Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: May 23, 2017 09:51AM
LW: The issue you raise is an important one: namely, why do people have moral codes if there is not a transcendent commonality. That is an issue that used to bother me a lot.
COMMENT: That is not the main issue! The issue is not about the source of moral feelings or intuitions. The issue is about moral authority! How do any facts about the universe dictate how human beings ought to morally behave; i.e. what dictates the moral imperative under any given moral dilemma. In other words, what is the logical inference that gets you from any set of facts, be it biological facts, or whatever, as premises, to the moral imperative, such that someone is morally required to do such and such act. There is no logical inference that can make that leap without moral assumptions about that ultimately is good or evil (transcendence). That is the issue!
__________________________________________
LW: The answer, I think, does in fact lie in biology. Morality--selflessness--exists in some form in all social species. It is an evolutionary strategy. You see it with maternal instinct, with penguins where the male tends the young, and in groups where animals protect each other. Do they share a moral vision? No. Many would argue that they aren't even conscious in important ways. And yet they behave altruistically and in some cases engage in self sacrifice.
COMMENT: First, the source of altruism in biology (its evolutionary basis), be it the social insects, or humans, is hotly debated. But in any case the problem remains. Again, the fact that humans in general, and in certain contexts, "feel" a moral requirement to act altruistically, does not provide any logical imperative that someone must so act in order to meet some objectively established moral requirement. And no account of altruism changes that.
_______________________________________
Once one realizes that altruistic behavior is not solely a human phenomenon and that it functions as a survival strategy, there is no longer a need to posit some transcendent code.
COMMENT: Now, YOU need to step up with logical support for this argument. How do facts about biology eliminate the need for moral authority? Even if altruism is a survival strategy that does not give altruistic behavior moral status. After all, social insects act altruistically, but not morally!. But it is even worse than that. Altruism in biology is a paradox of evolution. Self-interested behavior, on the other hand, is at the very core of evolutionary theory. So, if we are looking to biology to ground our morality, why not go with self-interest rather than altruism as the foundational principal of our moral compass?
____________________________________________
LW: The observed code, to the extent that it exists and is shared, is intuitive, impulsive, instinctual. The code's limitations--the difficulty people have feeling empathy for those of other social groups, the inability to curtail group activities that are ultimately self-destructive--also make sense given that for most of human existence it was only one's family or tribe or clan or nation that mattered.
COMMENT: These are just suggested facts. They have nothing whatever to do with moral authority; i.e. what morality requires someone to do under certain circumstances. Altruism in biology is generally explained through some theory of group selection. But, again, at best all that is explained is how our general moral sense might have evolved. It does not explain how we should behave. As indicated, there are evolutionary explanations as to why humans cheat, steal, and murder each other too. Does that mean we should accept a moral code that sanctions cheating, stealing and murdering?
___________________________________________
LW: The transcendent moral vision turns out to accord with the survival needs of hunter gatherers and perhaps agriculturalists. Many of our present social and political problems stem from the fact that our technology has progressed vastly faster than our biology. It would be great if there were an overarching common morality since that would presumably have kept pace with scientific advances.
COMMENT: Again, you continually miss the point. Let me end with a hypothetical:
Suppose you are the mother of a 13 year old boy. You get a call from the school principal who tells you that your son has been threatening, bullying, and physically abusing his classmates, and extorting money in exchange for leaving them alone. After being presented with the evidence, you sit your son down to explain to him why his behavior is morally wrong. Now, do you give him a lesson in biology? Do you tell him all about how altruism evolved in the human species? How do you make the inference from that, to his morally required behavior of kindness and empathy towards others? Suppose he says, "Sorry Mom, but I just don't feel that way." What is your next biological fact? And suppose he says he believes in biology, and that is precisely why he is acting in his own self interest. "Survival of the fittest," he says, "does not require altruism!"
In short, your argument fails--LOGICALLY!
Contrast that to your Christian neighbor who faces the same dilemma. Rather than state facts about biology (or anything else) she invokes God, and God's will, with all of the religious baggage that such explanations entail. Notice, however, that despite the fact that her argument engages a host of questionable metaphysical assumptions, the inference succeeds! Moral authority is at least grounded if she can make the religious sale.
The bottom line is that your argument results in a failure of moral authority, and thus moral relativism; whereas your neighbor's argument does not. Your argument involves a fallacious logical inference. Her argument involves questionable premises. Take your pick.