in-group. Once you define those in the out-group as unworthy of moral consideration, then reciprocity is no longer a moral good. For instance, a lion doesn't offer reciprocity to its prey, and a person may not offer reciprocity to those it considers lesser humans. In the U.S. antebellum South, slaves were considered to not require reciprocity. It would be immoral to treat them as you would a white person. Educating them would just make their lives miserable. Setting them free would be setting them adrift, unable to take care of themselves. For instance, it was thought that blacks didn't love their families like white people, so it wasn't wrong to sell off the children.
-
When I waked up just at daybreak he was sitting there with his head down betwixt his knees, moaning and mourning to himself. I didn't take notice nor let on. I knowed what it was about. He was thinking about his wife and his children, away up yonder, and he was low and homesick; because he hadn't ever been away from home before in his life; and I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks does for their'n. It don't seem natural, but I reckon it's so. He was often moaning and mourning that way nights, when he judged I was asleep, and saying, "Po' little 'Lizabeth! po' little Johnny! it's mighty hard; I spec' I ain't ever gwyne to see you no mo', no mo'!" He was a mighty good nigger, Jim was.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 8:39 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 am
Another example would be Luther and antisemitism.
First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians… I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed… I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
So, we can see how the Golden Rule could be seen as immoral. You have to burn their Synagogues in order to honor the Lord.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 9:12 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Hey Zach,
I’m often amused at your ability to claim with a strait face that yours is the “usual” interpretation of some word or phrase despite your opponents sticking to dictionary definitions and common sense usage.
I guess referring to your self in the plural can after a while convince a person that he has the right to be the determiner of such things.
What is deficient in such a case is not the unchanging moral principal of the golden rule but your definition of the "others".
Exactly southerners had a deficient and unbiblical understanding of the nature of their fellow man. The unchanging moral law did not need to change in this case only factual errors needed to be corrected.
This correction was accomplished mostly by the prophetic witness of the abolitionists and civil rights activists pointing to the inconsistencies of such attitudes.
Once the correction occurred the unchanging golden rule principal could be more accurately followed. No change in the moral law was required.
Actually that quote does not mention the rule at all.
I know of no case of Luther claiming that Synagogue burning was right because he would hope that folks would burn his place of worship if he was in the same situation as the Jews.
Even if such a quote could be found it does not prove that the rule was immoral only that Luther had deficient understanding of the consequences of his actions and the nature of the “others” in question?
The rule never changes and it's always moral that's why we can call it a law.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 22, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
one more thing
I want to emphasize that there are only two possible reasons for ignorance of the nature of the “others” or the consequence of the “do” in the golden rule such as we see in Luther and Racists in the south.
1) Societal blindness
2) Personal blindness
Both are willful ignorance based on selfishness and pride so therefore both are sin.
Just like the golden rule the cause of sin never changes.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 22, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:08 pm
The Golden Rule usually suggests goodwill, but as long as you understand that your definition includes Attila plundering cities.
In such an ethic, the Golden Rule doesn't apply to everyone. You are not doing unto others what you would want them to do to you. It's an unequal, non-reciprocal relationship. It can and has been argued, that reciprocal treatment of slaves would be immoral.
You are welcome to your opinion, and you may very well be right. But people have not always agreed on that point. Indeed, most of human history has seen social stratification such that people are not to be treated equally. The British, for instance, have long seen the preservation of their social classes as essential for social stability, including the continuity of their democratic institutions. The American Colonialists, after all, only wanted to have their due as proper British subjects, including the right to have the Crown address their grievances.
Of course not. That's the point. Luther is saying that it is immoral to give Jews equitable treatment. Luther says you don't treat Jews as you would wish to be treated. You burn their Synagogues, their homes, their sacred texts, and drive them from your midst.
If your question is whether it meets your standards, then obviously you are the judge of that. But Luther, slaveowners and the royalty of the Middle Ages, found that applying the Golden Rule was immoral.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Zach
Sorry others applies to everyone that is not you by definition. In such an ethic the others are seen to have a nature that requires I treat them differently than my self.
Just like in my society it would be against the golden rule to give a child a gun even though I would like it if someone gave me one because the child's nature and circumstances are different than mine.
The golden rule does not require that people be treated equally. It requires that people be treated as I would want be treated in the same situation
Again equitable treatment is not required with the golden rule but treatment that I would desire .
Yet they all claimed to ascribe to the golden rule.
You can’t consistently claim a rule is immoral and moral at the same time. That is why folks like this can be and often are influenced by prophetic witness.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 22, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Is Luther applying the Golden Rule when he says to burn the homes of the Jews because if he were a dirty lying Jew he would … what? Want you to burn his house down? Is the slaveowner applying the Golden Rule when he says that if he were black, he would … what? Want to be enslaved?
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I don’t know,
I’m not the one who said he was applying the rule that was you.
If they were applying the rule they were not applying it correctly due to their incorrect and deficient understanding of “others” and or/his incorrect understanding of of the consequences of his actions.
That is the point. The rule is valid and suffecient at all times however somtimes our information is deficient.
I think my point is made and you bore me Zach so I'll let you have the last word.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 22, 2010 @ 8:13 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
In fact, just the opposite. He is not applying the Golden Rule, plain and simple. Indeed, he is saying that applying the Golden Rule to Jews would be immoral.
This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians…
But you can't even tell us if Luther is applying the Golden Rule.
Comment by Zachriel — March 22, 2010 @ 8:39 pm